        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
        GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
        NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
        48 CFR Parts 16 and 39
        [FAR Case 2003-008]
        RIN 9000-AJ74
        Federal Acquisition Regulation; Share-in-Savings Contracting

          AGENCY:
          Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

          ACTION:
          Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          The Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council (Councils) are proposing to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to solicit comments to assist in the implementation of section 210 of the E-Government Act of 2002, Public Law 107-347. Section 210 authorizes Governmentwide use of Share-in-Savings (SIS) contracts for information technology (IT). SIS contracts offer an innovative approach for encouraging industry to share creative technology solutions with the Government. Through a properly structured SIS contract, agencies may lower costs and improve service delivery without large “up front” investments by having the contractor provide the technology investment and allowing the contractor to share with the Government in the savings achieved. The Councils seek the public's comment on the challenges associated with SIS contracts, such as the establishment of quantifiable baselines and a reasonable return on investment (ROI) over the life-cycle of the investment, so that this tool can be applied effectively to improve mission performance.

          DATES:
          Interested parties should submit comments in writing on or before October 31, 2003, to be considered in the formulation of a final rule.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit written comments to—General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (MVA), 1800 F Street, NW., Room 4035, ATTN: Laurie Duarte, Washington, DC 20405.
          Submit electronic comments via the Internet to ANPR.2003-008@gsa.gov.

          Please submit comments only and cite ANPR FAR case 2003-008 in all correspondence related to this case.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          The FAR Secretariat, Room 4035, GS Building, Washington, DC 20405, at (202) 501-4755 for information pertaining to status or publication schedules. For clarification of content, contact Mr. Craig R. Goral, Procurement Analyst, at (202) 501-3856. Please cite FAR case 2003-008.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        A. Background
        Section 210 of the E-Government Act amends the Armed Services Procurement Act and the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act to authorize the use of SIS contracts for IT. Share-in-Savings is an innovative, performance-based concept that is intended to help an agency leverage its limited resources to improve or accelerate mission-related or administrative processes and lower costs for the taxpayer. Under an SIS contract, the contractor finances the work and then shares with the agency in the savings generated from contract performance. Pursuant to the authority in section 210, which sunsets at the end of fiscal year 2005, agencies are permitted to enter into SIS contracts for up to 5 years, and, with appropriate approval, up to 10 years. Agencies are obligated to pay the contractor for services performed only if savings are realized and, in such cases, only a portion of the total savings realized. The agency may retain its share of the savings, with certain exceptions.

        Section 210 authorizes the Federal Government to award any number of SIS IT contracts where funds are available and sufficient to make payments with respect to the first fiscal year of the contract and cover termination or cancellation costs. Section 210 also authorizes award of up to 10 contracts (i.e., 5 for DOD, NASA, and the Coast guard, and 5 for other agencies) during fiscal years 2003, 2004, and 2005 when funds are not made specifically available for the full costs of cancellation or termination of the contract—provided that the amount of unfunded contingent liability associated with cancellation and termination does not exceed the lesser of (a) 25 percent of the estimated costs of a cancellation or termination or (b) $5 million. In signing the E-Government Act into law, the President stated that the executive branch shall “limit authorized waivers for funding of potential termination costs to appropriate circumstances, so as to minimize the financial risk to the government” and ensure SIS contracts are operated according to sound fiscal policy.

        This past winter, the General Accounting Office (GAO) released a report examining non-federal entities' experience with SIS contracts. See CONTRACT MANAGEMENT: Commercial Use of Share-in-Savings Contracting, GAO-03-327 (January 2003). The GAO found that SIS contracting can be highly effective in motivating contractors to generate savings and revenues for their clients. At the same time, the GAO cautioned that contracting parties must be “specific and in agreement in their goals and objectives as well as how to achieve them.” The GAO identified several specific elements that are necessary for Share-in-Savings contracts to be successful, namely: (1) A clearly specified expected outcome, (2) defined incentives, (3) a baseline and good performance measures to gauge exactly what savings or revenues are being achieved, and (4) the commitment of senior level management. The GAO emphasized that effective planning is critical: “[Parties] need to carefully consider the potential risks and rewards of an SIS arrangement and whether the conditions that facilitate success are present—something that may not be easily achievable in Government, which is frequently unable to calculate a baseline.”
        This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
        B. Solicitation of Public Comment
        The Councils, along with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), wish to ensure the necessary guidance is in place—in the FAR and other documents as appropriate—for agencies to effectively motivate contractors and successfully capture the benefits of an SIS contract. Given the Government's limited experience with this tool and the GAO's cautions, the Councils are soliciting public comment for consideration in drafting implementing FAR regulations. Comments received may also be shared with Federal agencies for related guidance (regulatory or nonregulatory) that they may wish to issue to address SIS contracting. Respondents are welcome to share any insights that may assist in managing the use of SIS contracts, but are especially encouraged to comment on the following issues:
        • Proposal preparation. What type of information or guidance will vendors need in the solicitation to adequately prepare a proposal for an SIS contract?
        • Share ratios. What criteria should be taken into account in developing an appropriate share ratio and schedule for payment? Should ROIs be market-based? In light of the generally short life cycle of IT, can the Government's interests be adequately protected if it does not share in savings each year?
        • Baselines. What general factors or criteria should be considered in determining a quantifiable baseline?
        • Cancellation and termination costs. How, if at all, should the determination of cancellation and termination costs differ from that used in connection with multi-year contracts (see FAR 17.106-1(c))?
        • Ownership rights. Should ownership rights of hardware or property acquired under the SIS contract be addressed in the FAR (e.g., in the coverage on cancellation costs or in a standard contract clause)?
        • Applicability of requirements. What contract valuation method should be used to determine the applicability of various FAR requirements that are triggered by the dollar amount of the acquisitions?
        • Contract structure. Should there be a preference for structuring SIS contracts as firm-fixed price or fixed-price with economic price adjustment? Under what, if any, circumstances would other contract types be appropriate?
        • Use of FAR 37.6. Which, if any, of the policies pertaining to performance-based contracting in FAR Subpart 37.6 should not be applicable to an SIS contract, and why?
        • Potential projects. What types of activities in the IT arena might be especially conducive to SIS contracting?
        C. Regulatory Amendments Under Consideration.
        The Councils are currently planning to amend FAR part 39 to establish a new subpart on SIS contracting for IT. FAR subpart 16.4, addressing incentive contracts, would also be amended to add a cross-reference both to the new subpart 39.3 as well as FAR 23.204, which provides guidance on energy-savings performance contracts, a type of Share-in-Savings contract authorized by the National Energy Conservation Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 8287.
        Although the Councils have not yet agreed upon FAR amendments, their preliminary thinking on regulatory implementation as of the publication of this notice is set forth below. The public is welcome to comment on these preliminary changes as part of their comments in response to this notice.

          List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 16 and 39
          Government procurement.

          Laura Auletta,
          Director, Acquisition Policy Division.

        Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA propose amending 48 CFR parts 16 and 39 as set forth below:
        1. The authority citation for 48 CFR parts 16 and 39 is revised to read as follows:

          Authority:
          40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. charger 137; and 42 U.S.C. 2473(c).

          PART 16—TYPES OF CONTRACTS

            16.401
            [Amended]
            2. Amend section 16.401 by adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:

            16.401
            General.

            (e) For related incentive concepts, refer to Subpart 39.3, Share-in-Savings Contracting, and 23.204, Energy-savings performance contracts.

          PART 39—ACQUISITION OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

            Subpart 39.3 [Added]

          3. Add subpart 39.3 consisting of sections 39.300 through 39.309, to read as follows:

            Subpart 39.3—Share-in-Savings Contracting

              39.300
              Scope of subpart.
              This subpart implements section 210 of the E-Government Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-347) by prescribing policies and procedures for Share-in-Savings contracts for information technology.

              39.301
              Definitions.
              As used in this subpart—

                Cancellation means the cancellation (within a contractually specified time) of the total requirements of all remaining program years. Cancellation results when the contracting officer—
              (i) Notifies the contractor of nonavailability of funds for contract performance for any subsequent program year; or
              (ii) Fails to notify the contractor that funds are available for performance of the succeeding program year requirement.

                Savings means—
              (1) Monetary savings to an agency; or
              (2) Savings in time or other quantifiable benefits realized by the agency, including enhanced revenues (other than enhanced revenues from the collection of fees, taxes, debts, claims, or other amounts owed the Federal Government).

                Share-in-Savings contract means a contract under which—
              (1) A contractor provides solutions for improving the agency's mission-related or administrative processes or for accelerating the achievement of agency missions; and
              (2) The Government pays the contractor an amount equal to a portion of the quantifiable savings derived by the agency from—
              (i) Any improvements in mission-related or administrative processes that result from implementation of the solution; or
              (ii) Acceleration of achievement of agency missions.

              39.302
              Authority.
              The E-Government Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-347) authorizes the head of an agency to enter into a Share-in-Savings contract for information technology. This authority expires on September 30, 2005.

              39.303
              Applicability.
              This subpart applies only to information technology projects that are appropriate for Share-in-Savings contracting techniques.
              (a) In general, use of Share-in-Savings contracts should be considered only for projects involving significant innovation or process transformation.

              (b) Agencies intending to use this subpart are encouraged to complete the “Share-in-Savings Project Screening Template” at: http://www.gsa/gov/shareinsavings. The information provided in this template will help the General Services Administration to assist agencies in determining the potential effectiveness of using the authority of this subpart.
              (c)(1) The capital programming requirements of OMB Circular A-11 shall apply to—
              (i) Share-in-Savings projects for which funds are not being made specifically available for the full costs of cancellation or termination; and
              (ii) Other Share-in-Savings projects that qualify as major IT investments, as provided in the Circular.
              (2) Share-in-Savings projects not covered by paragraph (c)(1) shall be the subject of a business case appropriate for the size and complexity of the project as determined by the agency and the Office of Management and Budget.

              39.304
              Limitations on Share-in-Savings contract period of performance.
              (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, a Share-in-Savings contract shall be awarded for a period of not more than 5 years.
              (5) A Share-in-Savings contract may be awarded for a period greater than 5 years, but not more than 10 years, if other applicable requirements do not otherwise limit the length of the contract and the head of the agency determines in writing prior to award of the contract that—
              (1) The level of risk to be assumed and the investment to be undertaken by the contractor is likely to inhibit the Government from obtaining the needed information technology competitively at a fair and reasonable price if the contract is limited in duration to a period of 5 years of less; and
              (2) Use of the information technology to be acquired is likely to continue for a period of time sufficient to generate reasonable benefit for the Government.

              39.305
              Use of performance-based contracts.

              Share-in-Savings contracts shall be performance-based contracts. Objective outcomes and performance standards shall be used to measure achievements and milestones that must be met before payment is made (see subpart 37.6).

              39.306
              Share-in-Savings baseline.
              (a) Share-in-Savings contracts shall include a clause containing a quantifiable baseline that is to be the basis upon which a saving share ratio is established to govern the amount of payment a contractor is to receive under a contract.
              (b) Before award of a Share-in-Savings contract, the agency senior procurement executive shall determine in writing that the terms of the baseline clause are quantifiable and will likely yield value to the Government.

              39.307
              Managing retained savings.
              (a) Agencies may retain savings in excess of the total amount of savings paid to the contractor under the contract, but may not retain any portion of such savings that is attributable to a decrease in the number of civilian employees of the Federal Government performing the function. Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, savings shall be credited to the appropriation or fund against which charges were made to carry out the contract and shall be used for information technology.
              (b) Amounts retained by the agency under this subpart shall—
              (1) Without further appropriation, remain available until expended; and
              (2) Be applied first to fund any cancellation or termination liabilities associated with Share-in-Savings procurements that are not fully funded.

              39.308
              Cancellation or termination.

              39.308-1
              Paying for cancellation or termination.
              (a) The amount payable in the event of cancellation or termination of a Share-in-Savings contract shall be negotiated with the contractor at the time of contract award.
              (b) If funds are not made available for the continuation of a Share-in-Savings contract in a subsequent fiscal year, the contract shall be cancelled or terminated. The costs of cancellation or termination may be paid out of—
              (1) Appropriations available for the performance of the contract;
              (2) Appropriations available for acquisition of the information technology procured under the contract, and not otherwise obligated; or
              (3) Funds subsequently appropriated for payments of costs of cancellation or termination, subject to the limitations in 39.308-2.

              39.308-2
              Funding of cancellation or termination liability.
              (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection, the funds obligated for Share-in-Savings contracts must be sufficient to cover any potential cancellation and/or termination costs.
              (b)(1) The head of an agency may enter into Share-in-Savings contracts even if funds are not made specifically available for the full costs of cancellation or termination of the contract provided that—
              (i) The action is approved as provided in paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this subsection;

              (ii) Funds are available and sufficient to make payments with respect to the first fiscal year of the contract; and

              (iii) The following conditions are met regarding the funding of cancellation and termination liability:
              (A) The amount of unfunded liability does not exceed the lesser of 25 percent of the estimated costs of a cancellation or termination, or $5 million.
              (B) An unfunded cancellation or termination liability in excess of $1 million has been approved by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
              (C) Notification has been provided to OMB in accordance with paragraph (c) of this subsection.
              (2) The aggregate number of Share-in-Savings contracts that may be entered into under this paragraph may not exceed 5 in each of fiscal years 2003, 2004, and 2005 for each of the following groups of agencies:
              (i) The Department of Defense, NASA, and the Coast Guard.
              (ii) All other agencies.
              (c) In addition to the requirements specified in paragraph (b) of this subsection, an agency planning to award a Share-in-Savings contract having an unfunded cancellation or termination liability in any amount must notify the Office of Management and Budget at least 30 days prior to solicitation issuance.

              39.309
              Solicitation requirements.
              (a) Solicitations for Share-in-Savings contracts shall use competitive procedures to the maximum extent practicable. Each solicitation shall include provisions and evaluation criteria ensuring that—
              (1) The contractor's share of savings reflects the risks involved and market conditions; and
              (2) The Government will realize best value from the contract.
              (b) Contracting officers should consider the use of a technology refreshment clause to ensure the information technology provided under the contract incorporates desired technological advancements throughout the entire period of contract performance. In developing such a clause, contracting officers should consider similar terms and conditions available on the commercial market.
              (c) Contracting officers may include other appropriate clauses not specifically prescribed in the FAR to ensure that the goals of the Share-in-Savings contract are attained, provided that such clauses are consistent with applicable statutes and regulations.

      [FR Doc. 03-24855  Filed 9-30-03; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6820-EP-M


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
        49 CFR Parts 555, 571, and 591
        [Docket No. NHTSA-2018-0092]
        RIN 2127-AL99
        Pilot Program for Collaborative Research on Motor Vehicles With High or Full Driving Automation; Extension of Comment Period

          AGENCY:
          National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

          ACTION:
          Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM); extension of comment period.

          SUMMARY:
          In response to a request from the public, NHTSA is announcing a two-week extension of the comment period on the ANPRM on a Pilot Program for Collaborative Research on Motor Vehicles with High or Full Driving Automation. The comment period for the ANPRM was originally scheduled to end on November 26, 2018. It will now end on December 10, 2018.

          DATES:
          The comment period for the ANPRM published on October 10, 2018 at 83 FR 50872 is extended. Written comments on the ANPRM must be received on or before December 10, 2018 in order to be considered timely.

          ADDRESSES:
          Comments must be submitted by one of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
          • Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
          • Hand Delivery or Courier: U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
          • Fax: 202-493-2251.
          Regardless of how you submit your comments, they must include the docket number identified in the heading of this notice.

          Note that all comments received, including any personal information provided, will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov. Please see the “Privacy Act” heading below.
          You may call the Docket Management Facility at 202-366-9324.

            Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the street address listed above. We will continue to file relevant information in the docket as it becomes available.

            Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its decision-making process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          For research and pilot program issues: Dee Williams, Office of Vehicle Safety Research, 202-366-8537, Dee.Williams@dot.gov, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

          For legal issues: Stephen Wood, Assistant Chief Counsel, Vehicle Rulemaking and Harmonization, Office of Chief Counsel, 202-366-2992, Steve.Wood@dot.gov, at the same address.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        On October 10, 2018, NHTSA published an ANPRM to obtain public comments on the factors and structure that are appropriate for the Agency to consider in designing a national pilot program that will enable the Agency to facilitate, monitor and learn from the testing and development of the emerging advanced vehicle safety technologies and to assure the safety of those activities. The ANPRM stated that the closing date for comments is November 26, 2018.

        On November 16, 2018, NHTSA received a request from the Uber Technologies, Inc. for a two-week extension of the comment period. The request can be found in the docket for the ANPRM listed above under ADDRESSES. NHTSA has considered this request and believes that a 14-day extension beyond the original due date is desirable to provide additional time for the public to comment on the complex and novel questions in the ANPRM. This is to notify the public that NHTSA is extending the comment period on the ANPRM, and allowing it to remain open until December 10, 2018.

          Issued in Washington, DC, pursuant to authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.81 and 1.95.
          Heidi Renate King,
          Deputy Administrator.

      [FR Doc. 2018-25532 Filed 11-19-18; 4:15 pm]
      BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        RIN 1018-AH32
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Whether Designation of Critical Habitat Is Prudent for the Rock Gnome Lichen

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed finding.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), have reconsidered our findings concerning whether designating critical habitat for the rock gnome lichen (Gymnoderma lineare) would be prudent. The rock gnome lichen was listed as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), on January 18, 1995. At the time the plant was listed, we determined that designation of critical habitat was not prudent because designation would increase the degree of threat to the species and/or would not benefit the species.
          We repropose that the designation of critical habitat is not prudent for the rock gnome lichen, because it would likely increase the threat from collection, vandalism, or habitat degradation and destruction, both direct and inadvertent.
          We solicit data and comments from the public on all aspects of this proposed finding. We may revise this proposed finding to incorporate or address comments and new information received during the comment period.

          DATES:
          We will consider comments received by June 4, 2001.

          ADDRESSES:
          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, North Carolina 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 nora_murdock@fws.gov. For directions on how to submit electronic filing of comments, see the “Public Comments Solicited” section.
          Comments and materials received, as well as supporting documentation used in preparation of this proposed finding, will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above address.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Nora A. Murdock, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, (828)258-3939.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        Taxonomy and Description

          Gymnoderma lineare, first described by Evans (1947) as Cladonia linearis from material collected in Tennessee, is a squamulose lichen in the reindeer moss family. This species is the only member of its genus occurring in North America (Yoshimura and Sharp 1968). Gymnoderma was considered a monotypic genus for over a century, until its revision by Yoshimura and Sharp (1968). These authors reclassified Evans' (1947) Cladonia linearis as
          Gymnoderma lineare on the basis of its short and solid podetia (hollow upright structures) that lack symbiotic algae (algae that live cooperatively with a fungus). Gymnoderma lineare occurs in rather dense colonies of narrow straps (squamules). The only similar lichens are the squamulose species of the genus Cladonia. Gymnoderma lineare has terminal portions of the strap-like individual lobes that are blue-grey on the upper surface and generally shiny-white on the lower surface; near the base they grade to black (unlike squamulose Cladonia, which are never blackened toward the base) (Weakley 1988, Hale 1979). Hale's (1979) description of the species reads as follows: “Squamules dark greenish mineral grey; lower surface white to brownish toward the tips, weakly corticated; podetia lacking but small clustered apothecia common on low tips.” Weakley (1988) further describes the species as having squamules about 1 millimeter (mm) (0.04 inches (in)) across near the tip, tapering to the blackened base, sparingly branched, and generally about 1 to 2 centimeters (cm) (0.39 to 0.79 in) long (though they can be longer or shorter, depending upon environmental factors). The squamules are nearly parallel to the rock surface, but the tips curl away from the rock, approaching or reaching a perpendicular orientation to the rock surface. The fruiting bodies (apothecia) are borne at the tips of the squamules and are black (contrasting to the brown or red apothecia of Cladonia spp.) (Weakley 1988). The apothecia are borne singly or in clusters, usually at the tips of the squamules but occasionally along the sides; these have been found from July through September (Evans 1947, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program records 1991). The apothecia are either sessile or borne on short podetia 1 to 2 mm (0.04 to 0.08 in) in height, and the largest of these have a diameter of about 1 mm (0.04 in), with most being much smaller. The apothecia are cylindrical in shape and radial in symmetry (Evans 1947). The primary means of propagation of this lichen appears to be asexual, with colonies spreading clonally.
        Distribution, Habitat, and Life History

          Gymnoderma lineare (Evans) Yoshimura and Sharp is endemic (native to a particular region) to the Southern Appalachian Mountains of North Carolina, Tennessee, South Carolina, and Georgia, and occurs only in areas of high humidity, either on high-elevation cliffs, where it is frequently bathed in fog, or in deep river gorges at lower elevations. It is primarily limited to vertical rock faces, where seepage water from forest soils above flows at (and only at) very wet times, and large stream side boulders, where it receives a moderate amount of light but not high-intensity solar radiation. It is almost always found growing with the moss Andreaea in these vertical intermittent seeps. This association makes it rather easy to search for, due to the distinctive reddish-brown color of Andreaea that can be observed from a considerable distance (Weakley 1988). Most populations occur above 1,524 meters (5,000 feet) elevation. In Tennessee, it is apparently limited to the Great Smoky Mountains and one other mountain on the North Carolina-Tennessee state line. Very little specific information is known on the life history and population biology of the rock gnome lichen. Other common species found growing with or near this species include Huperzia selago, Stereocaulon sp., Scirpus cespitosus, Carex misera, Rhododendron spp., Saxifraga michauxii, Krigia montana, Heuchera villosa, Geum radiatum, and sometimes Juncus trifidus. The high-elevation coniferous forests adjacent to the rock outcrops and cliffs most often occupied by the species are dominated by red spruce (Picea rubens) and Fraser fir (Abies fraseri).
        Forty populations of Gymnoderma lineare have been reported historically; thirty-five remain in existence. The remaining populations are in Mitchell (two), Jackson (five), Yancey (four), Swain (one), Transylvania (four), Buncombe (four), Avery (two), Ashe (two), Haywood (one) and Rutherford (one) Counties, North Carolina; Greenville County (one), South Carolina; Rabun County (one), Georgia; and Sevier (seven) and Carter (part of this population is on the State line with Mitchell County, North Carolina) counties, Tennessee.
        Threats
        Five populations of rock gnome lichen are known to have been completely extirpated. The reasons for the disappearance of the species at most of these sites are undocumented; however, one population is believed to have been destroyed by highway construction. The explanation for the disappearance of the other four is a mystery. Among the other populations that still survive, one has been vandalized, and portions of two others are known to have been illegally collected. Although these acts of vandalism and collection did not completely eliminate the species at those latter sites, they did seriously reduce the population sizes, and may well have adversely affected the species' chances of long-term survival at those places. Most of the formerly occupied sites are subjected to heavy recreational use by hikers, climbers, and sightseers, which can be highly destructive to the fragile plant communities that occupy vertical rock faces.

        The majority of the high-elevation spruce-fir forests of the Southeast have suffered extensive changes and declines in extent and/or vigor during the past century as a result of several factors, including site deterioration due to the logging and burning practices of the early 1900's, possibly atmospheric pollution, exposure shock, and other factors not yet fully understood (Dull et al., 1988; White 1984). However, the greatest threat to the high-elevation Fraser fir forests, by far, is infestation by the balsam wooly adelgid (Adelges picea (Ratzeburg) (Homoptera, Adelgidae)). The balsam wooly adelgid is a nonnative insect pest believed to have been introduced into the Northeastern United States from Europe around 1900 (Eagar 1984). The adelgid was first detected in North Carolina on Mount Mitchell in 1957 (Hoffard et al., 1995), though it may have been established at that site as early as 1940. From Mount Mitchell, the adelgid spread to Fraser fir stands throughout the Southern Appalachians (Eager 1984). All ages of fir trees are attacked by the adelgid, but effects are generally not lethal until the trees reach maturity, at around 30 years of age (Hoffard et al. 1995). Most mature Fraser firs are easily killed by the adelgid, with death occurring within 2 to 7 years of the initial infestation (Eagar 1984). The death of the fir trees and the resultant opening of the forest canopy causes the remaining trees (including the red spruce) to be more susceptible to wind and other storm damage. The adelgid is transported and spread primarily by the wind but may also be spread by contaminated nursery stock; on the fur or feathers of animals and birds; or by humans on contaminated clothes, equipment, or vehicles (Eagar 1984). All efforts to control the spread of the adelgid have failed thus far. The death of the forests above the rock faces occupied by the rock gnome lichen has resulted in locally drastic changes in microclimate, including desiccation and increased temperatures which can prove lethal to this species.

        The continued existence of this species is threatened by trampling and associated soil erosion and compaction, other forms of habitat disturbance due to heavy recreational use of some inhabited areas by hikers, climbers, and sightseers, as well as by development for commercial recreational facilities and residential purposes. It is also threatened by collectors and vandals, and is potentially threatened by logging, and possibly by air pollution. In addition, the extremely limited and restricted range of each of the rock gnome lichen populations makes them extremely vulnerable to extirpation from a single event. Currently, no one has succeeded in propagating the rock gnome lichen.
        Only 7 of the remaining 35 populations cover an area larger than 2 square meters (m2) (2.4 square yards (yd2). Most are 1 m2 (9 square feet (ft2) or less in size. It is unknown what constitutes a genetic individual in this species, and it is possible that each of these small colonies or patches consists of only a single clone (Weakley 1988). Over the past decade several of the currently extant populations have undergone significant declines (Paula DePriest, Smithsonian Institution, personal communication, 1992; Karin Heiman, Environmental Consultant, personal communication, 1992), some within as little as 1 year (Alan Smith, Environmental Consultant, personal communication, 1992). Although most of the remaining populations are in public ownership, they continue to be impacted by collectors, recreational use, and unknown environmental factors.

        In a recent study funded cooperatively by the Service and the U.S. Forest Service, experts in lichenology and air pollution attempted to determine if air pollution constituted a significant threat to the rock gnome lichen, as it does to many lichen species. The study could not conclusively link documented declines with atmospheric pollutants. Heavy metal concentrations did not exceed toxic levels. However, the lowest sulfur concentrations were measured in the colonies having the best health status, and the highest in colonies with the worst health conditions. The authors of the study warned that future increases in sulfur compound deposition might cause damage to rock gnome lichen, especially where it occurs on substrates with low buffering capacity. The results of the study were further complicated by the discovery of parasitic algae and lichens that were found to be attacking the rock gnome lichen in several populations. The relationship between these parasitic organisms and environmental factors such as sedimentation, and accumulation of sulfur and phosphorus requires further study (Martin et al 1996).
        Previous Federal Actions
        Federal Government actions on Gymnoderma lineare began with the 1990 publication in the Federal Register of a revised notice of review of plant taxa for listing as endangered or threatened species (55 FR 6184); Gymnoderma lineare was included in that notice as a category 2 species. Prior to 1996, a category 2 species was one that we were considering for possible addition to the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants, but for which conclusive data on biological vulnerability and threats were not available to support a proposed rule. We discontinued designation of category 2 species in the February 28, 1996, Notice of Review (61 FR 7956).

        Subsequent to the 1990 notice, the Service received additional information from the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (Alan Weakley, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, personal communication, 1991) and the Smithsonian Institution (Paula DePriest, personal communication, 1992); this information and additional field data gathered by us, the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, and the National Park Service (Keith Langdon and Janet Rock, Great Smoky Mountains National Park, personal communication, 1992; Bambi Teague, Blue Ridge Parkway, personal communication, 1991) indicated that the addition of Gymnoderma lineare to the Federal Candidate List of endangered or threatened plants was warranted. A candidate species is a species for which we have on file sufficient information to propose it for protection under the Act.
        The Service approved this species for elevation to category 1 status on August 30, 1993, and proposed it for listing as endangered on December 28, 1993 (58 FR 68623). The proposal provided information on the species' range, biology, status, and threats to its continued existence. The proposal included a proposed determination that designation of critical habitat was not prudent for the species because such designation would not be beneficial and could further threaten the rock gnome lichen. Through associated notifications, we invited comments on the proposal and factual reports or information that might contribute to the development of a final rule. We contacted and requested comments from appropriate Federal and State agencies, county governments, scientific organizations, individuals knowledgeable about the species or its habitat, and other interested parties. We published legal notices, which invited public comment, in newspapers covering the range of the rock gnome lichen. We received 15 written comments. Eleven of these expressed strong support for the proposal, as presented, without critical habitat. One commenter presented additional information without stating a position. One additional respondent took no position on the proposal but expressed a negative view toward the potential designation of critical habitat. Two respondents opposed the proposal: one stated no reason for opposition; the other expressed the opinion that logging was not a potential threat to the lichen and that extinction is a natural process. One of those on record as supporting the proposal with no critical habitat designation was the Southern Appalachian Biodiversity Project (plaintiff in the current settlement discussed below against the Service for non-designation of critical habitat for this species).
        Following our review of all the comments and information received throughout the listing process, by final rule (60 FR 3557) dated January 18, 1995, we listed the rock gnome lichen as endangered. We addressed all the comments received throughout the listing process and/or incorporated changes into the final rule as appropriate. That decision included a determination that the designation of critical habitat was not prudent for the rock gnome lichen because, after a review of all the available information, we determined that such designation would not be beneficial to the species and that designation of critical habitat could further threaten the lichen (see “Prudency Determination” section).

        On June 30, 1999, the Southern Appalachian Biodiversity Project and the Foundation for Global Sustainability filed a lawsuit in United States District Court for the District of Columbia against the Service, the Director of the Service, and the Secretary of the Department of the Interior, challenging the not prudent critical habitat determinations for four species in North Carolina—the spruce-fir moss spider (Microhexura montivaga), Appalachian elktoe (Alasmidonta raveneliana), Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata), and rock gnome lichen. On February 29, 2000, the U.S. Department of Justice entered into a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in which we agreed to reexamine our prudency determination for the rock gnome lichen and submit a new proposed prudency determination to the Federal Register, by April 1, 2001. If prudent, we also agreed to submit by that same date a new proposed critical habitat determination. If, upon consideration of all available information and comments, we determine that designating critical habitat is not prudent for the rock gnome lichen, we have agreed to submit a final notice of that finding to the Federal Register by October 1, 2001. If we determine that designation of critical habitat is prudent for the rock gnome lichen, we have agreed to send a final rule of this finding to the Federal Register by January 1, 2002.
        This proposed finding is the product of our reexamination of our prudency determination for the rock gnome lichen and reflects our interpretation of the recent judicial opinions on critical habitat designation and the standards placed on us for making a “not prudent” determination. If additional information becomes available on the species' biology, distribution, and threats, we may reevaluate this proposed finding.
        Prudency Determination
        Section 4(a)(3) of the Act and implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, we designate critical habitat at the time a species is determined to be endangered or threatened. Regulations under 50 CFR 424.12(a)(1) state that designation of critical habitat is not prudent when one or both of the following situations exist—(1) The species is threatened by taking or other activity and the identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the degree of threat to the species or (2) such designation of critical habitat would not be beneficial to the species. In our January 18, 1995, final rule, we determined that both situations applied to the rock gnome lichen.
        The regulations that provide protection for critical habitat come into play through section 7 of the Act. Requirements under section 7 of the Act apply only to Federal actions and activities. They require Federal agencies to ensure, in consultation with us, that activities they fund, authorize, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. Regulations for the implementation of section 7 of the Act (50 CFR 402.2) provide for both a “jeopardy” standard and an “adverse modification or destruction of critical habitat” standard.
        Because of the extremely restricted range and limited amount of suitable habitat available to the rock gnome lichen, we determined in the January 18, 1995, final rule that any action that would likely result in the destruction or adverse modification of the species' habitat would also likely jeopardize the species' continued existence. Since Federal actions resulting in jeopardy are also prohibited by section 7, we determined that designation of critical habitat would not provide any additional protection benefitting the species beyond that provided by the jeopardy standard.

        Further, we have documented evidence that collecting and other human disturbance have already detrimentally affected this species. Concern that the species would be over-collected by lichenologists led Mason Hale to state emphatically in his 1979 book, How To Know the Lichens, which is the standard reference for lichen identification for amateurs and professionals alike; “This [rock gnome lichen] is one of the most unusual endemic lichens in North America and should not be collected by individuals.” Nevertheless, populations of rock gnome lichen have been decimated by scientific collectors. Paula DePriest (Smithsonian Institution, personal communication, 1992) observed that the type locality for rock gnome lichen was virtually wiped out by lichenologists who collected them during a field trip, in spite of the fact that this collection within a national park was not permitted. After the species was listed, another illegal collection occurred at a different location within a national park. Another population outside the park was vandalized for unknown reasons (the lichens were scraped off the rock to form graffiti). Illegal collection and/or vandalism is difficult to document, but is suspected as a possible cause for the precipitous declines in some of the other populations that are close to trails or roads. Some of these populations have been reduced in coverage by as much as 90 percent in a single year. A state park in South Carolina, upon discovering a small population of this species close to an existing trail, relocated the trail away from the rock face to deter potential collectors.
        The National Park Service, which developed the recovery plan for this species in cooperation with the Service, requested that we remove any mention of particular mountains from the recovery plan because they feared that this would give enough information to knowledgeable collectors to allow them to find the lichen and collect it. Park Service personnel believe that divulging locations or producing maps of rock gnome lichen habitat would greatly compromise their ability to protect the species within the national parks where it occurs (K. Langdon, J. Rock, National Park Service, personal communication, 1999).

        Three internationally recognized lichen experts are on record as being opposed to making public the specific locations of rare lichens because of the danger from collectors (P. DePriest, Smithsonian Institution, personal communication, 2000; J. Dey, Illinois Wesleyan University, personal communication, 2000; J. Martin, Eurouniversity, Estonia, personal communication, 2000). Dr. Paula DePriest, Associate Curator in Charge of Lichen Collections at the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, emphasized that the Smithsonian deliberately deletes location data for rare lichens from its publically disseminated database. She further related several incidents of damaging collections of rare lichens in areas within the range of rock gnome lichen. In at least one instance, this collecting was done on a field trip led by professional lichenologists who had forewarned the participants that no collecting of rare species would be tolerated; the rarest species were collected anyway when the field trip leaders were not looking. Dr. Juri Martin, Rector of Estonia's Eurouniversity, further emphasized the danger of making public the locations of rare lichen species. In Estonia, as well as in Italy, Switzerland, and other European countries, databases with specific location data for rare lichen species are kept in guarded locations where only a few professionals have access to them. They are never made public because of the danger of collecting. Dr. Martin emphasized that in these countries, even though there are regulations prohibiting the collection of these rare species, those laws have been found to be ineffective; the only real protection for those lichens is the safeguarding of specific location data and maps. Nothing more specific than county or forest distribution is ever made public. Dr. Martin recommended that rock gnome lichen be included on the World Red List of Endangered Lichens. Dr. Jon Dey, eminent lichenologist at Illinois Wesleyan University, further emphasized that he believed it would be inadvisable to publish specific location data for endangered lichen species, since the general public and hobbyists could, as a result, inadvertently or even purposely damage them. He further stated his belief that, although it might be necessary to allow legitimate professionals access to a single closely monitored population for the purposes of observation and research, that even scientists should not be able to collect endangered lichens from the wild.
        The Great Smoky Mountains National Park has recently undertaken an All Taxa Biodiversity Inventory; in the process of this comprehensive survey, experts on different taxa from all over the world are being brought into this half-million acre park to inventory and document occurrences of all species within its boundaries. In the process of this ambitious inventory, several watersheds within the Park were identified by experts as having internationally significant concentrations of rare bryophytes and lichens, and the guest scientists petitioned the Park Service to formally designate these areas as lichen/ bryophyte sanctuaries (K. Langdon, pers. com. 2000). The Park Service declined because of their fear of attracting collectors to the areas; not only collectors of rare species, but indiscriminate moss collectors who routinely ravage the Park and the adjacent National Forests for “log moss” to sell in mass quantities (truck loads have been confiscated from poachers in the Great Smokies) in the commercial florist trade.

        Rock gnome lichen is extremely fragile and is easily scraped off its rocky substrate; denuded habitat is not re-colonized quickly, if at all. Because this species occupies such limited areas (with most of the populations being less than a square meter in size), even a single person climbing on a rock face could cause significant damage to the species and its habitat that could lead to the extirpation of an entire population. Increased visits to population locations stimulated by critical habitat designation, even without deliberate collecting, could adversely affect the species due to the associated increase in trampling of its fragile habitat. We believe that the designation of critical habitat and the required public dissemination of maps and descriptions of occupied sites could result in the demise or severe diminishment of this species. The moss collectors or poachers (referred to above) that the Park Service is trying to combat have been caught leaving the Great Smoky Mountains National Park (Park) with dump truck loads full of moss and anything that looks like moss including lichens, liverworts, and other bryophytes. Many species of moss and lichens are superficially similar in appearance and are similarly decorative in floral arrangements. Earlier, we mentioned that the rock gnome lichen is almost always found growing with the moss Andreaea. These collectors or poachers are indiscriminate, stripping everything moss-like from logs, rocks, and trees within entire coves and watersheds. This includes essentially anything they think can be sold in the commercial florist trade. The largest and best remaining populations of rock gnome lichen are located within the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, where they are more accessible and therefore more susceptible to intentional or inadvertent collection. Therefore, the Park Service has expressed concerns that attracting moss collectors to watersheds designated as sanctuaries and occupied by the endangered lichen could result in devastating incidental collection of the listed species.
        The Park Service has expressed definite concerns about any plans to designate critical habitat for the rock gnome lichen because of the collection danger to this species' tiny, vulnerable populations. In fact, legislation has recently been enacted that gives the Park Service the authority to withhold from the public any specific locality data for endangered, threatened, rare, or commercially valuable resources within a park (Thomas Bill, Section 207, 16 U.S.C. 5937).
        Given the very small size of most colonies and the slow growth rate of this species, extirpation by collecting, vandalism, and habitat degradation by curiosity seekers is a distinct possibility (Weakley 1988; personal observation). Many of the populations are easily accessible, being close to trails or roads, but they are currently unadvertised and therefore mostly unnoticed by the general public. Publicity could generate an increased demand and intensify collecting pressure, or facilitate opportunities for further vandalism. This species has already been subjected to excessive collecting by scientific collectors at several sites. Increased publicity and a provision of specific location information associated with critical habitat designation could result in increased collection from the remaining wild populations. Although taking of endangered plants from lands under Federal jurisdiction and reduction to possession is prohibited by the Act, these taking provisions are difficult to enforce. We believe publication of critical habitat descriptions would make rock gnome lichen more vulnerable to collectors and curiosity-seekers, and would increase enforcement problems for the U.S. Forest Service and the National Park Service. Also, the populations on private lands would be more vulnerable to taking, where they receive little or no protection under the Act.
        Our fears of increased human threats to the species from publication of maps of the occupied sites is based upon specific experience, not on conjecture. Another federally listed North Carolina mountain plant for which critical habitat was designated was severely impacted by collectors immediately after the maps were published. This collection happened even though this plant was not previously known to be desired by rare plant collectors and had never been offered for sale in commercial trade. Some of the collectors appeared in the local Forest Service district offices, with the critical habitat map from the local newspaper in their hands, asking directions to the site. Such incidents are extremely difficult to document. The only reason we were able to do so in this case was because, for this very rare and restricted plant, every individual was mapped. When plants vanished from our permanent plots, we were able to find the carefully covered excavations where they had been removed. Otherwise, we would have only observed a precipitous crash in the populations without knowing that the cause was directly attributable to collection apparently stimulated by publication of specific critical habitat maps.
        Increased visits to population locations stimulated by critical habitat designation, even without collection of the species, could adversely affect rock gnome lichen due to the associated increase in trampling of the fragile habitat it occupies. This might not be as serious a concern in other parts of the country where there is relatively little recreational pressure, but the Great Smoky Mountains National Park has more visitors annually than any other park in the United States. Even if just a small percentage of those people visited the sites occupied by the lichen, the potential adverse effects to the species could be tremendous and irreparable.
        Another concern for this species is the fact that, despite attempts by lichenologists and tissue culture experts, no one has been able to propagate rock gnome lichen. If populations are vandalized or collected to the point of extirpation, it is not possible to restore them. Similarly, restoration of devastated populations of other lichens has often not been successful (Science News, August 2000). We believe that anything that increases the chances of losing additional populations, such as publicizing locations of remaining sites, represents an unconscionable risk to the species' chance of survival and recovery.

        In addition, we believe that designation would not provide significant benefits that would outweigh these increased risks. A majority of the remaining populations are on public lands, primarily under the jurisdiction of the United States Forest Service and National Park Service. These agencies are cooperating with us to protect the species from trampling and inappropriate collection, as well as to monitor the effects of air pollution. We are also working with the North Carolina and Tennessee Heritage Programs, the North Carolina Plant Conservation Program, and The Nature Conservancy to determine protection priorities for the remaining populations. The Nature Conservancy has recently secured a conservation easement for one of the most significant privately owned sites. We, along with all of these agencies, work to inform the public about the lichen and its importance, while at the same time ensuring the protection of the species and its habitat from potential threats. Within the National Parks, there is no commercial logging. Occupied sites outside the Parks are almost exclusively on steep rock faces and cliffs where no federal projects are likely to occur. In cases where excessive degradation of the lichen's cliff habitat has resulted from recreational overuse, both the National Park Service and the U.S. Forest Service have acted to close those sensitive areas to the public. No greater protection would be afforded by critical habitat designation.
        The Service has always recognized the value of habitat to the conservation of endangered and threatened species, and continues to work with other agencies and non-federal land managers to accomplish the most effective protection and management of lands critical to the survival of listed species. The Federal and State agencies and landowners involved in managing the habitat of this species have been informed of the species' locations and of the importance of protection. In addition, we are working with several private landowners of significant sites to protect the populations on their lands. Although we have not yet been able to definitively link population declines in rock gnome lichen to air pollution, we remain concerned that air quality may be an important factor for this species, as it is for many other lichens. The largest and best remaining populations of rock gnome lichen are within the Great Smoky Mountain National Park, which is designated by the Environmental Protection Agency as a Class I Air Quality Area, where no degradation of air quality is allowed. Therefore, designation of areas of the Park as critical habitat for this species would offer no additional protection of the species from air quality problems if these are determined to be a critical factor for this species' continued existence.
        For species like rock gnome lichen, that have extremely small populations (most are less than 1 m2 [approx. 9 ft2]) and a very small, restricted range, the triggers for “jeopardy” and “adverse modification” of critical habitat under section 7 of the Act are essentially identical. Because the triggers for “jeopardy” and “destruction or adverse modification” of critical habitat both require that the Service find that a Federal action is likely to have an appreciable effect on both the survival and recovery of the species, we have determined that because of the precarious status of the species, the small size of the surviving populations, the restricted range of the species, and the limited amount of suitable habitat available to the species, any Federal action with the potential to trigger the standard for destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat would also jeopardize the species' continued existence (the jeopardy standard without critical habitat). Therefore, no additional protection would be provided to this species through designation of critical habitat that would not already be provided through the jeopardy standard. We acknowledge that critical habitat designation in some situations may provide some value to the species, for example, by identifying areas important for conservation. However for the rock gnome lichen, we have weighed the potential benefits of designating critical habitat against the significant risks of doing so, and find that the minor benefits of designating critical habitat do not outweigh the potential increased threats from collection, vandalism, and inadvertent habitat degradation caused by curiosity-seekers. Therefore, we propose that designation of critical habitat for the rock gnome lichen is not prudent.
        Secretarial Order 3206: American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities and the Endangered Species Act
        In accordance with the Presidential Memorandum of April 29, 1994, and Executive Order 13175, we are required to assess the effects of determinations on tribal land and tribal trust resources. We propose that designation of critical habitat for the rock gnome lichen is not prudent. Therefore, we do not anticipate any effects on tribal trust resources if this proposed finding is made final.
        Public Comments Solicited
        We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed finding will be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we solicit comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, Native American tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested party concerning this proposed finding. We particularly seek comments concerning whether designating critical habitat for the rock gnome lichen is prudent, and the possible risks and benefits of such designation.

        Please submit comments as an ASCII file format and avoid the use of special characters and encryption. Please also include “Attn: [1018-AH32]” 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, 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.
        Peer Review

        In accordance with our policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek the expert opinions of at least three appropriate and independent specialists regarding this proposed finding. The purpose of such review is to ensure that listing decisions are based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We will send these peer reviewers copies of this proposed finding immediately following publication in the Federal Register. We will invite these peer reviewers to comment, during the public comment period, on the specific assumptions and conclusions regarding the proposed non-designation of critical habitat.

        We will consider all comments and information received during the 60-day comment period on this proposed finding during preparation of a final finding. Accordingly, the final decision may differ from this proposed finding.
        Clarity of the Rule

        Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations and notices that are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to make this document easier to understand, including answers to questions such as the following: (1) Are the requirements in the document clearly stated? (2) Does the document contain unnecessary technical language or jargon that interferes with the clarity? (3) Does the format of the proposed finding (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its clarity? (4) Is the description of the notice in the Supplementary Information section of the preamble helpful in understanding the notice? (5) What else could we do to make the notice easier to understand?
        Send a copy of any comments that concern how we could make this notice easier to understand to: Office of Regulatory Affairs, Department of the Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington, DC 20240. You may e-mail your comments to this address: Execsec@ios.doi.gov.
        Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

        This proposed finding does not contain any new collections of information that require approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. This proposed finding will not impose new record-keeping or reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals, businesses, or organizations.
        National Environmental Policy Act

        We have determined that we do not need to prepare an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement as defined by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 in connection with regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Endangered Species Act, as amended. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
        References Cited

        A complete list of all references cited in this proposed finding is available upon request from the Asheville Field Office (see Addresses section).
        Author
        The primary author of this document is Nora Murdock (see Addresses section).

          Dated: March 29, 2001.
          Marshall P. Jones, Jr.,
          Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

      [FR Doc. 01-8344 Filed 4-4-01; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-U


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 53
        WC Docket No. 03-228; DA 03-3742]
        Section 272(b)(1)'s “Operate Independently” Requirement for Section 272 Affiliates

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; extension of comment period.

          SUMMARY:
          This document extends the deadline for filing comments and reply comments in an ongoing Commission rulemaking proceeding seeking comment on whether the Commission should modify the rules adopted to implement section 272(b)(1)'s “operate independently” requirement for section 272 affiliates.

          DATES:
          Comments are due December 10, 2003, and reply comments are due December 22, 2003.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Christi Shewman, Attorney-Advisor, Competition Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, (202) 418-1686.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        On November 21, 2003, the Commission released a public notice issuing an extension of time for parties to file comments and reply comments in response to a November 4, 2003, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) seeking comment on whether the Commission should modify the rules adopted to implement section 272(b)(1)'s “operate independently” requirement. A summary of the Commission's NPRM was published in the Federal Register on November 21, 2003, triggering the cycle for comments and reply comments on the NPRM, 68 FR 65665, November 21, 2003. Due to the intervening Thanksgiving holiday during the comment cycle, the Commission grants, on its own motion, a limited extension of the deadline for filing comments and reply comments in this proceeding.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Marlene H. Dortch,
          Secretary.

      [FR Doc. 03-30441 Filed 12-8-03; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 635
        RIN 0648-BC09
        Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS); 2006 Consolidated Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan; Amendment 7

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of rescheduled public hearings.

          SUMMARY:
          On August 22, 2013, NMFS published a notice of public hearings for Draft Amendment 7 to the 2006 Consolidated Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Fishery Management Plan (2006 Consolidated HMS FMP), which provided dates and locations for ten scheduled public hearings. Three of the ten scheduled public hearings were cancelled due to the shut-down of the Federal Government from October 1 through 16, 2013. In this document, NMFS announces the dates and locations for three rescheduled public hearings to provide opportunities for members of the public to comment on the management measures proposed in Draft Amendment 7. The Amendment 7 proposed rule, which published August 21, 2013, includes a variety of management measures to ensure sustainable management of bluefin tuna consistent with the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and address ongoing management challenges in the Atlantic bluefin tuna fisheries.

          DATES:

          The rescheduled public hearings will be held on November 12 and 13, and December 3, 2013. Written comments will be accepted until December 10, 2013. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for specific meeting dates, times, and locations.

          ADDRESSES:

          The rescheduled public hearings will be held in Florida, and New Jersey. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for dates, times, and locations.
          You may submit comments on the proposed rule, identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2013-0101,” by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2013-0101, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments. Do not submit electronic comments to individual NMFS staff.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to Thomas Warren, Highly Migratory Species Management Division, NMFS, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Please mark the outside of the envelope “Comments on Amendment 7 to the HMS FMP.”
          • Fax: 978-281-9340; Attn: Thomas Warren.
          • Instructions: Comments must be submitted by one of the above methods to ensure that the comments are received, documented, and considered by NMFS. Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered. All comments received are a part of the public record and generally will be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All Personal Identifying Information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will 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 or Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Thomas Warren or Brad McHale at 978-281-9260; Craig Cockrell or Jennifer Cudney at 301-427-8503.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The North Atlantic tuna fisheries are managed under the dual authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) and the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA). Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS must manage fisheries to maintain optimum yield on a continuing basis while preventing overfishing. ATCA authorizes the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to promulgate regulations, as may be necessary and appropriate to carry out recommendations of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). The authority to issue regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and ATCA has been delegated from the Secretary to the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NMFS. Management of these species is described in the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP, which is implemented by regulations at 50 CFR part 635. Copies of the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and previous amendments are available from NMFS on request (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
        On August 21, 2013 (78 FR 52032) NMFS published proposed regulations to implement Amendment 7 to the 2006 Consolidated HMSFMP to control bluefin landings and dead discards in the pelagic longline fishery, enhance reporting in all categories, and ensure U.S. compliance with the ICCAT-recommend quota. As described in the proposed rule, the proposed management measures include: (1) Allocation measures that would make modifications to how the U.S. bluefin quota is allocated among the quota categories; (2) Area Based measures that would implement restrictions on the use of pelagic longline gear in various time and area combinations, modify gear restrictions, or provide conditional access to current pelagic longline closed areas; (3) Bluefin Quota Controls that would strictly limit the total catch (landings and dead discards) of bluefin in the Longline category using different strategies; (4) Enhance Reporting measures that would implement a variety of new bluefin reporting requirements; and (5) Other Measures that would make modifications to the rules that control how the various quota categories utilize quota, and implement a northern albacore tuna quota. Although the Amendment 7 proposed rule set the end of the comment period to October 23, 2013, NMFS subsequently extended the end of the comment period to December 10, 2013, in order to provide additional time for the public to consider the proposed rule, given its length and complexity, and in light of any potential new recommendations adopted by ICCAT at its November 2013 meeting (78 FR 57340; September 18, 2013).

          Status of Public Hearings and Request for Comments: Seven public hearings have been held to date: San Antonio, TX; Gloucester, MA; Manteo, NC; Charleston, SC; Belle Chasse, LA; Portland, ME; and Panama City, FL. NMFS also conducted consultations with the New England Fishery Management Council, the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, and the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. The public hearings that were scheduled in Fort Pierce, FL; St. Petersburg, FL; and Toms River, NJ; for October 1, 2, and 8, respectively; and the scheduled consultation with the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council on October 7, were cancelled due to the Federal Government shut-down from October 1 through 16, 2013. The public hearings in Fort Pierce, FL; St. Petersburg, FL; and Toms River, NJ have been rescheduled for November 12, and 13, and December 3, 2013, respectively, to provide the opportunity for public comment on potential management measures. See Table 1 for dates, times and locations of the rescheduled public hearings.

          Table 1—Dates, Times and Locations of Rescheduled Public Hearings

            Venue
            Date/time
            Meeting locations
            Location contact information

            Public Hearing
            November 12, 2013, 6 p.m.-10 p.m
            Fort Pierce, FL
            Days Inn Fort Pierce, 3224 U.S. 1, Fort Pierce, FL 34982, (772) 465-7000.

            Public Hearing
            November 13, 2013, 6 p.m.-10 p.m
            St. Petersburg, FL
            National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Regional Office, 263 13th Avenue South, Saint Petersburg, Florida 33701, (727) 824-5301.

            Public Hearing
            December 3, 2013, 6 p.m.-10 p.m
            Toms River, NJ
            Ocean County, Public Administration Building, Freeholders Meeting Room (119), 101 Hooper Ave., Toms River, NJ 08754, (732) 929-2147.

        Public Hearing Code of Conduct
        The public is reminded that NMFS expects participants at public hearings, council meetings, and phone conferences to conduct themselves appropriately. At the beginning of each meeting, a representative of NMFS will explain the ground rules (e.g., alcohol is prohibited from the meeting room; attendees will be called to give their comments in the order in which they registered to speak; each attendee will have an equal amount of time to speak; attendees may not interrupt one another; etc.). NMFS representative(s) will structure the meeting so that all attending members of the public will be able to comment, if they so choose, regardless of the controversial nature of the subject(s). Attendees are expected to respect the ground rules, and those that do not will be asked to leave the meeting.

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

          Dated: October 30, 2013.
          Emily H. Menashes,
          Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2013-26451 Filed 10-31-13; 4:15 pm]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
        49 CFR Part 571
        [Docket No. NHTSA-2007-26851]
        Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard; Engine Control Module Speed Limiter Device

          AGENCY:
          National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.

          ACTION:
          Grant of petition for rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          This notice grants two separate but similar petitions for rulemaking, one submitted by the American Trucking Associations and the other submitted by Road Safe America and a group of nine motor carriers (Schneider National, Inc., C.R. England, Inc., H.O. Wolding, Inc., ATS Intermodal, LLC, DART Transit Company, J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., U.S. Xpress, Inc., Covenant Transport, Inc., and Jet Express, Inc.) to establish a safety standard to require devices that would limit the speed of certain heavy trucks. Based on information received in response to a request for comments,1
             the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration believes that these petitions merit further consideration through the agency's rulemaking process. In addition, because of the overlapping issues addressed in these two petitions, the agency will address them together in a single rulemaking activity.

              1 72 FR 3904; January 26, 2007.

          The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration plans to initiate the rulemaking process on this issue with a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in 2012. The determination of whether to issue a rule will be made in the course of the rulemaking proceeding, in accordance with statutory criteria.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          For non-legal issues, you may call Mr. Markus Price, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards (Phone: 202-366-0098; FAX: 202-366-7002). For legal issues, you may call Mr. Steve Wood, Assistant Chief Counsel for Vehicle Rulemaking and Harmonization, (Phone: 202-366-2992; FAX: 202-366-3820). You may send mail to this official at: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        On October 20, 2006, the American Trucking Associations (ATA) submitted a petition to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) requesting that the agency initiate rulemaking to amend the Federal motor vehicle safety standards to require vehicle manufacturers to install a device to limit the speed of trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 26,000 pounds to no more than 68 miles per hour (mph). The ATA claimed that reducing speed-related crashes involving trucks is critical to the safety mission of NHTSA, and that these new requirements are needed to reduce the number and severity of crashes involving large trucks.
        On September 8, 2006, Road Safe America and a group of nine motor carriers also petitioned the agency to require that manufacturers install a speed limiting device in vehicles with a GVWR over 26,000 pounds and that the devices be set at not more than 68 mph. They also requested that the requirements apply to all trucks manufactured after 1990.
        Summary of the Petitions
        A detailed discussion of the two petitions can be found in the request for comments notice. Items specific to NHTSA include the following requests from ATA:
        1. All newly manufactured trucks with a GVWR greater than 26,000 pounds shall be equipped with an electronic control module (ECM) that is capable of limiting the maximum speed of the vehicle.
        2. The ECM shall be set at no more than 68 mph by the manufacturer.
        3. The ECM should be tamper-resistant, and should be designed in a way that does not allow the speed limiter setting on the ECM to be adjusted to let the vehicle exceed 68 mph.
        4. Immediately upon the rule taking effect, manufacturers should be prohibited from setting the ECM speed limiter to a maximum speed of greater than 68 mph. However, this requirement should not take effect earlier than the effective date of a Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) rule prohibiting vehicle owners or operators from setting the ECM speed limiter at a level greater than 68 mph for newly manufactured trucks.
        5. The effective date for installation of a tamper-resistant ECM should be established with a period of time that will allow manufacturers to undergo a systems integration process. The change to the engine ECM may affect other devices on the vehicle; therefore, manufacturers need some time to ensure that the vehicle functions properly. ATA encourages NHTSA to seek information from manufacturers to determine the length of time necessary to come into compliance with the rule.
        6. An appropriate tolerance to accommodate variations in manufacturing, wear, and maintenance throughout the lifecycle of the vehicle. For example, the same diameter heavy truck tire but with a different width and sidewall aspect ratio may have a 15-20 revolutions per mile difference which will affect the actual top speed of the truck with a governed speed of 68 mph. ATA recommends that any rulemaking pertaining to this petition reference SAE J678, J862, and J1226 Recommended Practices.

        In addition to items similar to those in ATA's petition, Road Safe America also included an item on retrofitting in its petition:

        1. Every class 7 and class 8 commercial motor vehicle manufactured after the year 1990 shall be equipped with an electronic engine speed governor.
        Summary of Comments

        On January 26, 2007, NHTSA and FMCSA published a joint Request for Comments Notice in the Federal Register soliciting public comments on the ATA and Road Safe America petitions. The Department of Transportation Docket Management System received approximately 3,850 comments into Docket No. NHTSA-2007-26851, the majority of which were submitted by private citizens. Of these, many comments supported a regulation that would limit the speed of large trucks to 68 mph, which included comments from trucking fleets and consumer advocacy groups, and others. Other comments submitted by independent owner-operator truckers, a trucking fleet association, and private citizens were opposed to the rulemaking requested in the petitions. The remaining comments did not explicitly indicate a position with regard to the petitions.
        Comments from private citizens supporting the petitions include responses from individuals who were involved in crashes with heavy trucks or had friends/relatives who were involved in crashes with large trucks. The private citizen supporters of the petitions are typically non-truck drivers who stated that they are intimidated by the hazardous driving practices of some truck drivers, such as speeding, tailgating, and abrupt lane changes. These commenters expressed the belief that limiting the speed of heavy trucks to 68 mph will result in safer highways.
        Some of the organizations supporting the petition provided similar reasons for their support and the selected comments summarized below cover the range of issues they discussed.
        Schneider National, Inc., a major trucking fleet, indicated that its trucks have been speed limited to 65 mph since 1996. According to Schneider's crash data from its own fleet, vehicles without speed limiters accounted for 40 percent of the company's serious collisions while driving 17 percent of the company's total miles. Schneider stated that its vehicles have a significantly lower crash rate than large trucks that are not speed limited or have a maximum speed setting greater than 65 mph.
        J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., another trucking fleet, commented that a differential speed between cars and large trucks will result from trucks being equipped with speed limiters set below the posted speed limit. This speed differential may cause a safety hazard. However, J. B. Hunt believes that the current safety hazard caused by large trucks traveling at speeds in excess of posted limits is a greater safety hazard.
        Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) commented that large trucks require 20-40 percent more braking distance than passenger cars and light trucks for a given travel speed. Advocates does not believe that the data in the 1991 report to Congress 2
           are still valid because the speed limits posted by the States over the past ten years are much higher than the national posted speed limit of 55 mph that was in effect in 1991.

            2 Comercial Motor Vehicle Speed Control Devices (1991), DOT HS 807 725.

        The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) stated that 97 percent of the occupants that are killed in crashes between heavy trucks and passenger vehicles are passenger vehicle occupants. IIHS stated that on-board electronic engine control modules (ECM) will maintain the desired speed control for vehicles when enforcement efforts are not sufficient due to lack of resources. IIHS stated that there is already widespread use of speed governors by carriers and a mandate will result in net safety and economic benefits.
        The Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA) stated that large trucks are 3 percent of registered vehicles and represent about 8 percent of the total miles traveled nationwide. Also, GHSA believes that it is prudent to consider speed limiting devices since they are currently installed in large trucks and can be adapted to be tamper-resistant. It stated that conventional approaches to vehicle speed control do not provide optimal benefits because of a lack of enforcement resources and too many miles of highway to cover.
        Several comments, including those from ATA's Truck Maintenance Council, provided information concerning economic, non-safety benefits that would result from large truck speed limiters. The Truck Maintenance Council stated that an increase of 1 mph results in a 0.1 mpg increase in fuel consumption, and for every 1 mph increase in speed over 55 mph, there is a reduction of 1 percent in tire tread life.
        Comments opposing rulemaking that would require speed limiters on large trucks to be set to a maximum speed of 68 mph were received from many independent truck drivers, the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA), the Truckload Carriers Association (TCA), and private citizens (non-truck drivers).
        OOIDA commented that the 1991 report to Congress 3
           is still valid today—there is no need to mandate speed limiters because the target population (high speed crashes) is still small compared to the total number of truck crashes. According to OOIDA, speed limiters would not have an effect on crashes in areas where the posted speed limit for trucks is 65 mph or below. OOIDA believes that the petitioners are attempting to force all trucks to be speed limited so that the major trucking companies with speed limited vehicles can compete for drivers with the independent trucking operations that have not limited their speeds to 68 mph or below. OOIDA also stated that it is not necessary to set large truck speed limiters at 68 mph to realize most of the economic benefits cited by the petitioners because improved fuel economy and reduced emissions can be achieved with improved truck designs.

            3 Comercial Motor Vehicle Speed Control Devices (1991), DOT HS 807 725.

        TCA commented that a speed differential will be created in many States by the 68-mph speed limit for heavy trucks and a higher speed limit for other vehicles. This speed differential will result in more interaction between cars and trucks and may be an additional safety risk for cars and trucks.
        According to comments from CDW Transport, a trucking fleet, speed limiters should be required on passenger vehicles as well as commercial motor vehicles.
        Several comments from private citizens and small businesses opposed to the petitions stated that speed is not the only cause of crashes, that weather and highway conditions are also significant factors. There were comments stating that passenger vehicles cause the majority of the crashes between trucks and passenger vehicles. Some comments stated that truck drivers will experience more fatigue with a 68-mph maximum speed, which could result in more crashes; some comments expressed the opinion that State and local law enforcement agencies should enforce the speed of all vehicles on the nation's roads and highways; several comments favored a 75-mph limit for truck speed limiters, instead of 68 mph, to match the highest posted speed limit in the country.

        The Truck Manufacturers Association (TMA) provided information concerning the cost of tamper-proof speed limiters for large trucks. TMA estimates a one-time cost of $35 to $50 million would be required to develop ECMs with tamper-resistant speed limiters and a one-time cost of $150 million to $200 million to develop ECMs with tamper-proof speed limiters. With both of these ECM designs, there would be additional costs to make adjustments to the ECM for maximum speed, tire size, and drive axle and transmission gear ratio information.

        Research Review
        The agency conducted a preliminary review of research in its evaluation of the merits of these petitions. Along with research conducted by Transport Canada, 4
           the agency has considered a DOT Research and Special Programs Administration report published in 2005, 5
           and a synthesis of safety practice from the Transportation Research Board of the National Academies published in 2008.6
           Both of these reports indicate that there is a potential for speed limiting devices to decrease crash severity. Both of these documents also contain survey information pertaining to the current fleet usage of these devices and the speed settings of the equipment currently on the road.

            4 The reports are available at http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/roadsafety/safevehicles-motorcarriers-speedlimiter-index-251.htm.

            5 “Cost-Benefit Evaluation of Large Truck-Automobile Speed Limits Differentials on Rural Interstate Highways,” MBTC 2048.

            6 “Safety Impacts of Speed Limiter Device Installation on Commercial Trucks and Buses,” Available at http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs.aspx.

        Although the currently available studies have been useful in the agency's grant consideration, additional information on this topic is forthcoming. The agency anticipates the publication of a report on the findings of a study being conducted by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.7
           The main objective of this research is to quantitatively evaluate the safety impact and associated economic benefits of speed limiters in commercial motor vehicles. This analysis is expected to include safety impacts as well as fuel and tire consumption data.

            7 Information on this study is available at http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/facts-research/art-research-Safety-Effectiveness-of-Speed-Limiters.htm.

        International Speed Limiter Regulations
        The European Union has limited the speed of large trucks and buses under its jurisdiction to 62 mph since 1994. In Australia, large trucks have been limited to 62 mph since 1990 with a 56-mph limit for road trains (a road train consists of a tractor pulling multiple trailers).8
           The European Union and Australia cited economic and safety benefits as the reasons for adopting large truck speed limiter legislation and regulation.

            8 The Australian Design Rule (ADR) 65/00—Maximum Road Speed Limiting for Heavy Goods Vehicles and Heavy Omnibuses specifies the devices or systems used to limit the maximum road speed of heavy goods vehicles. For additional information, go to http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/~/media/7ebc7a9d-b94b-4ee8-bf82-aab41c743252/speed_limiter_requirements.pdf.

        More recently, Japan and the Canadian provinces of Ontario and Quebec have also mandated speed limiters. Japan limited large trucks to 56 mph in 2003. Quebec and Ontario limited the speed of large trucks to 65 effective January 1, 2009, although they did not begin assessing fines until July 1, 2009.9
           In addition to economic and safety benefits, the two provinces cited environmental benefits.

            9 ONTARIO AND QUÉBEC MANDATORY HEAVY TRUCK SPEED LIMITERS—FACT SHEET. Available at http://www.mtq.gouv.qc.ca/portal/page/portal/Librairie/Publications/en/camionnage/limiteurs_vitesse/speed_limiters_note_info.pdf.

        The granting of the petitions from ATA and Road Safe America, however, does not mean that a final rule will be issued. The determination of whether to issue a rule is made after study of the requested action and the various alternatives in the course of the rulemaking proceeding, in accordance with statutory criteria.

          Authority:
           49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

          Issued: December 27, 2010.
          Nathaniel Beuse,
          Director, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards.

      [FR Doc. 2010-33057 Filed 12-30-10; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-59-P