        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        [Docket No. FWS-R3-ES-2010-0034]
        [MO 92201-0-0008]
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Oklahoma Grass Pink Orchid as Endangered or Threatened

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Notice of petition finding and initiation of status review.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 90-day finding on a petition to list Calopogon oklahomensis (Oklahoma grass pink orchid) as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act).  Based on our review, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the plant species, C. oklahomensis, as endangered or threatened may be warranted.  Therefore, with the publication of this notice, we are initiating a review of the status of the species to determine if listing C. oklahomensis as endangered or threatened is warranted.  To ensure that this status review is comprehensive, we are requesting scientific and commercial data and other information regarding this species.  Based on the status review, we will issue a 12-month finding on the petition, which will address whether the petitioned action is warranted, as provided in section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act.

          DATES:

          To allow us adequate time to conduct this review, we request that we receive information on or before October 25, 2010.  Please note that if you are using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see “ADDRESSES” section, below), the deadline for submitting an electronic comment is midnight Eastern Standard Time on this date.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit information by one of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal:  http://www.regulations.gov. In the box that reads “Enter Keyword or ID,” enter the docket number for this finding, which is FWS-R3-ES-2010-0034.  Check the box that reads “Open for Comment/Submission,” and then click the Search button.  You should then see an icon that reads “Submit a Comment.”  Please ensure that you have found the correct rulemaking before submitting your comment.
          • U.S. mail or hand-delivery:  Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R3-ES-2010-0034; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203.
          We will post all information received on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see the Request for Information section below for more details).
          After the date specified above in DATES, you must submit information directly to the Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section below).  Please note that we might not be able to address or incorporate information that we receive after the date noted above.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Janice C. Engle, Field Supervisor, Chicago, Illinois Ecological Services Field Office, 1250 South Grove, Suite 103, Barrington, IL 60010, by telephone (847-381-2243), or by facsimile (847-381-2285).  If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Request for Information

        When we make a finding that a petition presents substantial information indicating that listing a species may be warranted, we are required to promptly review the status of the species (status review).  For the status review to be complete and based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we request information on Calopogon oklahomensis (Oklahoma grass pink orchid) from governmental agencies, Native American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, and any other interested parties.  We seek information on:
        (1) The species' biology, range, and population trends, including:
        (a) Habitat requirements;
        (b) Genetics and taxonomy;
        (c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns;
        (d) Historical and current population levels, and current and projected trends; and
        (e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, its habitat, or both.

        (2) The factors that are the basis for making a listing determination for a species under section 4(a) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), which are:
        (a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;
        (b) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
        (c) Disease or predation;
        (d) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
        (e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
        (3) The potential effects of climate change on this species and its habitat.
        If, after the status review, we determine that listing Calopogon oklahomensis is warranted, we will propose critical habitat (see definition in section 3(5)(A) of the Act), in accordance with section 4 of the Act, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable at the time we propose to list the species.  Therefore, within the geographical range currently occupied by C. oklahomensis, we request data and information on:
        (1) What may constitute “physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species”;
        (2) Where these features are currently found; and
        (3) Whether any of these features may require special management considerations or protection, including managing for the potential effects of climate change.
        In addition, we request data and information on “specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species” that are “essential to the conservation of the species.”  Please provide specific comments and information as to what, if any, critical habitat you think we should propose for designation if the species is proposed for listing, and why such habitat meets the requirements of section 4 of the Act.
        Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
        Submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the action under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in making a determination.  Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or threatened species must be made “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.”

        You may submit your information concerning this status review by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section.  If you submit information via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire submission—including any personal identifying information—will be posted on the website.  If you submit a hardcopy that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this personal identifying information from public review.  However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.  We will post all hardcopy submissions on http://www.regulations.gov.

        Information and supporting documentation that we received and used in preparing this finding will be available for you to review at http://www.regulations.gov, or you may make an appointment during normal business hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Chicago, Illinois Ecological Services Field Office  (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
        Background

        Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires that we make a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted.  We are to base this finding on information provided in the petition, supporting information submitted with the petition, and information otherwise available in our files.  To the maximum extent practicable, we are to make this finding within 90 days of our receipt of the petition and publish our notice of the finding promptly in the Federal Register.
        Our standard for substantial scientific or commercial information within the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90-day petition finding is “that amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted” (50 CFR 424.14(b)).  If we find that substantial scientific or commercial information was presented, we are required to promptly commence a review of the status of the species, which will be subsequently summarized in our 12-month finding.
        Petition History

        On May 28, 2008, we received a petition dated May 22, 2008, from Dr. Douglas Goldman of the Harvard University Herbaria requesting that Calopogon oklahomensis be listed as endangered or threatened under the Act.  The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, as required by 50 CFR 424.14(a).  In a September 15, 2008, letter to the petitioner, we responded that we reviewed the information presented in the petition and determined that issuing an emergency regulation temporarily listing the species as per section 4(b)(7) of the Act was not warranted because the species has extant populations in several States and most of the threats mentioned in the petition are not immediate in nature, but consist of ongoing issues (for example, fire suppression, overgrazing, and unfavorable mowing regimes) that may make areas less suitable for the species, but are not likely to cause immediate extirpation.  We also stated that due to court orders and judicially approved settlement agreements for other listing determinations under the Act that required nearly all of our listing funding for fiscal year 2008, we would not be able to further address the petition at that time but would complete the action when workload and funding allowed.  On December 14, 2009, we received a 60-day notice of intent to sue for violation of sections 4(b)(3)(A and B) of the Act, relating to late petition findings for 140 species, including C. oklahomensis.  On February 17, 2010, we received a complaint for failure to make timely petition findings on eight species, including C. oklahomensis. This finding addresses the petition.
        Previous Federal Action
        There have been no previous Federal actions concerning this species.
        Species Information

          Calopogon oklahomensis was described by D.H. Goldman as a new species in 1995 (Goldman 1995, p. 37).  Morphological and phenological variation of the genus in the midwestern States was not previously recognized by Correll (1978) or Luer (1975) (in Goldman 1995, p. 41).  However, genetic testing among the five species of the terrestrial orchid genus Calopogon for genetic variation indicates that C. oklahomensis is the most genetically distinct species out of the five species tested (Trapnell et al. 2004, p. 314).  For this reason, we accept the characterization of C. oklahomensis as a distinct species of Calopogon, with a large geographic range, and many consistent morphological features (Goldman 1995, p. 41).

          Calopogon oklahomensis has a forked corm (a modified underground stem), with the new corm at the base of the leaf and the inflorescence (a branching stem with flowers) rapidly growing distally at the time of anthesis (the period from flowering to fruiting) (Goldman 1995, p. 39).  The leaf is almost always as long as or longer than the inflorescence (Goldman 1995, p. 39).  The flower buds are deeply grooved longitudinally, waxy and shiny, with elongated acuminate apices (narrowing to a point at the tip).  The flowers are fragrant and open in succession (Goldman 1995, p. 39).  The labellum disk (portion of the lower petal that is attached to the center of the flower) is pinkish with a basal region of short to long yellow hairs, above which there is a triangular region of short, stout, pinkish hairs, which extends to the labellum apex (terminal end of the lower petal) (Goldman 1995, p. 39).  The stigma (part of the female reproductive part of the flower) is flat against the column surface (Goldman 1995, p. 40).

          Calopogon oklahomensis occupies moist, loamy prairies, savannas, and sandy woodlands from central Minnesota southward to Texas, including the States of Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Missouri, Tennessee, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Florida, with a few scattered populations further east in South Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama (Goldman 1995, p. 40; Goldman et al. 2004a, p. 707). C. oklahomensis appears to prefer moist to seasonally dry-mesic prairies, prairie-haymeadows, savannas and open woodlands, avoiding the wetter habitats preferred by other species of Calopogon (Goldman 1995, p. 40).  This species appears to thrive under a frequent burning regime or haymeadow management where most or all of the above ground vegetation is effectively removed once every 1 to 2 years, with subsequent flowering within a year after the last burn or haymowing.
        Goldman (1995, p. 41) based the range of the species on collected specimens in six States (Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas) and hypothesized that it may have occurred historically in two additional States (Iowa and Illinois).  The petition states that, historically, the range covers 17 States (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin) (Petition, p. 2).  NatureServe identifies the range of the species in only 12 States (Arkansas, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin) (NatureServe 2009).

        Information on the persistence and status is lacking for many areas historically occupied by Calopogon oklahomensis.  We are unaware of specific information on population abundance of this species.  Other than the petition, we are unaware of any year-round or long-term monitoring data on C. oklahomensis.  Throughout its range, C. oklahomensis specimens have historically been confused with C. tuberosus, due to the difficulty in distinguishing the two species (Goldman 1995, pp. 37 - 41; Goldman et al. 2004b, pp. 37-38).  For these reasons, the status of this species remains unclear.
        Evaluation of Information for This Finding
        Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424 set forth the procedures for adding a species to, or removing a species from, the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants.  A species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act:  (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
        In considering what factors might constitute threats, we must look beyond the exposure of the species to a factor to evaluate whether the species may respond to the factor in a way that causes actual impacts to the species.  If there is exposure to a factor and the species responds negatively, the factor may be a threat and, during the subsequent status review, we attempt to determine how significant a threat it is.  The threat is significant, if it drives, or contributes to, the risk of extinction of the species such that the species may warrant listing as threatened or endangered as those terms are defined in the Act.  However, the identification of factors that could impact a species negatively may not be sufficient to compel a finding that the information in the petition and our files is substantial.  The information must include evidence sufficient to suggest that these factors may be operative threats that act on the species to the point that the species may meet the definition of threatened or endangered under the Act.

        In making this 90-day finding, we evaluate whether information regarding threats to Calopogon oklahomensis, as presented in the petition and other information available in our files, is substantial, thereby indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted.  Our evaluation of this information is presented below.
        A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of the Species' Habitat or Range.
        Information Provided in the Petition

        The petition outlines several assertions regarding the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of Calopogon oklahomensis habitat or range, including:
        (1)The loss of native prairie, savanna, and open woodland habitat throughout the range of the species as a result of expanding urbanization, agriculture, and forestry land use;

        (2)Degradation of habitat due to fire suppression or infrequent burning; overgrazing; mowing without thatch removal, excessively frequent mowing, or mowing during the growing season before the fruit ripens; severe drainage of optimal habitat rendering mesic sites too dry to support the species; intense soil disturbance and shading due to conversion to forestry plantations; and intensive trampling, deep local soil disturbance, and damage from vehicular traffic.
        The petitioner describes the decline of Calopogon oklahomensis range compared to its historical range (Petition, pp. 2-4).  The petition indicates that, based on 237 herbarium specimen records, the species may be extirpated from nine States of historical occurrence (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Indiana, Kansas, Minnesota, South Carolina, and Tennessee) (Petition, p. 2).  The petition also states that these same herbarium records indicate the species is believed to be extant in eight States; Arkansas, Illinois, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Texas, and Wisconsin (Petition, p. 2).  However, 158 of those records date prior to 1958 (prior to 50 years ago), and 183 date prior to 1978 (prior to 30 years ago) (Petition, p. 2).  According to the petition, of the 233 records that give specific localities, only 25 to 35 populations may remain (Petition, p. 2).  Of the States that still contain the species, the two States suffering the greatest population losses are Illinois (one remaining population from an original 42 records) and Texas (1-3 populations from an original 27 records) (Petition, p. 2).
        Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in Service Files

        We have no information in our files regarding the effects of expanding urbanization, agricultural or forestry land use, fire suppression, infrequent burning, intensive trampling, deep local soil disturbance, damage from vehicular traffic, intense soil disturbance and shading due to conversion to forestry plantations, severe drainage of optimal habitat, mowing without thatch removal, excessively frequent mowing, and mowing during the growing season before the fruit ripens, and whether the effects are destructive to Calopogon oklahomensis habitat.

        The below information existed in the files of various Service offices throughout the country at the time the petition was received.  That information was transmitted to the author of this notice, through personal communications, in 2009 and 2010.  The citations reflect the date on which the information was transmitted to the author, and not the date the information was received by the Service. Information in our files indicates that Oklahoma has 45 records of this species from 15 counties dating from 1934 through 2004 (Dikeman 2009, pers. comm.).  Arkansas has 18 herbarium records of this species from 7 counties, and Texas has herbarium records from 12 counties.  Our files also indicate that Kansas (Freeman 2009, pers. comm.) and Tennessee each have a single record of this species, with Tennessee's occurrence last observed in 1937 (Call 2009, pers. comm.).  In Wisconsin, Calopogon oklahomensis is identified as a species of “special concern” with historical occurrence in Wisconsin, perhaps having not been verified in the past 20 years, but suspected to still be extant (Carnes 2010, pers. comm.).  We do not have information in our files regarding distribution in other States.  Our files also indicate that population numbers at particular sites fluctuate from year to year with the greatest numbers found in years following prescribed burns; however, the species is difficult to find if it is not in bloom and it appears to bloom for only a few days (Witsell 2009, pers. comm.).  We intend to fully assess the historic and current records of Calopogon oklahomensis throughout its range during the status review for the species.
        According to information presented in the petition, Calopogon oklahomensis has undergone a sharp decline as much of its habitat has been converted to other uses.  Loss of native prairie, savanna, and open woodland habitat throughout the species' range is indicated as one of the major causes of decline (Petition, pp. 2, 5).  According to NatureServe (2009), C. oklahomensis is “possibly extirpated” in Wisconsin and Tennessee; “critically imperiled” in Illinois, Kansas, Mississippi, and Louisiana; “imperiled” in Arkansas; and not ranked in Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Oklahoma, or Texas.  In Iowa, only historical records exist for C. oklahomensis with no extant sites existing (Pearson 2009, pers. comm.).
        Summary of Factor A

        In summary, we find that the information provided in the petition presents substantial information that listing Calopogon oklahomensis as endangered or threatened may be warranted due to the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the species' habitat or range.  The petition identifies numerous potential factors that may be affecting C. oklahomensis, including habitat loss and degradation due to expanding urbanization, agricultural or forestry land use, fire suppression, infrequent burning, intensive trampling, deep local soil disturbance, damage from vehicular traffic, intense soil disturbance and shading due to conversion to forestry plantations, severe drainage of optimal habitat, mowing without thatch removal, excessively frequent mowing, and mowing during the growing season before the fruit ripens.  We had very little information in our files prior to receiving the petition; therefore, we do not have information in our files that further supports or refutes the information provided in the petition.  We, therefore, conclude the petition presents substantial information to indicate that the present or threatened destruction or modification of habitat may present a threat to C. oklahomensis.

        B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes.

        The petitioner provides no information addressing this factor, and we have no information in our files indicating that listing of the species due to overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes may be warranted.  Based on our evaluation, we find that the petition does not present substantial information, and we do not have substantial information in our files, to indicate that listing Calopogon oklahomensis as endangered or threatened may be warranted due to overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes.  However, we will evaluate all factors, including threats from overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes, when we conduct our status review.
        C. Disease or Predation.
        Information Provided in the Petition

        The petitioner asserts that overgrazing, as well as, natural biological predation by insects, rodents, deer, or other herbivores, may threaten Calopogon oklahomensis (Petition, p. 10).
        Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in Service Files

        We have no information in our files indicating whether overgrazing or natural predation by insects, rodents, deer, or other herbivores, may threaten Calopogon oklahomensis.  The petitioners did not provide information or list disease as a threat to C. oklahomensis, and we do not have substantial information in our files to indicate that disease may be a threat to the species.

        Based on our evaluation, we find that the petition does not present substantial information, and we do not have substantial information in our files, to indicate that listing Calopogon oklahomensis as endangered or threatened may be warranted due to disease or predation.  However, we will evaluate all factors, including threats from disease and predation when we conduct our status review.
        D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms.
        Information Provided in the Petition
        The petitioner asserts that Calopogon oklahomensis is not listed as endangered or threatened in the States of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin (Petition, pp. 5-9).  The petitioner asserts that this species is State listed as endangered in Illinois and Tennessee (Petition, pp. 6, 9).  The petitioner implies that the lack of State listing for C. oklahomensis in 14 of 16 States poses a threat to the species.  However, there was no specific information provided in the petition about existing regulatory mechanisms beyond the two State listings that could protect these species.
        Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in Service Files

          Calopogon oklahomensis is not listed as endangered or threatened in the States of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin (the States of Kansas and Louisiana do not list plant species as threatened or endangered (Mizzi 2010, pers. comm.)).  Additional information in our files indicates that this species is State-listed as endangered in Illinois and Tennessee.  An important provision of the Illinois Endangered Species Protection Act is the consultation provision, which requires State and municipal agencies taking actions that might affect State or federally listed species (including plants), to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts to the listed species (http://dnr.state.il.us/INPC/VMG/Illinois Plant Translocation Policy.pdf accessed on 05/12/2010).  In Tennessee, the Rare Plant Protection and Conservation Act requires persons to obtain written permission from a landowner or manager before knowingly removing or destroying State-listed endangered plant species and requires nursery farmers to be licensed in order to sell State-listed endangered species (http://www.state.tn.us/environment/na/nhp.shtmlaccessed on 05/12/2010).  However, as stated above, there was no specific information provided in the petitions about existing regulatory mechanisms beyond the two State listings that could protect these species.  We are also not aware of any regulatory mechanisms that address C. oklahomensis.
        Summary of Factor D

        The petitioner did not provide any additional information about existing regulatory mechanisms other than the State listings in Illinois and Tennessee that could protect these species, and we have nothing in our files that describes any regulatory mechanisms that address Calopogon oklahomensis.  While information presented by the petitioner indicates that threats to the petitioned species may be posed by habitat destruction and degradation due to expanding urbanization, agricultural or forestry land use, fire suppression, infrequent burning, intensive trampling, deep local soil disturbance, damage from vehicular traffic, intense soil disturbance and shading due to conversion to forestry plantations, severe drainage of optimal habitat, mowing without thatch removal, excessively frequent mowing, and mowing during the growing season before the fruit ripens, none of these threats are posed by an inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms.  We, therefore, find that the petition does not present substantial information indicating that the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms may present a threat to C. oklahomensis.  However, we will further evaluate the adequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms for protecting C. oklahomensis and its habitat during our status review.
        E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Species' Continued Existence.
        Information Provided in the Petition
        The petitioner describes Calopogon species as having a unique biology that makes small or widely scattered populations more vulnerable to extirpation (Petition, pp. 4-5).  A Calopogon corm contains only two growing points compared to other vascular plants that have multiple tiny, dormant buds (Petition, pp. 4-5).  Because Calopogon does not form new buds if one or both of these growing points are damaged or destroyed, this species has only two chances for success at perpetuating the plant through the next winter (Petition, pp. 4-5).  Therefore, the species is particularly vulnerable to stochastic events, which, if they occur at a certain time (when the buds have formed or are forming), may destroy the chance for the plant to reproduce that year.
        Furthermore, according to information in the petition, Calopogon oklahomensis is drought tolerant, but may still succumb to drought, even as dormant corms (Petition, pp. 4-5).  Historically, the species relied on a widespread mosaic of large populations and abundant seed production (Petition, p. 5), and thus some populations were able to escape local or regional droughts, allowing the species to persist and recolonize the drought-affected areas.  As described by the petitioner, however, this species now consists of smaller populations that are geographically disconnected from each other (Petition, p. 5).  Existence in small, isolated populations can render the species highly vulnerable to local, regional, or widespread extirpation due to uncontrollable natural forces, including local or regional climate perturbation such as drought.  Such an event could eliminate most or all of a small population, and, if the population is isolated from other populations of the species, a situation to which the species is not adapted, there would be little opportunity for recolonization (Petition, p. 5).
        Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in Service Files

        We have no information in our files regarding the effects of the unique biology described by the petitioner for Calopogon oklahomensis that may make it more vulnerable to local extirpation.  We do have information in our files, however, indicating that the effects of small population size may impact the viability of species populations.  Species that are known from few, widely dispersed locations are inherently more vulnerable to extinction than widespread species because of the higher risks from genetic bottlenecks, random demographic fluctuations, and localized catastrophes such as hurricanes, landslides, and drought (Lande 1988, p. 1,455; Mangel and Tier 1994, p. 607; Pimm et al. 1988, p. 757).  These problems are further magnified when populations are few and restricted to a limited geographic area, and the number of individuals is very small.  Populations with these characteristics face an increased likelihood of stochastic extinction due to changes in demography, the environment, genetics, or other factors, in a process described as an “extinction vortex” by Gilpin and Soule (1986, pp. 24-25).  Small, isolated populations often exhibit a reduced level of genetic variability or genetic depression due to inbreeding, which diminishes the species' capacity to adapt and respond to environmental changes, thereby lessening the probability of long-term persistence (Soule 1987, pp. 4-7).  Inbreeding depression as the result of isolated, small populations can result in death, decreased fertility, smaller body size, loss of vigor, reduced fitness, and various chromosome abnormalities (Smith 1974, p. 350).
        Although changes in the environment may cause populations to fluctuate naturally, small and low-density populations are more likely to fluctuate below a minimum viable population (the minimum or threshold number of individuals needed in a population to persist in a viable state for a given interval) (Gilpin and Soule 1986, pp. 25-33; Shaffer 1981, p. 131; Shaffer and Samson 1985, pp. 148-150).  The problems associated with small population size and vulnerability to random demographic fluctuations or natural catastrophes are further magnified by synergistic interactions with other threats, such as those discussed above under Factor A.  Despite evolutionary adaptations for rarity, habitat loss and degradation increase a species' vulnerability to extinction (Noss and Cooperrider 1994, pp. 58-62).
        Historically, Calopogon oklahomensis was more widespread.  An important benefit of this greater historical range resulted in an advantage of redundancy:  additional populations separated by some distance likely allowed some populations to be spared the impacts of localized or more discrete catastrophic events, such as drought.  However, this advantage of redundancy has been lost with the great reduction in C. oklahomensis range.  Additionally, the unique biological features of C. oklahomensis described by the petitioner (Petition, pp. 4-5), as illustrated above, which limit reproduction and the ability to recolonize, may make this species particularly vulnerable to the effects of small population sizes and fragmented habitats.  We will further assess this potential impact during the status review for the species.
        Summary of Factor E

        Based on our evaluation, we find that the petition presents substantial information that listing Calopogon oklahomensis as a threatened or endangered species may be warranted due to other natural or manmade factors.  Unique features of the species' biology increase its vulnerability to extirpation because it now exists in small, isolated populations.  Specifically, because the species has only two growing points, which cannot regenerate, and thus only two chances to perpetuate the plant through the winter, this reduced reproductive capacity further exacerbates the effects and threats posed by the small population sizes and fragmented habitats in which the species now exists.
        Finding

        On the basis of our evaluation of the information presented under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we have determined that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing Calopogon oklahomensis may be warranted.  This finding is based on information that indicates the continued existence of this species may be affected by destruction or modification of habitat from expanding urbanization, agricultural or forestry land use, fire suppression, infrequent burning, intensive trampling, deep local soil disturbance, damage from vehicular traffic, intense soil disturbance and shading due to conversion to forestry plantations, severe drainage of optimal habitat, mowing without thatch removal, excessively frequent mowing, and mowing during the growing season before the fruit ripens (Factor A); and other natural or manmade factors such as small population size, and the unique features of the species' biology (only two opportunities for reproduction each year) that make it particularly vulnerable to the effects of small population size (Factor E).  The petitioner does not present substantial information that C. oklahomensis is threatened by overcollection (Factor B), disease or predation (Factor C), or the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) currently or in the future.

        Because we have found that the petition presents substantial information indicating that Calopogon oklahomensis may be at risk of extinction now or in the foreseeable future and therefore listing under the Act may be warranted, we are initiating a status review to determine whether listing C. oklahomensis under the Act is warranted.  At the conclusion of the status review, we will issue a 12-month finding in accordance with section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act, as to whether or not the Service believes a proposal to list C. oklahomensis is warranted.  To ensure that the status review is comprehensive, we request scientific and commercial information regarding C. oklahomensis.
        The “substantial information” standard for a 90-day finding differs from the Act's “best scientific and commercial data” standard that applies to a status review to determine whether a petitioned action is warranted.  A 90-day finding does not constitute a status review under the Act.  In a 12-month finding, we will determine whether a petitioned action is warranted after we have completed a thorough status review of the species, which is conducted following a substantial 90-day finding.  Because the Act's standards for 90-day and 12-month findings are different, as described above, a substantial 90-day finding does not mean that the 12-month finding will result in a warranted finding.
        References Cited

        A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the Chicago, Illinois Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
        Author

        The primary authors of this notice are the staff members of the Chicago, Illinois Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

          Authority:

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

          Dated: July 22, 2010
          Wendi Weber,
          Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

      [FR Doc.  2010-20729 Filed 8-23-10; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-S


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Parts 85, 86, and 600
        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
        49 CFR Parts 523, 531, 533, 536, and 537
        [EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0799; FRL-9505-1; NHTSA-2010-0131]
        RIN 2060-AQ54; RIN 2127-AK79
        Public Hearings for 2017 and Later Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

          ACTION:
          Announcement of public hearings

          SUMMARY:

          EPA and NHTSA are announcing public hearings to be held for the joint proposed rules “2017 and Later Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards,” published in the Federal Register on December 1, 2011. The agencies will also accept comment on NHTSA's Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS), available on NHTSA's Web site at http://www.nhtsa.gov/fuel-economy. Three hearings will be held, on January 17, January 19, and January 24, 2012. The agencies will assume that all oral comments presented at the hearing are addressed to the joint proposed rules only, unless speakers specifically reference NHTSA's Draft EIS in oral or written testimony.

          DATES:

          NHTSA and EPA will jointly hold three public hearings on the following dates: January 17, 2012 in Detroit, Michigan; January 19, 2012 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and January 24, 2012 in San Francisco, California. The hearings will start at 10 a.m. local time and continue until 5 p.m. or until everyone has had a chance to speak. If you would like to present oral testimony at one of these public hearings, please contact the person identified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, at least ten days before the hearing.

          ADDRESSES:
          The January 17, 2012 hearing will be held at the Courtyard Detroit Downtown, 333 East Jefferson Avenue, Detroit, Michigan 48226. The January 19, 2012 hearing will be held at the Crowne Plaza Philadelphia Downtown, 1800 Market Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. The January 24, 2012 hearing will be held at the Hyatt at Fisherman's Wharf, 555 North Point Street, San Francisco, California 94133. The hearings will be held at sites accessible to individuals with disabilities. In addition, the agencies will provide the opportunity for the public to listen to each hearing through the following conference call-in line: 1-(866) 299-3188; conference code 734 214 4423#. Please note that this conference line will allow the public to listen only; persons listening will not be able to give an oral presentation via the conference line.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          If you would like to present oral testimony at a public hearing, please contact JoNell Iffland at EPA by the date specified under DATES, at: Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Assessment and Standards Division (ASD), Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105; telephone number: (734) 214-4454; fax number: (734) 214-4816; email address: iffland.jonell@epa.gov. Please provide the following information: Name, affiliation, address, email address, telephone and fax numbers, time you wish to speak (morning, afternoon) if there is a preference, and whether you require accommodations such as a sign language interpreter or translator.

          Questions concerning the proposed rules should be addressed to NHTSA: Rebecca Yoon, Office of the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-2992. EPA: Chris Lieske, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Assessment and Standards Division (ASD), Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105; telephone number: (734) 214-4584; fax number: (734) 214-4816; email address: lieske.christopher@epa.gov. You may learn more about the proposal by visiting NHTSA's or EPA's web pages at http://www.nhtsa.gov/fuel-economy or http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/regulations.htm or by searching the public dockets (NHTSA-2010-0131 (for the proposed rule) or NHTSA-2011-0056 (for the Draft EIS); EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0799) at http://www.regulations.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The purpose of the public hearings is to provide the public an opportunity to present oral comments regarding NHTSA and EPA's proposals for “2017 and Later Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards.” (December, 1, 2011; 76 FR 74854) These hearings also offer an opportunity for the public to provide oral comments regarding NHTSA's Draft EIS, accompanying the proposed NHTSA fuel economy standards. The agencies will assume that all oral comments presented at the hearing are addressed to the joint proposed rules only, unless speakers specifically reference NHTSA's Draft EIS in oral or written testimony.
        The joint proposed rules issued by EPA and by NHTSA on behalf of the Department of Transportation, would further reduce greenhouse gas emissions from and improve fuel economy for light-duty vehicles for model years 2017-2025. The proposal extends the National Program beyond the greenhouse gas and corporate average fuel economy standards for these vehicles set for model years 2012-2016. On May 21, 2010, President Obama issued a Presidential Memorandum requesting that NHTSA and EPA develop through notice and comment rulemaking a coordinated National Program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions of light-duty vehicles for model years 2017-2025. The proposal, consistent with the President's request, responds to the country's critical needs to address global climate change and to reduce oil consumption. NHTSA is proposing Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended by the Energy Independence and Security Act, and EPA is proposing greenhouse gas emissions standards under the Clean Air Act. These standards would apply to passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles, and, if ultimately adopted, would represent a continued harmonized and consistent National Program. Under the National Program for model years 2017-2025, automobile manufacturers would be able to continue building a single light-duty national fleet that satisfies all requirements under both programs while ensuring that consumers still have a full range of vehicle choices. EPA is also proposing minor changes to the light-duty vehicle regulations applicable to model years 2012-2016, with respect to air conditioner performance, regulatory treatment of emergency vehicles, and measurement of nitrous oxides.

        The proposal for which EPA and NHTSA are holding the public hearings was published in the Federal Register on December 1, 2011 (76 FR 74854) and is also available at the Web pages listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT and also in the rulemaking dockets. NHTSA's Draft Environmental Impact Statement is available on NHTSA's web page and in NHTSA's docket for the EIS, both referenced above. Once NHTSA and EPA learn how many people have registered to speak at each public hearing, we will allocate an appropriate amount of time to each participant, allowing time for necessary breaks. In addition, we will reserve a block of time for anyone else in the audience who wishes to give an oral presentation. For planning purposes, each speaker should anticipate speaking for approximately ten minutes, although we may need to shorten that time if there is a large turnout. We request that you bring three copies of your statement or other material for the EPA and NHTSA panels. To accommodate as many speakers as possible, we prefer that speakers not use technological aids (e.g., audio-visuals, computer slideshows). However, if you wish to do so, you must notify the contact persons in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above. You also must make arrangements to provide your presentation or any other aids to NHTSA and EPA in advance of the hearing in order to facilitate set-up.
        NHTSA and EPA will conduct the hearings informally, and technical rules of evidence will not apply. We will arrange for a written transcript of each hearing and keep the official record of each hearing open for 30 days to allow speakers to submit supplementary information. Panel members may ask clarifying questions during the oral presentations, but will not respond to the presentations at that time. You may make arrangements for copies of the transcripts directly with the court reporter. Written statements and supporting information submitted during the comment period will be considered with the same weight as oral comments and supporting information presented at the public hearings. To be assured of consideration, written comments on the proposal must be received by January 30, 2012 (76 FR 74854). Written comments on NHTSA's Draft EIS must be received or uploaded to NHTSA's docket for the EIS by January 31, 2012.

          Dated: December 5, 2011.
          Ronald Medford,
          Deputy Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
          Dated: December 5, 2011.
          Margo T. Oge,
          Director, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Environmental Protection Agency.

      [FR Doc. 2011-31653 Filed 12-8-11; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 223
        [Docket No. 030725185-3185-01; I.D.071403B]
        RIN 0648-AR34
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; Sea Turtle Conservation Requirements

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) proposes to amend the regulations that require most shrimp trawlers to use Turtle Excluder Devices (TEDs) in the southeastern Atlantic, including the Gulf of Mexico, to reduce the incidental capture of endangered and threatened sea turtles during shrimp trawling.  Specifically, NMFS proposes to allow the use of a specific design of a hooped hard TED (“the Coulon TED”) that is capable of releasing large loggerhead and green turtles as well as leatherback turtles.

          DATES:
          Written comments (see ADDRESSES) will be accepted through August 14, 2003.

          ADDRESSES:
          Written comments on this action should be addressed to the Chief, Endangered Species Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, by regular mail to 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 or by fax to 301-713-0376. Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or the Internet.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Robert Hoffman (ph. 727-570-5312, fax 727-570-5517, e-mail Robert.Hoffman@noaa.gov), or Barbara A. Schroeder (ph. 301-713-1401, fax 301-713-0376, e-mail Barbara.Schroeder@noaa.gov).

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        All sea turtles that occur in U.S. waters are listed as either endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA).  The Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelys kempii), leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea), and hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata) are listed as endangered.  The loggerhead (Caretta caretta) and green (Chelonia mydas) turtles are listed as threatened, except for breeding populations of green turtles in Florida and on the Pacific coast of Mexico, which are listed as endangered.
        Sea turtles are incidentally taken and killed as a result of trawling activities in the Gulf of Mexico and along the Atlantic seaboard.  Under the ESA and its implementing regulations, taking sea turtles is prohibited, with exceptions identified in 50 CFR 223.206.  The incidental taking of turtles during shrimp or summer flounder trawling is exempted from the taking prohibition of section 9 of the ESA if the conservation measures specified in the sea turtle conservation regulations (50 CFR part 223) are followed.  The regulations require most shrimp trawlers and summer flounder trawlers operating in the southeastern United States (Atlantic Area, Gulf Area, and summer flounder sea turtle protection area) to have a NMFS-approved Turtle Excluder Device (“TED”) installed in each net that is rigged for fishing to provide for the escape of sea turtles.  TEDs currently approved by NMFS include single-grid hard TEDs and hooped hard TEDs conforming to a generic description, the flounder TED, and one type of soft TED   the Parker soft TED.  Hooped hard TEDs are currently approved for use only in the inshore waters of the Atlantic.  Effective August 21, 2003, hooped hard TEDs will be approved for use in inshore waters of the Gulf Area as well.
        TEDs incorporate an escape opening, usually covered by a webbing flap, that allows sea turtles to escape from trawl nets.  To be approved by NMFS, a TED design must be shown to be 97 percent effective in excluding sea turtles during testing based upon specific testing protocols (55 FR 41092, October 9, 1990).  Most approved hard TEDs are described in the regulations (50 CFR 223.207 (a)) according to generic criteria based upon certain parameters of TED design, configuration, and installation, including height and width dimensions of the TED opening through which the turtles escape.

        February 21, 2003, Amendment to the Sea Turtle Conservation Regulations
        On February 21, 2003, NMFS issued a final rule (68 FR 8456), amending the sea turtle conservation regulations to protect large loggerhead, green, and leatherback sea turtles.  The final rule became effective April 15, 2003, with the exception of the Gulf Area where it will become effective on August 21, 2003.  It requires that all shrimp trawlers fishing in the offshore waters of the southeastern United States (Atlantic Area and Gulf Area) and the inshore waters of Georgia and South Carolina use either a double cover flap TED, a single-grid hard TED with a 71-inch (180-cm) opening, or a Parker soft TED with a 96-inch (244-cm) opening in each net rigged for fishing.  In inshore waters, except those of Georgia and South Carolina, the rule allows the use of a single-grid hard TED with a 44-inch (112-cm) opening, a Parker soft TED with a 56-inch (142-cm) opening, and a hooped hard TED with a 35-inch (89-cm) by 27-inch (69-cm) escape opening.
        Since publication of the final rule (68 FR 8456, February 21, 2003), NMFS tested a new hooped hard TED design developed in Louisiana (this hooped hard TED is called the Coulon TED) that contains a larger escape opening than the hooped hard TED design used in inshore waters.  Louisiana fishermen prefer the Coulon TED due to its higher shrimp retention, and its efficiency and quickness in releasing both turtles and fish bycatch.  Because of the desire of fishermen to continue to use this style of TED and their assertion that it could indeed be made large enough to release leatherback turtles, the Southeast Fisheries Science Center's Harvesting Systems and Engineering Branch worked with the inventor of the Coulon TED and fishermen who use it to develop and test a large Coulon style TED to evaluate its ability to release large loggerhead, green, and leatherback turtles.
        Large Hooped Hard TED Testing
        NMFS tested the large Coulon style TED using testing protocols designed to evaluate a TED's ability to release large turtles.  The protocols were developed during the testing and approval of the double cover TED (66 FR 24287, May 14, 2001).  NMFS used the average carapace measurements of 15 nesting female leatherback turtles to construct a pipe-framed model of a leatherback turtle.  This model measured 40 inches wide by 21 inches (102 cm by 53 cm) deep.  The test was performed by a diver swimming repeatedly through the trawl with the model and pushing it through the TED opening.  During these tests, the diver was able to push the model through the opening with ease.  When the model was inverted (simulating the dorsal surface of the turtle oriented against the TED frame), the diver was still able to push the model through the opening with ease.
        A large Coulon style TED with a hinged door covering the escape opening to within 12 inches (30 cm) from the back edge of the opening was also tested to determine its ability to release small turtles.  The small turtle protocol calls for the release of 25 turtles, released one at a time, into a trawl towed at 2.5 knots.  Each turtle is given 5 minutes to escape; if the turtle does not escape within 5 minutes, it is retrieved by divers and is considered to have been captured.  The capture rate is then compared to that of a control TED (in this case a top opening double cover flap TED).
        During the week of June 22, 2003, 25 small turtles were exposed to the large Coulon style TED with a hinged door and all 25 turtles escaped quickly and easily.  The Southeast Fisheries Science Center's Harvesting Systems and Engineering Branch believes that this particular configuration of the large Coulon style TED would be the most difficult for small turtles to escape from because of the weight and size of the door.  However, when compared to the control TED, the average escape times did not differ significantly; the average escape time for the control TED was 62 seconds compared to 68 seconds for the Coulon style TED with the hinged door.
        Based upon the tests described above, NMFS determined that the large Coulon style TED meets the regulatory turtle release rate requirement.
        Provisions of the Proposed Rule
        NMFS proposes to allow a specific design of a hooped hard TED for offshore use, along with allowable modifications for hooped hard TEDs.  The offshore hooped hard TED must meet certain minimum construction standards, in addition to the construction standards specified for hard TEDs generally.  The frame for this TED must be made of aluminum rod a minimum of 5/8 inch (1.59 cm) in diameter or aluminum tubing a minimum of 1 inch (2.54 cm) in diameter with a minimum wall thickness of 1/8 inch (0.32 cm).  The escape opening must have a horizontal measurement of no less than 40 inches (102 cm) wide and a forward measurement of no less than 35 inches (89 cm).  The front hoop on an offshore hooped hard TED must have an inside horizontal measurement of at least 40 inches (102 cm) and an inside vertical measurement of at least 30 inches (76 cm).  The minimum clearance between the deflector bars and the forward edge of the escape opening must be at least 231/4 inches (59 cm).  The measurement between support bars must be no less than 40 inches (102 cm).  The clearance between the deflector bars and the forward edge of the escape opening must be no less than 231/4 inches (59 cm)(see Figure 1 for illustrations of the offshore hooped hard TED and its dimensions).
        BILLING CODE 3510-22-S

          EP30JY03.000

        BILLING CODE 3510-22-C

        The proposed rule would allow three modifications for hooped hard TEDs.  The first is the use of a water deflector fin used to increase shrimp retention.  The original Coulon TED design incorporates such a water deflector fin.  This fin can be welded onto the forward edge of the escape opening, projecting aft into the TED with an angle of 5 to 45-degrees from the normal, horizontal plane of the trawl.  The fin must be constructed of a flat aluminum bar, up to 3/8 inch (0.95 cm) thick and up to 4 inches (10.2 cm) deep. The fin may be as wide as the width of the escape opening, minus 1 inch (2.5 cm).
        The second allowable modification will be the use of a webbing flap.  The resultant escape opening for the offshore hooped hard TED with a webbing flap must have a stretched mesh circumference of no less than 142 inches (361 cm).  The end of the flap cannot extend more than 24 inches (61 cm) past the posterior edge of the frame.  This is the same webbing flap allowed for use with single-grid hard TEDs with the 71-inch (180 cm) offshore opening.
        The third allowable modification for hooped hard TEDs will be the use of a hinged door frame to partially cover the escape opening.  The door must be at least as wide as the escape opening, may be up to 24 inches (61 cm) long, may be covered with taut mesh webbing (the size of the mesh cannot be greater than that used for the TED extension webbing), and must be connected to the forward edge of the escape opening by a hinge device that will allow the door to open upwards freely.  The posterior edge of the door frame, in the closed position, must lie at least 12 inches (30 cm) forward of the posterior edge of the escape opening.  A water deflector fin may be welded to the posterior edge of the door frame.  This fin can be welded onto the forward edge of the escape opening, projecting aft into the TED with an angle of 5-45 degrees from the normal, horizontal plane of the trawl.  The fin must be constructed of a flat aluminum bar, up to 3/8 inch (0.95 cm) thick and up to four inches (10.2 cm) deep. The fin may be as wide as the width of the escape opening, minus one inch (2.5 cm).  The deflector fin must be no less than 12 inches (30 cm) forward of the posterior edge of the escape opening, when the door is in the closed position.  Two stopper ropes or a hinge limiter may be used to limit the maximum opening height of the hinged door frame, as long as the minimum clearance between any part of the deflector bars and any part of the door, including a water deflector fin if installed, in its fully open position is at least 231/4 inches (59 cm) for an offshore hooped hard TED or at least 20 inches (51 cm) for an inshore hooped hard TED.  The purpose of the stopper ropes or hinge limiters is to prevent the door frame from opening excessively during net deployment and haulback, possibly resulting in loss of catch or damage to the door.  Any stopper ropes or hinge limiters must not restrict the free operation of the door, up to its maximum opening (i.e. the door must be able to easily swing to the required opening height before the stops or limiters affect its movement.)  The hinged door cannot be used in combination with a webbing flap or with a water deflector fin attached to the forward edge of the escape opening (See Figure 2 for illustration of the optional hinged door frame, shown with water deflector fin).
        BILLING CODE 3510-22-S

          EP30JY03.001

        BILLING CODE 3510-22-C

        Classification
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for this proposed rule that  evaluates the potential impact on the environment that may result from the proposed rule.  The EA found that the implementation of this proposed rule would not have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment and that the preparation of an environmental impact statement was not necessary.  A copy of the EA is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
        The Endangered Species Act provides the statutory basis for this proposed rule.
        The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.  This proposed rule, if adopted, will not have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the provisions of the proposed rule would allow fishermen the option of a hooped hard TED design to comply with the TED requirement.  Hooped hard TEDs are already in use by some fishermen who prefer the Coulon TED due to its efficiency in releasing both turtles and fish bycatch, while retaining shrimp.  As a result, a regulatory flexibility analysis was not prepared.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 223

        Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Marine mammals, Transportation.

          Dated: July 25, 2003.
          Rebecca Lent,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 223 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 223—THREATENED MARINE AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES

        1.  The authority citation for part 223 continues to read as follows:

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

        2.  In § 223.207, paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(7)(i), and (a)(8)(i) are revised and paragraphs (d)(6) and (d)(7) are added  to read as follows:

          § 223.207
          Approved TEDs.
          (a) Hard TEDs.  Hard TEDs are TEDs with rigid deflector grids and are categorized as “hooped hard TEDs” and “single-grid hard TEDs” such as the Matagorda and Georgia TED (Figures 3 & 4 to this part).  Hard TEDs complying with the following generic design criteria are approved TEDs:
          (1) Construction materials—(i) Single-grid and inshore hooped hard TED.  A single-grid hard TED or an inshore hooped hard TED must be constructed of one or a combination of the following materials, with minimum dimensions as follows:
          (A) Solid steel rod with a minimum outside diameter of 1/2 inch (1.27 cm);
          (B) Fiberglass or aluminum rod with a minimum outside diameter of 1/2 inch (1.27 cm); or
          (C) Steel or aluminum tubing with a minimum outside diameter of 1/2 inch (1.27 cm) and a minimum wall thickness of 1/8 inch (0.32 cm) (also known as schedule 40 tubing).
          (ii) Offshore hooped hard TED.  An offshore hooped hard TED must be constructed of aluminum, with minimum dimensions as follows:
          (A) Solid rod with a minimum outside diameter of 5/8 inch (1.59 cm); or
          (B) Tubing with a minimum outside diameter of 1 inch (2.54 cm) and a minimum wall thickness of 1/8 inch (0.32 cm).
          (7) * * *
          (i) Hooped hard TEDs. * * *(A) Escape opening for inshore hooped hard TED.  The inshore hooped hard TED escape opening must have a horizontal measurement of no less than 35 inches (89 cm) wide and a forward measurement of no less than 27 inches (69 cm).  A hinged door frame may be used to partially cover the escape opening as provided in paragraph (d)(7) of this section.  Alternatively, a webbing flap may be used as provided in paragraph (d)(3)(i) of this section.  The resultant opening with a webbing flap must be a minimum width of 35 inches (89 cm) and a minimum height of 20 inches (51 cm), with each measurement taken simultaneously.  This opening may only be used in inshore waters, except it may not be used in the inshore waters of Georgia and South Carolina.
          (B) Escape opening for offshore hooped hard TED.  The offshore hooped hard TED escape opening must have a horizontal measurement of no less than 40 inches (102 cm) wide and a forward measurement of no less than 35 inches (89 cm).  A hinged door frame may be used to partially cover the escape opening as provided in paragraph (d)(7) of this section.  Alternatively, a webbing flap may be used as provided in paragraph (d)(3)(ii) of this section.  The resultant escape opening with a webbing flap must have a stretched mesh circumference of no less than 142 inches (361 cm).
          (8) * * *
          (i) Hooped hard TEDs—(A) Inshore hooped hard TED.  The front hoop on an inshore hooped hard TED must have an inside horizontal measurement of at least 35 inches (89 cm) and an inside vertical measurement of at least 30 inches (76 cm).  The minimum clearance between the deflector bars and the forward edge of the escape opening must be at least 20 inches (51 cm).
          (B) Offshore hooped hard TED.  The front hoop on an offshore hooped hard TED must have an inside horizontal measurement of at least 40 inches (102 cm) and an inside vertical measurement of at least 30 inches (76 cm).  The minimum clearance between the deflector bars and the forward edge of the escape opening must be at least 231/4 inches (59 cm).
          (d) * * *
          (6) Water deflector fin for hooped hard TEDs.  On a hooped hard TED, a water deflector fin may be welded to the forward edge of the escape opening.  The fin must be constructed of a flat aluminum bar, up to 3/8 inch (0.95 cm) thick and up to 4 inches (10.2 cm) deep. The fin may be as wide as the width of the escape opening, minus 1 inch (2.5 cm).  The fin must project aft into the TED with an angle between 5  and 45  from the normal, horizontal plane of the trawl. On an inshore hooped hard TED, the clearance between the deflector bars and the posterior edge of the deflector fin must be at least 20 inches (51 cm).  On an offshore hooped hard TED, the clearance between the deflector bars and the posterior edge of the deflector fin must be at least 231/4 inches (59 cm).
          (7) Hinged door frame for hooped hard TEDs.  A hinged door frame may be attached to the forward edge of the escape opening on a hooped hard TED.  The door frame must be constructed of materials specified at paragraphs (a)(1)(i) or (a)(1)(ii) of this section for inshore and offshore hooped hard TEDs, respectively.  The door frame may be covered with a single panel of mesh webbing that is taut and securely attached with twine to the perimeter of the door frame, with a mesh size not greater than that used for the TED extension webbing.  The door frame must be at least as wide as the TED escape opening.  The door frame may be a maximum of 24 inches (61 cm) long.  The door frame must be connected to the forward edge of the escape opening by a hinge device that will allow the door to open outwards freely.  The posterior edge of the door frame, in the closed position, must lie at least 12 inches (30 cm) forward of the posterior edge of the escape opening.  A water deflector fin may be welded to the posterior edge of the hinged door frame.  The fin must be constructed of a flat aluminum bar, up to 3/8 inch (0.95 cm) thick and up to four inches (10.2 cm) deep. The fin may be as wide as the width of the escape opening, minus one inch (2.5 cm).  The fin must project aft into the TED with an angle between 5°  and 45° from the normal, horizontal plane of the trawl, when the door is in the closed position.  The clearance between the posterior edge of the escape opening and the posterior edge of the door frame or the posterior edge of the water deflector fin, if installed, must be no less than 12 inches (30 cm), when the door is in the closed position.  Two stopper ropes or a hinge limiter may be used to limit the maximum opening height of the hinged door frame, as long as they do not obstruct the escape opening in any way or restrict the free movement of the door to its fully open position.  When the door is in its fully open position, the minimum clearance between any part of the deflector bars and any part of the door, including a water deflector fin if installed, must be at least 20 inches (51 cm) for an inshore hooped hard TED and at least 231/4 inches (59 cm) for an offshore hooped hard TED.  The hinged door frame may not be used in combination with a webbing flap specified at paragraph (d)(3) of this section or with a water deflection fin specified at paragraph (d)(6) of this section.

      [FR Doc. 03-19375 Filed 7-29-03; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 622
        [Docket No. 180212157-8897-01]
        RIN 0648-BH72
        Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Electronic Reporting for Federally Permitted Charter Vessels and Headboats in Gulf of Mexico Fisheries

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; extension of comment period.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS extends the comment period on the proposed rule to implement management measures described in the Gulf For-hire Electronic Reporting Amendment, as prepared and submitted by the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) Fishery Management Council (Gulf Council) and the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (South Atlantic Council). The Gulf For-hire Reporting Amendment includes amendments to the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (Reef Fish FMP) and the FMP for Coastal Migratory Pelagic (CMP) Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Region (CMP FMP). On October 26, 2018, NMFS published a proposed rule to revise reporting requirements for charter vessels and headboats (for-hire vessels) with a Federal charter vessel/headboat permit for Gulf Reef Fish or Gulf CMP species. The purpose of the proposed rule is to increase and improve fisheries information collected from federally permitted for-hire vessels in the Gulf. The information is expected to improve recreational fisheries management of the for-hire component in the Gulf. The comment period on the proposed rule is extended through January 9, 2019. NMFS is extending the comment period to provide additional opportunities for interested parties to comment on the proposed rule.

          DATES:
          The deadline for written comments on the proposed rule published on October 26, 2018 (83 FR 54069), is extended from November 26, 2018, to January 9, 2019.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on the proposed rule, identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2018-0111,” by either of the following methods:
          • Electronic submission: Submit all electronic comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to http://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=NOAA-NMFS-2018-0111, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit all written comments to Rich Malinowski, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.

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

          Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this proposed rule may be submitted to Adam Bailey, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, adam.bailey@noaa.gov, or by email to OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov, or fax to 202-395-5806.

          Electronic copies of the Gulf For-hire Reporting Amendment may be obtained from www.regulations.gov or the Southeast Regional Office website at http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sustainable_fisheries/gulf_fisheries/For-HireElectronicReporting/index.html.
          The Gulf For-hire Reporting Amendment includes an environmental assessment, regulatory impact review, Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis, and fishery impact statement.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Rich Malinowski, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, or email: rich.malinowski@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The CMP fishery in the Gulf is managed jointly under the CMP FMP by the Gulf Council and South Atlantic Council. The Gulf Council manages the reef fish fishery under the Reef Fish FMP. These FMPs are implemented by NMFS through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
        On October 26, 2018, NMFS published a proposed rule in the Federal Register that would implement management measures described in the Gulf For-hire Electronic Reporting Amendment (83 FR 54069). The proposed rule would revise reporting requirements for an owner or operator of a for-hire vessel with a Federal charter vessel/headboat permit for Gulf Reef Fish or Gulf CMP species to submit an electronic fishing report for each fishing trip before offloading fish from the vessel, using NMFS-approved hardware and software. The proposed rule would also require that a for-hire vessel owner or operator use NMFS-approved hardware and software with global positioning system capabilities that, at a minimum, archive vessel position data during a trip. Lastly, prior to departing for any trip, this proposed rule would require the owner or operator of a federally permitted charter vessel or headboat to notify NMFS and declare whether they are departing on a for-hire trip, or on another trip type. The purpose of the proposed rule is to increase and improve fisheries information collected from federally permitted for-hire vessels in the Gulf. The information is expected to improve recreational fisheries management of the for-hire component in the Gulf. The comment period on the proposed rule was previously announced to end on November 26, 2018.
        On October 10, 2018, Hurricane Michael made landfall in the Florida panhandle. As a result of the substantial impacts that this hurricane caused to Gulf residents that may be interested in providing public comment on the proposed rule, NMFS is extending the proposed rule comment period to provide additional opportunities to comment on the proposed rule. Therefore, the comment period for the proposed rule published on October 26, 2018, is extended through January 9, 2019.

          Dated: November 14, 2018.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2018-25205 Filed 11-19-18; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P