        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        [FWS-R9-IA-2008-0092; 96100-1671-0000-B6]
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Northern Snakehead Fish (Channa argus) Under the Endangered Species Act

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Notice of 90-day petition finding.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce our 90-day finding on a petition to list the northern snakehead fish (Channa argus) as endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We find that the petition does not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing this species under the Act may be warranted. We will not initiate a status review in response to this petition and, consequently, will not consider the designation of critical habitat as petitioned.

          DATES:
          The finding announced in this document was made on August 19, 2008. New information concerning this species may be submitted for our consideration at any time.

          ADDRESSES:
          This finding is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Supporting documentation we used in preparing this finding is available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Scientific Authority, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 110, Arlington, VA 22203; telephone, 703-358-1708; fax, 703-358-2276. Please submit any new information, materials, comments, or questions concerning this finding to the above address or via electronic mail (e-mail) at Scientificauthority@fws.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Marie T. Maltese, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Scientific Authority, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 110, Arlington, VA 22203; telephone, 703-358-1708; fax, 703-358-2276; or by e-mail, Scientificauthority@fws.gov. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        Section 4 (b)(3)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that we make a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents substantial scientific or commercial information 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 at the time we make the determination. 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 this finding promptly in the Federal Register. Our standard for substantial scientific or commercial information 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 information was presented, we are required to promptly commence a review of the status of the species.

        We base this finding on information provided by the petitioners that we determined to be reliable after reviewing sources referenced in the petition and information available in our files at the time of the petition review. We evaluated that information in accordance with 50 CFR 424.14(b). Our process of making this 90-day finding under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act and section 424.14(b) of our regulations is limited to a determination of whether the information in the petition meets the “substantial scientific or commercial information” threshold.
        Petition History

        On January 4, 2005, the Service received a petition dated December 30, 2004, from Alan D. Gardner, a member of the Washington County Commission in Utah, on behalf of 14 additional county officials representing 13 western States (petitioners), to list the northern snakehead fish (Channa argus) as an endangered species and to designate the entire Chesapeake Bay watershed as critical habitat. The petition clearly identified itself as a petition and included the requisite identification information as required in 50 CFR 424.14(a).
        Previous Federal Actions
        The Service published a final rule on October 4, 2002 (67 FR 62193) that added all snakehead fishes of the family Channidae, including the northern snakehead fish, to the list of injurious wildlife species under the Lacey Act (18 U.S.C. 42). In taking this action, the Service found that all snakehead fishes are injurious to the wildlife and wildlife resources of the United States. As an injurious species, the interstate transportation and importation of any live animal or viable egg of snakeheads into the United States without an injurious wildlife permit is prohibited.
        Species Information
        The native range of the northern snakehead includes the middle and lower Amur River basin of China; Songhua (Sungari) River, Manchuria; Tunguska River at Khabarovsk, Russia; Ussuri River basin, Russia; Lake Khanka, Korea, except the northeastern region; and rivers of China south and southwest to the upper tributaries of the Chang Jian (Yangtze) River basin in northeast Yunnan Province. The species has been reported in Guangdong Province, China, either as an introduction or perhaps because of misidentification of the species. Snakehead fishes are widely distributed in Chinese reservoirs (Courtenay and Williams 2004, p. 33). Northern snakehead fishes prefer stagnant shallow ponds or swamps with mud substrates and aquatic vegetation. This species also occupies slow-moving muddy streams, canals, reservoirs, lakes, and rivers (Courtenay and Williams 2004, p. 38). The northern snakehead tolerates a wide range of water temperatures, from 0 °C (32 °F) to more than 30 °C (86 °F) (Courtenay and Williams 2004, p. 38).
        The northern snakehead reaches sexual maturity at about 3 years of age in the Amur region of China and the Syr Dar'ya region of Uzbekistan; however, there have been reports that snakehead fishes in Japanese waters have spawned at 2 years of age (Courtenay and Williams 2004, p. 38). Annual spawning rates vary by location and temperature, from two to three times per year in the Syr Dar'ya basin, to as many as five times per year in the Amur basin (Courtenay and Williams 2004, pp. 38-39).

        Several species of snakehead fishes are capable of overland migration by wriggling motions of their elongated, flattened bodies; indeed, observations indicate that Channa species which are ventrally flattened are the most capable of overland migrations (Courtenay and Williams 2004, p. 10). Those species with more rounded bodies, such as C. argus, are less likely to migrate because they have an extremely limited ability to move on land except during floods.
        The northern snakehead does not naturally occur in the Chesapeake Bay or anywhere within the United States; it is considered an invasive, non-native species within United States waters. The species' occurrence within the United States is believed to be the result of accidental or intentional releases of live fish purchased at fish markets for human consumption, or pet fish which were previously available through the aquarium trade, and have since grown too large for their tanks, or are simply no longer wanted.
        The petitioners did not make it clear whether they were petitioning to list the entire species or the specific non-native population of the northern snakehead that currently inhabits several areas within the Chesapeake Bay region. We determined that the petitioners intended to petition the Service to list the Chesapeake Bay population of the northern snakehead fish because information submitted with the petition focuses on the species in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Therefore, we have evaluated the petition, and the supporting documentation that was included with the petition, to determine if substantial scientific or commercial information has been presented to indicate that listing the northern snakehead fish within the Chesapeake Bay watershed may be warranted.

        To support the petition, the petitioners submitted a three-page report, “Northern Snakehead Channa argus” written by John Franklin Heppler, Professor of Biology associated with Dixie State College of Utah, and a double-sided fact sheet, “Do You Know the Difference?”—published by the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries.
        The petition stated that there are extremely low numbers of the species in the Potomac River and the Pohick Bay in Virginia, and that the few snakehead fish that have been located have been destroyed. It further states that because the number of fish is low, the species could easily go extinct in the United States, and therefore, it must be listed immediately before additional take can occur. The petitioners did not provide any supporting documentation to support these statements about snakehead population numbers. Furthermore, according to the petitioners, “if the snakehead fish lived in the West, no expense, or no expanse of land, would be too great to protect a fish of this caliber if it were threatened by extinction.”

        The report that was compiled by Dr. John Franklin Heppler, “Northern Snakehead Channa argus”, is a three-page document that describes the natural history of the species. It did not address specific threats to the species that might warrant the petitioned action. The document begins with a brief description of the species' taxonomy, a physical description of the fish, and a discussion of the snakeheads' unique capability of breathing atmospheric oxygen, which allows it to move across land in some instances. Information regarding the species' trophic level (the level in the food chain defined by the method of obtaining food), habitat preferences, and reproductive requirements were also addressed within the report. The author suggested that the species was introduced into non-native habitats through: (1) Intentional releases by pet owners and, (2) released live fish from live fish markets. The petition states that snakehead fish have been found in seven States: California, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, and are assumed to be breeding in Florida, Maryland, and Virginia, although there was no documentation to support this assumption. The author also noted that several States are conducting investigations of people who are rearing the species or who have released snakehead fish. Confiscations of live fish have occurred, according to Dr. Heppler; but again, documentation was not presented to support this statement. The author speculates that the northern snakehead may be able to transfer pathogens and that Epizootic Ulcerative Syndrome (EUS) has been “fairly well documented” as being a transmittable pathogen to native aquatic species. In spite of these statements, there is no discussion regarding the cause of EUS, or any other pathogens, in snakehead fishes, nor is there any data presented in this report regarding the suggested pathogenicity of EUS in fishes native to the United States.
        Dr. Heppler mentions the Service's listing of all snakehead species as injurious wildlife in the report, and notes that about 20 States had banned possession of live specimens of snakehead fishes by 2004. He further suggests that it will be many years before we know the impact the species will have on our aquatic waterways, but that introduced species are not always unwelcome, citing the introduction of wolves into Yellowstone [National Park]. However, citing the re-introduction of a native species (wolves) to its former native habitat (Yellowstone National Park) is quite different than introducing a non-native predacious fish species to an aquatic waterway outside of its natural range. The report ends with a caution that impacts of the species' introductions should be monitored to see if these “introduced species would actually assimilate in time and become part of a viable aquatic ecosystem.”

        The other supporting documentation submitted with the petition is a two-page fact sheet published by the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries: “Do you know the difference?”—which targets the sport-fishing community. Drawings of the northern snakehead fish, bowfin (Amia calva), and American eel (Anguilla rostrata) are exhibited, and specific morphological features that differentiate between the species, such as the absence or presence of specific fins, and fin length and size comparisons, are indicated. On the reverse side of the page is a map of the Potomac River in Maryland, the District of Columbia, and northern Virginia, indicating northern snakehead fish capture sites in 2004. This documentation is merely informational, and does not present any substantial information, scientific or commercial, that indicates that the petitioned action may be warranted.
        Threats Analysis
        Under section 4(a) of the Act, we may list a species on the basis of five threat factors: (A) 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) Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. Listing actions may be warranted based on any of the above threat factors, either singly or in combination.
        Under the Act, a threatened species is defined as a species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. An endangered species is defined as a species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Therefore, we evaluate the petition to determine if it contains substantial scientific and commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted.
        A. Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
        The petition did not include any information on threats to the northern snakehead by the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range in the Chesapeake Bay region or its native habitat and range. Therefore, the petition and its supporting documentation did not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the northern snakehead as threatened or endangered may be warranted, under this threat factor.
        B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes
        The petition notes that snakehead fish are a favored food throughout Southeast Asia and that certain cultures believe the species may have curative properties. Accordingly, the petition asserts that they have been in great demand in the United States. As of 2004 when this report was written, the author notes that live snakehead fish were still being sold at fish markets and in some restaurants in Boston and New York. Previously, snakehead fish have been popular as a curiosity in the pet trade, and the author claims that in 2004, they could be purchased on eBay. An unconfirmed statement in the report also noted that some Asian religious practices may involve releasing live fish into waterways. Therefore, the petitioners maintain that snakehead fishes are used for commercial and recreational purposes; however, they did not indicate that overutilization for these or any other purposes is a threat to the species.
        C. Disease or Predation
        The author of the report indicates, in an unconfirmed statement, that the northern snakehead may be able to transmit pathogens to native fish species. However, the standard under section 4(a) of the Act is whether disease presents a threat to the petitioned species, not whether the petitioned species presents a disease threat to other species. The author further notes that Epizootic Ulcerative Syndrome (EUS) has been fairly well documented as being a transmittable pathogen to native species. Therefore, while the discussion of disease within the petition infers that the northern snakehead could be a threat to native species through the transmission of disease, it does not specifically present any information indicating that disease is a threat to the northern snakehead.
        Likewise, the northern snakehead appears to have no natural predators in the United States. Predation by the northern snakehead is a threat to native species, but predation is not a threat to the northern snakehead (Heppler 2004, p.1). Once again, the petition indicates that the threat is actually reversed (the snakehead fish is the threat to the native species) and provides no information showing that predation is a threat to the northern snakehead fishes.
        D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

        There are no existing regulatory mechanisms to protect the northern snakehead within the Chesapeake Bay region. We are not aware of any existing regulatory mechanisms within the species' native range. The report submitted with the petition mentioned that all members of the family Channidae were added to the Service's list of injurious fish, mollusks, and crustaceans on October 4, 2002 (67 FR 62193). As an injurious species, the Service has found that this non-native, invasive species is likely to compete with native species and may transmit parasites to native species. Live snakeheads currently in captivity have a high likelihood of escape into the wild in the United States, and once established, are expected to multiply rapidly. The injurious wildlife listing prohibits the interstate transportation and importation of any live snakehead fish or viable eggs into the United States without an injurious wildlife permit. The petition and its supporting documentation did not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the northern snakehead as threatened or endangered may be warranted under this threat factor.
        E. Other Natural or Man-made Factors Affecting the Continued Existence of the Species
        The petitioners did not present any further information describing any other natural or man-made factors that are considered to be threats which would affect the continued existence of the species. Therefore, the petition and its supporting documentation did not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the northern snakehead as threatened or endangered may be warranted under this threat factor.
        Finding
        We have reviewed the petition and the literature cited in the petition. We find that substantial scientific or commercial information has not been presented by the petitioners to indicate that listing the northern snakehead fish as a threatened species or an endangered species under the Act may be warranted. We will not commence a status review in response to this petition and, consequently, will not consider the designation of critical habitat, as petitioned.
        References Cited

          Courtenay, Walter R. Jr. and J. D. Williams. 2002. Snakeheads (Pisces: Channidae): A biological synopsis and risk assessment. USGS Florida Integrated Science Centers, Gainesville, Florida. 162 pp.
          Heppler, John Franklin. 2004. Northern Snakehead Channa argus. Report compiled for a petition to list the northern snakehead under the Endangered Species Act. 3pp.
          Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. 2004. Do you know the difference? Fisheries fact sheet. 2pp.

        Author
        The primary author of this notice is Marie T. Maltese, Division of Scientific Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
        Authority

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

          Dated: July 28, 2008.
          Kenneth Stansell,
          Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

      [FR Doc. E8-19155 Filed 8-18-08; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 622
        RIN 0648-BG29
        Amendments to the Reef Fish, Spiny Lobster, and Corals and Reef Associated Plants and Invertebrates Fishery Management Plans of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of availability; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          The Caribbean Fishery Management Council (Council) has submitted Amendment 8 to the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for the Reef Fish Fishery of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) (Reef Fish FMP), Amendment 7 to the FMP for the Spiny Lobster Fishery of Puerto Rico and the USVI (Spiny Lobster FMP), and Amendment 6 to the FMP for the Corals and Reef Associated Plants and Invertebrates of Puerto Rico and the USVI (Coral FMP) for review, approval, and implementation by NMFS. In combination, these amendments represent the Accountability Measure (AM) Timing Amendment. The AM Timing Amendment would change the date for the implementation of AM-based closures for all species and species groups managed by the Council under the subject FMPs and specify that the Council must periodically revisit this implementation date. The purpose of the AM Timing Amendment is to minimize, to the extent practicable, the adverse socio-economic impacts of AM-based closures, while constraining catch levels to the applicable annual catch limit (ACL) and preventing overfishing.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received on or before March 6, 2017.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on the AM Timing Amendment, identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2016-0013” by either 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-2016-0013, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to María del Mar López, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 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 the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

          Electronic copies of the Timing of AM Timing Amendment, which includes an environmental assessment, a Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis, and a regulatory impact review, may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office Web site at http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sustainable_fisheries/caribbean/index.html.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          María del Mar López, telephone: 727-824-5305, or email: maria.lopez@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires each regional fishery management council to submit any FMP or FMP amendment to NMFS for review and approval, partial approval, or disapproval. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving a plan or amendment, publish an announcement in the Federal Register notifying the public that the plan or amendment is available for review and comment.
        The FMPs being revised by the AM Timing Amendment were prepared by the Council, and implemented by NMFS through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
        Background
        The current AMs in the U.S. Caribbean exclusive economic zone (EEZ) for reef fish, spiny lobster, and corals require NMFS to reduce the length of the Federal fishing season for a species or species group in the year following a determination that the landings exceeded the applicable ACL. As specified in the FMPs, the landings determination is based on the applicable 3-year landings average exceeding the respective ACL. However, if NMFS determines the ACL for a particular species or species group was exceeded because of enhanced data collection and monitoring efforts, instead of an increase in total catch, NMFS will not reduce the length of the fishing season the following fishing year. The fishing season is reduced in the year following an ACL overage determination, by the amount necessary to constrain landings to the ACL. These AM-based reductions in the length of the fishing season, for any species or species group for which the ACL has been exceeded, currently end on December 31st of the closure year and extend backward into the fishing year for the number of days necessary to achieve the required reduction in landings. The fishing year for Council-managed species in Caribbean Federal waters is the calendar year of January 1 through December 31. Fishers in the USVI and Puerto Rico have stated to the Council that implementing AM-based closures at the end of the fishing year results in negative socio-economic impacts, for example, by resulting in multiple and potentially overlapping closures during the important December holiday season.
        Actions Contained in the AM Timing Amendment
        The AM Timing Amendment would modify the implementation date for AM-based closures for species managed under the Reef Fish, Coral, and Spiny Lobster FMPs, and specify that the Council must periodically revisit this implementation date. The Council's goal for the actions considered in this amendment is, to the extent practicable, to minimize the adverse socio-economic impacts of AM-based closures, while still constraining catch levels to the applicable ACLs and preventing overfishing, as required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The FMP for the Queen Conch Resources of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands is not included in the AM Timing Amendment because queen conch are managed with an in-season closure when the ACL is reached or projected to be reached, rather than a post-season reduction in the fishing year.
        Modification of the Date for the Implementation of AM-Based Closures

        The AM Timing Amendment would modify the date for the implementation of an AM-based closure in the year following an ACL overage determination for a species or species group managed by the Council in Federal waters off Puerto Rico, St. Thomas/St. John, and St. Croix, under the Reef Fish, Coral, and Spiny Lobster FMPs. Specifically, instead of the current end date of December 31 for AM-based closures, AM-based closures would be implemented using an end date of September 30 of the closure year, and extend backward toward the beginning of the Federal fishing year (January 1), for the number of days necessary to achieve the required reduction in landings. If the length of the required fishing season reduction exceeds the period of January 1 through September 30, any additional fishing season reduction would be applied from October 1 forward, toward the end of the fishing year (December 31). The proposed AM-based closure end date of September 30 would increase the likelihood that any AM-based closures would occur during a time of the year when the socio-economic impacts to fishers are expected to be less severe. Modifying the date for the implementation of AM-based closures would not change the level of harvest reduction in the event that an AM-based closure is required. The Council determined that an AM-based closure implementation date of September 30 going backward toward the beginning of the year, applicable to all species or species groups across all island management areas, except for queen conch, would minimize, to the extent practicable, negative socio-economic effects from the implementation of AMs while constraining harvest to the applicable ACL and preventing overfishing. This approach to the timing for AM-based closures has been identified by Caribbean fishers as desirable, because it avoids periods of high demand for fish so they do not risk losing markets, and thus is expected to minimize adverse socio-economic effects from the implementation of AMs.
        Specification of a Time Period for Revisiting the Approach Selected To Establish AM-Based Closures
        The AM Timing Amendment would also ensure the Council revisit, and possibly revise, using September 30 as the end date for AM-based closures, no longer than 2 years from the implementation of the AM Timing Amendment and every 2 years thereafter. This is expected to result in positive social and economic management effects from the ability to change the method of applying AM-based closures based on new information.

        A proposed rule that would implement the measures outlined in the AM Timing Amendment has been drafted. In accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS is evaluating the proposed rule to determine whether it is consistent with the FMPs, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law. If that determination is affirmative, NMFS will publish the proposed rule in the Federal Register for public review and comment.
        Consideration of Public Comments
        The Council has submitted the AM Timing Amendment for Secretarial review, approval, and implementation. Comments on the AM Timing Amendment must be received by March 6, 2017. Comments received during the respective comment periods, whether specifically directed to the amendment or the proposed rule, will be considered by NMFS in its decision to approve, disapprove, or partially approve the AM Timing Amendment. All comments received by NMFS on the amendment or the proposed rule during their respective comment periods will be addressed in the final rule.

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

          Dated: December 29, 2016.
          Alan D. Risenhoover,
          Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2016-31927 Filed 1-4-17; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        Federal Railroad Administration
        49 CFR Part 240
        [Docket No. FRA-2008-0091, Notice No. 2]
        RIN 2130-AB95
        Qualification and Certification of Locomotive Engineers; Miscellaneous Revisions

          AGENCY:
          Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; notice of public hearing and reopening of comment period.

          SUMMARY:
          By notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on December 31, 2008 (73 FR 80349), FRA proposed revisions to its regulations governing the qualification and certification of locomotive engineers.  This document announces a public hearing to provide interested parties the opportunity to comment on the NPRM and announces a thirty (30) day reopening of the comment period, which closed March 2, 2009, to commence on the date of the public hearing.  The extension provides interested parties the opportunity to comment on NPRM and to respond to matters that arise at the public hearing related to the NPRM.

          DATES:

            Public Hearing: A public hearing will be held on the date and at the location listed below to provide interested parties the opportunity to comment on the proposed revisions contained in the NPRM.  A thirty (30) day extension of the comment period will commence on the date of the hearing.  The date of the public hearing is as follows: Tuesday, April 14, 2009, at 9:30 a.m. in Washington, DC.

            Reopening of Comment Period: The comment period will reopen Tuesday, April 14, 2009 and written comments must be received by Thursday, May 14, 2009.  Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent possible without incurring additional expenses or delays.

          ADDRESSES:

            Public Hearing: The public hearing will be held at the following location:

            Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Media Center—Room W11-130, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20905.

            Reopening of Comment Period: Comments related to Docket No. FRA-2008-0091, may be submitted by any of the following methods:
          • Fax: 1-202-493-2251;
          • Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590;
          • Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays; or
          • Electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.

            Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name, docket name and docket number or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for this rulemaking.  Note that all comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.  Please see the Privacy Act section of this document.

            Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          John L. Conklin, Program Manager, Locomotive Engineer Certification, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Mail Stop 25, West Building 3rd Floor West, Room W38-208, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC  20590 (telephone:  202-493-6318); or John Seguin, Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Office of Chief Counsel, RCC-10, Mail Stop 10, West Building 3rd Floor, Room W31-217, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone:  202-493-6045).

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        FRA has received written comments submitted by interested parties related to various parts of the NPRM and a written request for a hearing on the NPRM.  Although FRA believes that the topics addressed in the written comments containing the request for a hearing are outside of the scope of the NPRM, FRA is holding a public hearing to permit the exchange of information and concerns regarding FRA's purposed amendments.  The public hearing is meant to allow interested parties to fully develop and articulate the issues and concerns they have with the NPRM so that these concerns can be fully addressed in any final rule that is developed.  Interested parties are invited to present oral statements and proffer evidence at the hearing.  The hearing will be informal and will be conducted by a representative designated by FRA in accordance with FRA's Rules of Practice (49 CFR 211.25).  The hearing will be a non-adversarial proceeding; therefore, there will be no cross examination of persons presenting statements or proffering evidence.  An FRA representative will make an opening statement outlining the scope of the hearing.  After all initial statements have been completed, those persons wishing to make a brief rebuttal will be given the opportunity to do so in the same order in which the initial statements were made.  Additional procedures, as necessary for the conduct of the hearing, will be announced at the hearing.
        On April 14, 2009, the comment period for the NPRM will reopen for thirty (30) days so that the FRA can make the public hearing transcript available for review and comment by the general public, interested parties can provide additional comments and documents related to the NPRM, and interested parties can provide responses to matters that arise at the public hearing.
        Public Participation Procedures

        Any person wishing to participate in the public hearing should notify the Docket Clerk by mail or at the address or fax number provided in the ADDRESSES section at least five (5) working days prior to the date of the hearing.  The notification should identify the party the person represents, and the particular subject(s) the person plans to address.  The notification should also provide the Docket Clerk with the participant's mailing address and other contact information.  FRA reserves the right to limit participation in the hearings of persons who fail to provide such notification.
        Privacy Act

        FRA wishes to inform all potential commenters that anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any agency docket by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).  You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit
          http://www.regulations.gov/search/footer/privacyanduse.jsp.

          Issued in Washington, DC, on March 16, 2009.
          Grady C. Cothen, Jr.,
          Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety Standards and Program Development.

       [FR Doc. E9-6114 Filed 3-20-09; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-06-P