        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 27
        [WT Docket Nos. 06-169, 96-86; DA 06-2116]
        Upper 700 MHz Guard Band Licenses; Development of Operational, Technical and Spectrum Requirements for Meeting Federal, State and Local Public Safety Communications Requirements Through the Year 2010

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; extension of reply comment period.

          SUMMARY:
          In this document, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) of the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) extends the reply comment deadline in response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in WT Docket Nos. 06-169 and 96-86. The deadline to file reply comments is extended from November 6, 2006 to November 13, 2006. This action is taken to provide interested parties sufficient time within which to respond meaningfully to the relevant issues raised in the NPRM.

          DATES:
          The agency must receive reply comments on or before November 13, 2006.

          ADDRESSES:
          Interested parties may submit reply comments, identified by WT Docket Nos. 06-169 and 96-86, by any of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • Federal Communications Commission's Web Site: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • Mail: Appropriate addresses for submitting reply comments may be found in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
          • People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov
            or phone: 202-418-0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.

          For detailed instructions for submitting reply comments, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Paul Moon, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, at 202-418-1793, or via email at Paul.Moon@fcc.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This is a summary of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau's Order (Order), DA 06-2116, in WT Docket Nos. 06-169 and 96-86, released October 25, 2006, which extends the reply comments filing deadline in the 700 MHz Guard Bands proceeding. The full text of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. The full text may also be downloaded at: http://www.fcc.gov. Alternative formats are available to persons with disabilities by sending an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or by calling the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).
        Synopsis of the Order

        1. On September 8, 2006, the Commission released the NPRM in WT Docket Nos. 06-169 and 96-86; FCC 06-133, published at 71 FR 55149, September 21, 2006, seeking public comment regarding, inter alia, proposals on possible changes to the Part 27 service rules applicable to existing and prospective Upper 700 MHz Guard Bands licensees as well as on proposals to modify the existing Upper 700 MHz band plan with respect to the Guard Bands. Deadlines for the filing of comments and reply comments were established as October 23, 2006, and November 6, 2006, respectively.

        2. On October 20, 2006, the State of Maryland, Commonwealth of Virginia, Loudoun County, Virginia, and the Region 20 Regional Planning Committee each filed a request for extension of time to submit comments in response to the NPRM. The parties argue that the NPRM raised complex issues, and assert that any change to the existing 700 MHz Public Safety band plan will affect their plans for public safety communications. The parties state that they require additional time to more thoroughly analyze the complex issues raised, and request extensions of time ranging from “no less than 30 days” to 60 days in which to file comments.
        3. Motions for extension of time will not be granted routinely. In addition, the Commission's rules require that motions for extensions of time shall be filed 7 days before the filing date. In an emergency situation, the Commission may consider a late-filed motion for a brief extension of time related to the duration of the emergency. Pursuant to the Commission's rules, extension requests were due by October 16, 2006, in this matter. The parties, however, did not submit motions for extension of time until October 20, 2006, nor did they provide sufficient information upon which the Commission may grant emergency relief. The Commission therefore concludes that it is unable to extend the comments deadline of October 23, 2006.

        4. However, in order to provide all interested parties with a full and fair opportunity to participate in this proceeding, the Commission finds that it is in the public interest to extend the reply comment deadline by 7 days until November 13, 2006. While the Commission finds that it is appropriate to provide additional time in order to build a more thorough and complete record, it is also cognizant of the concerns raised by the public safety community that the Commission address the issues raised in this proceeding in a prompt and timely manner. Accordingly, by extending the reply comments deadline by 7 days, the Commission strikes a balance between providing commenters with adequate time in which to respond to the NPRM, and ensuring that this proceeding is resolved expeditiously. In this regard, it should be noted that the Commission does not anticipate granting further extensions to the reply comments deadline.
        5. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, and 1.419, interested parties may file reply comments on or before November 13, 2006. Comments may be filed using: (1) The Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal Government's eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121, May 1, 1998.

        • Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Filers should follow the instructions provided on the Web site for submitting comments.

        • For ECFS filers, if multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding, filers must transmit one electronic copy of the comments for each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions, filers should send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and include the following words in the body of the message, “get form.” A sample form and directions will be sent in response.
        • Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number.
        Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although the Commission continues to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
        • The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building.
        • Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
        • U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.

        People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).
        Ordering Clause

        6. Pursuant to sections 4(i) and 4(j) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i) and 154(j), and §§ 0.131, 0.331, and 1.46 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 0.131, 0.331, and 1.46, the deadline for filing reply comments in response to the NPRM, published on September 21, 2006, in WT Docket Nos. 06-169 and 96-86, is extended to November 13, 2006.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Catherine W. Seidel,
          Acting Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau.

      [FR Doc. 06-9102 Filed 11-3-06; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No. 0907021105-91234-02]
        RIN 0648-AY00
        Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fisheries; Amendment 10

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:

          NMFS proposes regulations to implement measures in Amendment 10 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish (MSB) Fishery Management Plan (FMP). Amendment 10 was developed by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) to bring the FMP into compliance with Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) requirements by establishing a rebuilding program that allows the butterfish stock to rebuild and permanently protects the long-term health and stability of the stock; and by minimizing bycatch and the fishing mortality of unavoidable bycatch, to the extent practicable, in the MSB fisheries. Amendment 10 would increase the minimum codend mesh size requirement for the Loligo squid (Loligo) fishery; establish a butterfish rebuilding program with a butterfish mortality cap for the Loligo fishery; establish a 72-hr trip notification requirement for the Loligo fishery; and require an annual assessment of the butterfish rebuilding program by the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC). This proposed rule would also make minor, technical corrections to existing regulations.

          DATES:
          Public comments must be received no later than 5 p.m., eastern standard time, on October 19, 2009.

          ADDRESSES:

          A final supplemental environmental impact statement (FSEIS) was prepared for Amendment 10 that describes the proposed action and other considered alternatives and provides a thorough analysis of the impacts of the proposed measures and alternatives. Copies of Amendment 10, including the FSEIS, the Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), and the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), are available from: Daniel Furlong, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Room 2115, Federal Building, 300 South New Street, Dover, DE 19904-6790. The FSEIS/RIR/IRFA is accessible via the Internet at http://www.nero.nmfs.gov.

        You may submit comments on this proposed rule, identified by RIN 0648-AY00, by any one of the following methods:

        • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking portal http://www.regulations.gov;
        • Fax: (978) 281-9135, Attn: Carrie Nordeen;
        • Mail to Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope “Comments on MSB Amendment 10.”

        Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to http://www.regulations.gov without change. All Personal Identifying Information (e.g., name, address) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business information or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter N/A in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF formats only.

        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 NMFS, Northeast Regional Office and to David Rostker by e-mail David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov or fax (202) 395-7285.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Carrie Nordeen, Fishery Policy Analyst, 978-281-9272, fax 978-281-9135.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        This amendment is needed to bring the MSB FMP into compliance with Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements by: (1) Implementing a rebuilding program that allows the butterfish stock to rebuild, and permanently protects the long-term health and stability of the stock; and (2) minimizing bycatch, and the fishing mortality of unavoidable bycatch, to the extent practicable, in the MSB fisheries.
        In February 2005, NMFS notified the Council that the butterfish stock was overfished, which triggered Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements to implement rebuilding measures for the stock. In response, an amendment to the MSB FMP was initiated by the Council in October 2005. Management measures for rebuilding butterfish are designed to reduce the fishing mortality on butterfish that occurs through discarding of butterfish caught in other directed fisheries, which is the primary source of butterfish fishing mortality. Measures that reduce the discarding of butterfish are expected to also reduce the bycatch of other finfish species in MSB fisheries.

        Initially, Amendment 9 to the MSB FMP was intended to bring the MSB FMP into compliance with Magnuson-Stevens Act bycatch requirements, and contained several management alternatives to address deficiencies in the FMP that related to discarding, especially as they affected butterfish. Amendment 9 considered management measures to reduce finfish discards by MSB fisheries by implementing mesh size increases in the directed Loligo fishery, removing mesh size exemptions for the directed Illex squid (Illex) fishery, and establishing seasonal gear restricted areas (GRAs). However, those specific management alternatives were developed in 2004, prior to the butterfish stock being declared overfished. On June 13, 2007, the Council recommended that all management measures developed as part of Amendment 9 to correct deficiencies in the FMP related to bycatch of finfish, especially butterfish, be considered in Amendment 10. Accordingly, no action was taken in Amendment 9 to address bycatch, and these alternatives were evaluated in Amendment 10.
        The Council held three public meetings on Amendment 10 during June 2008. Following the public comment period that ended on June 23, 2008, the Council adopted Amendment 10 on October 16, 2008.
        This action proposes management measures that were recommended by the Council as part of Amendment 10. If implemented, these management measures would:

        • Establish a minimum mesh size increase to 2-1/8 inches (54 mm) (from 1-7/8 inches (48 mm)) for the Loligo fishery during Trimesters I (Jan - Apr) and III (Sep - Dec), starting in 2010;
        • Establish a butterfish mortality cap program for the Loligo fishery, starting in 2011;
        • Establish a 72-hr trip notification requirement for the Loligo fishery, to facilitate the placement of NMFS observers on Loligo trips, starting in 2011; and
        • Require an annual assessment of the butterfish mortality cap program by the Council's SSC and, if necessary, implementation of additional butterfish rebuilding measures through the annual specifications process.
        A Notice of Availability (NOA) for Amendment 10 was published on July 14, 2009. The comment period on Amendment 10 ends on September 14, 2009.
        Proposed Measures
        Minimum Codend Mesh Size Increase for the Loligo Fishery

        The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that conservation and management measures, to the extent practicable, minimize bycatch, and to the extent that bycatch cannot be avoided, minimize the mortality of such bycatch. Of the three active MSB fisheries (i.e., Loligo, Illex, and Atlantic mackerel), the discarding of non-target species, especially butterfish, is highest in the Loligo fishery. During 2001-2006, the Loligo fishery was responsible for the following percentages of observed discards: 68 percent of butterfish, 8 percent of scup, 56 percent of silver hake, 31 percent of red hake, 10 percent of spiny dogfish, 8 percent of striped bass, and 7 percent of summer flounder. To bring the MSB FMP into compliance with Magnuson-Stevens Act bycatch requirements, Amendment 10 considered minimum codend mesh size increases for the Loligo fishery from 1-7/8 inches (48 mm) to a range from 2-1/8 inches (54 mm) to 3 inches (76 mm).
        Amendment 10 indicates that increases to Loligo codend mesh size would increase escapement of most non-target species in proportion to the size of the mesh increase. Increases in escapement of non-target species ultimately reduces discarding of non-target species. The largest reduction in bycatch would come from increasing the minimum mesh size to 3 inches (76 mm); less bycatch reduction would result from smaller mesh size increases (either 2-1/8 inches (54 mm) or 2-1/2 inches (64 mm)), or an increase that is only in effect for part of the year. Increased harvest effort to compensate for increased escapement of Loligo through the larger mesh is a potential effect of increasing mesh size, and has the potential to increase with mesh size.
        Certain characteristics of the trawl gear used in the Loligo fishery result in an effective mesh size that is actually smaller than the specified codend mesh size. The codend's diamond-shaped mesh becomes constricted when towed under load stress and reduces the effective mesh size of the gear. Additionally, the cover (minium mesh size of 4-1/2 inches (11.43 cm)) used to strengthen the codend in this volume fishery creates a masking effect and may further reduce the effective mesh size. While the Loligo codend mesh size increase was originally proposed for general bycatch reduction in the MSB fisheries, a minimum codend mesh size increase could also aid in rebuilding the butterfish stock.
        There are no published gear studies of Loligo selectivity; therefore, quantifying the Loligo retention effects associated with the different mesh sizes is difficult. Studies of other squid species suggest that squid, like fish, are size-selected by gear. However, Loligo growth studies suggest that Loligo retention has the potential to increase during the year, due to the rapid growth rate of squid. If Loligo escapement occurs, survival rates are unknown. As long as significant escapement mortality does not occur, increasing codend mesh size in the Loligo fishery is not anticipated to increase the harvest mortality on the Loligo stock, because harvesting would continue to be controlled by trimester quotas. Amendment 10 proposes a minimum codend mesh size increase for the Loligo fishery from 1-7/8 inches (48 mm) to 2-1/8 inches (54 mm). Of the mesh sizes considered in the amendment, a minimum mesh size increase to 2-1/8 inches (54 mm) is anticipated to result in the least additional escapement of bycatch and Loligo. However, larger mesh size increases were deemed impracticable by the Council.
        When evaluating the effect of a Loligo minimum codend mesh size increase on butterfish rebuilding, the amendment concludes that only a codend mesh size increase to 3 inches (76 mm) would provide for escapement of juvenile butterfish and a portion of the spawning stock. Codend mesh size increases to less than 3 inches (76 mm) would facilitate escapement of some juvenile butterfish, but not many of the spawning stock. Therefore, as a stand-alone measure, a minimum codend mesh size increase to 2-1/8 inches (54 mm) for the Loligo fishery would be less likely to both enable butterfish rebuilding and ensure the long-term sustainability of the butterfish resource, as compared to a minimum mesh size increase to 3 inches (76 mm).

        Originally, the amendment considered a year-round minimum codend mesh size increase for the Loligo fishery. During public comment on the amendment, industry members expressed concern that economic effects associated with additional harvest effort due to a minimum codend mesh size increase during Trimester II (May-August) could be high because of Loligo's reduced body size during that period, following summer spawning. Additionally, industry members commented that discarding was generally low during Trimester II. Analyses in the amendment support the industry's beliefs that discarding of butterfish and other finfish is low during Trimester II. For these reasons, Amendment 10 proposes that the minimum mesh size increase for the Loligo fishery only be in effect for Trimesters I and III. The Loligo quota allocated to Trimester II is only 17 percent of the annual quota, so even if the mesh size increase would not be in effect for Trimester II, it would still be in effect during the harvesting of over 80 percent of the quota.
        Given the lack of gear selectivity information on Loligo, Amendment 10 proposes that the best way to comply with the Magnuson-Stevens Act requirement to minimize bycatch in MSB fisheries, to the extent practicable, is to proceed with a modest codend mesh size increase and then re-evaluate the effects of the minimum codend mesh size increase after the measure has been effective for 2 years. The evaluation would examine Northeast Fisheries Observer Program (NEFOP) catch rate data, before and after the mesh size increase, for both Loligo and non-target species, as well as any other new scientific information (e.g., gear selectivity information). The results of the evaluation would be used to maintain or revise minimum codend mesh size requirements for the Loligo fishery through the MSB specifications process.
        Butterfish Rebuilding Program
        Status of the Butterfish Stock

        In 2004, the 38th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (SAW-38) provided estimates of butterfish fishing mortality and stock biomass estimates through 2002, and determined that butterfish was overfished. Although the butterfish assessment stock size estimate was highly imprecise (80 percent confidence interval ranged from 2,600 mt to 10,900 mt), the overfished determination was based on the fact that the 2002 biomass estimate for butterfish (7,800 mt) was below the threshold level defining the stock as overfished (1/2 BMSY =11,400 mt). The next butterfish stock assessment is scheduled for November 2009.

        SAW-38 advised that rebuilding of the butterfish stock will be dependent upon increases in recruitment, which recently has been low to intermediate. Rebuilding is further complicated because the natural mortality rate of butterfish is high, butterfish have a short lifespan, and fishing mortality is primarily attributed to discards (discards have been estimated to equal twice the annual landings). Analyses have shown that the primary source of butterfish discards is the Loligo fishery because of the use of small-mesh, diamond codends (1-7/8-inches (48-mm) minimum codend mesh size) and the year-round, co-occurrence of butterfish and Loligo. Likely due to the lack of a market for butterfish and sporadic butterfish availability, there has not been a significant butterfish fishery since 2002 (recent annual landings have been 437-544 mt), resulting in the discard of both butterfish juveniles and spawning stock. In order to rebuild the butterfish stock, a reduction of the amount of butterfish discards and an increase in butterfish recruitment are both necessary.
        Butterfish Rebuilding Projections
        The Amendment 10 Fishery Management Action Team (FMAT) attempted to update the model used in the SAW-38 stock assessment to estimate recruitment and stock rebuilding for butterfish. However, because of limited data on the age composition of butterfish catch from 2002 to present, due to the absence of a directed fishery, it was not possible to update the model. Therefore, in consultation with the Council's SSC, the FMAT used an auto-regressive (AR) time-series model to forecast recruitment biomass for stock recovery. The AR model was used to forecast recruit biomass during 2007-2016; these forecasted recruitment data were used in a projection to determine if and when the butterfish stock would rebuild. To simulate a bycatch-only fishery (i.e., minimal directed fishing, discards as the primary source of fishing mortality), a fishing mortality rate (F) of 0.1 was found appropriate to project the biomass of butterfish during 2005-2016. Using an F of 0.1, and an estimate of long-term average recruitment, results from the AR model indicated that the butterfish stock could rebuild to above BMSY (22,800 mt) in 2007, and remain above the target level of BMSY during 2007-2016. While these projections suggest that the butterfish stock can rebuild quickly, they do not represent stock status and, like the SAW-38 butterfish stock biomass estimate, the projection estimates are likely highly imprecise.
        Determination of Butterfish Quotas
        The rebuilding program proposed in Amendment 10 specifies that, during the rebuilding period, quotas would be set through the specifications process and would conform to the following control rule: Allowable Biological Catch (ABC) would equal the yield associated with applying an F of 0.1 to the most current estimate of stock biomass. Butterfish stock status determinations and reference points status would be determined periodically through the SAW process. During years without updated SAW assessments, butterfish stock biomass would be annually estimated during the specifications process by updating the stock assessment model with current year data, including Northeast Fisheries Science Center survey data, NEFOP data, and landings data. The process for annually estimating the butterfish stock biomass would be documented in a technical summary report. Once the stock is determined to be rebuilt, ABC would be specified according to the fishing mortality control rule currently specified in the FMP (i.e., the yield associated with 75 percent FMSY). Initial Optimum Yield (IOY), Domestic Annual Harvesting (DAH) and Domestic Annual Processing (DAP) would continue to be specified as they are currently, with DAH equaling the amount available for landings after the deduction of estimated discards from ABC. This process may be modified to more explicitly account for scientific and management uncertainty in the Council's Omnibus Annual Catch Limit and Accountability Measure Amendment, expected to be implemented in 2011.
        Butterfish Mortality Cap

        As described previously, there has been no significant butterfish fishery since 2002. In the absence of a directed fishery, butterfish fishing mortality is primarily the result of discarding in other fisheries. The year-round co-occurrence of Loligo and butterfish results in over half of all observed butterfish discards occurring in the Loligo fishery. For this reason, Amendment 10 proposes that a mortality cap be set to control the amount of butterfish fishing mortality in the Loligo fishery. Because the butterfish mortality cap would account for all butterfish caught by the Loligo fishery (discards as well as landings), the mortality cap is specified to equal 75 percent of the butterfish ABC. The remaining 25 percent of the butterfish ABC would be allocated for butterfish catch in other fisheries, including trips landing less than 2,500 lb (1.13 mt) of Loligo.
        Harvesting in the Loligo squid fishery is currently regulated under a commercial quota, which is allocated by trimester (Jan-Apr; May-Aug; Sept-Dec). During each trimester, if Loligo landings are projected to reach a specified level, the directed Loligo fishery is closed, and vessels with Loligo permits are prohibited from landing more than 2,500 lb (1.13 mt) of Loligo. The butterfish mortality cap proposed in Amendment 10 would also require the closure of the directed Loligo fishery if the butterfish mortality cap is attained.

        Amendment 10 indicates that the butterfish mortality cap would limit the fishing mortality on butterfish spawning stock and juveniles, thereby improving the likelihood of increasing recruitment and rebuilding and maintaining the butterfish stock. The amendment also concludes that the butterfish mortality cap for the Loligo fishery is the most effective measure to rebuild the butterfish stock, as it is currently the only way to directly control butterfish fishing mortality and allow for the reduction in butterfish bycatch that will promote rebuilding of the stock.

        In addition to being an effective rebuilding measure for the butterfish stock, the butterfish mortality cap would provide the Loligo industry with incentives to reduce interactions with butterfish. During the development of Amendment 10, industry advisors indicated that they are able to prosecute the Loligo fishery with minimal associated bycatch of butterfish. Should modified fishing practices reduce interactions between the Loligo fishery and butterfish, then Loligo harvest may only be minimally affected by the butterfish mortality cap.
        Since the Loligo quota is allocated by trimester, Amendment 10 proposes that the butterfish mortality cap for the Loligo fishery also be allocated by trimester. Observer data would be used to allocate the butterfish mortality cap to the trimesters based on butterfish bycatch rates in the Loligo fishery. Therefore, the butterfish mortality cap would be allocated to the Loligo fishery as follows: Trimester I - 65 percent; Trimester II - 3.3 percent; Trimester III - 31.7 percent.

        Originally, Amendment 10 proposed that butterfish mortality caps would be monitored during all three Loligo trimesters, with closures of the Loligo fishery if the mortality cap was projected to be attained. However, based on input during public hearings, the Council modified this provision in Amendment 10. Amendment 10 would close the directed Loligo fishery during Trimesters I and III, if the butterfish mortality cap was harvested, but would not close during Trimester II. Because the butterfish mortality cap allocated to Trimester II is relatively small (3.3 percent of the total butterfish mortality cap) and butterfish bycatch during Trimester II has historically been low, closure predictions would be based on limited data and would be variable. To minimize uncertainty associated with closing the directed Loligo fishery during Trimester II, Amendment 10 proposes that the butterfish mortality cap be tracked during Trimester II, but that butterfish catch and the mortality cap for Trimester II be applied to Trimester III. Therefore, operationally, the butterfish mortality caps from Trimesters II and III would be combined, such that 35 percent of the total butterfish morality cap would be tracked during Trimester III. Additionally, any overages/underages from the butterfish mortality cap during Trimester I would be applied to Trimester III. As a precaution against exceeding the butterfish quota, Amendment 10 also proposes that closure thresholds be established for the butterfish mortality cap by trimester. Therefore, closures of the directed Loligo fishery would occur if 80 percent of the butterfish mortality cap for Trimester I was projected to be harvested, and/or if 90 percent of the cap for Trimester III was projected to be harvested. If Trimester II bycatch levels are high, reducing the butterfish mortality cap for Trimester III, the Council could recommend the in-season closure mechanism for Trimester II in future specifications. Exempting the Loligo fishery from a closure in response to butterfish bycatch during Trimester II is not expected to undermine the butterfish rebuilding program's ability to control the fishing mortality of butterfish, because all bycatch is tracked and applied to the butterfish mortality cap for Trimester III. As such, there should be no negative biological impacts related to the modification of this measure.

        The butterfish mortality cap will be monitored by NMFS's Fishery Statistics Office (FSO). Butterfish catch data from observed trips with 2,500 lb (1.13 mt) or more of Loligo onboard will be applied to Loligo landings (2,500 lb (1,134 kg) or more) in the dealer database to calculate total butterfish catch in the Loligo fishery. When butterfish catch in the Loligo fishery is projected to reach the specified trimester closure thresholds, the directed Loligo fishery would close. The exact projection methodology will be developed by FSO, reviewed annually during the MSB specifications process, and be revised as appropriate.

        While an industry-funded observer program was considered by the Council, analyses in Amendment 10 demonstrate that status quo levels of observer coverage would be sufficient for the purpose of administering the butterfish mortality cap. To facilitate the placement of observers on Loligo trips, Amendment 10 proposes a trip notification requirement. In order for a vessel to possess 2,500 lb (1.13 mt) or more of Loligo, a vessel representative would be required to phone NMFS to request an observer at least 72 hrs prior to embarking on a fishing trip. If the vessel representative does not make this required trip notification to NMFS, the vessel would be prohibited from possessing or landing more than 2,500 lb (1,134 kg) of Loligo. If a vessel is selected by NMFS to carry an observer, the vessel would be required to carry an observer (provided an observer is available) or the vessel would be prohibited from possessing or landing more than 2,500 lb (1,134 kg) of Loligo. If a trip is cancelled, a vessel representative would be required to notify NMFS of the cancelled trip (even if the vessel was not selected to carry an observer). If a vessel representative cancels a trip after its vessel was selected to carry an observer, that vessel would be assigned an observer on its next trip.

        The SSC would annually review the performance of the butterfish mortality cap program during the specification process. The items considered by the SSC would include, but are not limited to the: Coefficient of variation (CV) of the butterfish bycatch estimate; estimate of butterfish mortality; and status and trend of the butterfish stock. If the CV of the butterfish mortality estimate or another butterfish mortality cap performance parameter is found to be unacceptable by the SSC, NEFOP will be consulted to evaluate if observer coverage could be increased to acceptable levels. If increasing NEFOP coverage is not possible, the Council would next consider implementation of an industry funded observer program in a subsequent action. If increased observer coverage proves impractical or ineffective, the SSC could recommend one or more of following for the upcoming fishing year:
        (1) Modification to the Loligo quota;
        (2) Modification to the butterfish quota;
        (3) Increases to minimum codend mesh size for the Loligo fishery;
        (4) Establishing GRAs; or
        (5) Establishing any measure that could be implemented via the MSB specification process.
        If the Council does not adopt the SSC recommendations, then NMFS would implement measures through the MSB annual specifications process to assure the rebuilding of the butterfish stock, consistent with existing MSB regulations at § 648.2(d)(2).

        As previously described, in conjunction with the butterfish mortality cap, 25 percent of the butterfish ABC would be allocated for direct harvest and discard mortality in other fisheries. Butterfish landings and observed discards in other fisheries would be monitored by FSO, but would not result in fisheries closures. These data would be reviewed as part of the annual assessment of the performance of the butterfish mortality cap program during the specification process. If butterfish landings and observed discards in other fisheries are found to exceed the 25 percent of the butterfish ABC, then the allocation of the butterfish quota between the Loligo fishery and other fisheries would be revised, or other measures (e.g., reduced trip limits) would be implemented to constrain the other fisheries to 25 percent of the butterfish ABC.

        The process for closing the directed butterfish fishing would be status quo (fishery closure at 80 percent of IOY). All butterfish landings would count against the butterfish quota to determine when the directed butterfish fishery is closed. Projected landings would be based on dealer data and would be monitored weekly. If the directed butterfish fishery is closed, vessels with Loligo/butterfish moratorium permits would be subject to the closure-related incidental trip limits set in the specifications.
        Butterfish Rebuilding Program Timeline

        Amendment 10 proposes a 5-year butterfish rebuilding program; the rebuilding program would extend from 2010 to 2014. Section 304(e) of the Magnuson-Steven Act specifies that rebuilding periods for overfished species be as short as possible, taking into account the biology of the stock and the needs of fishing communities. Butterfish rebuilding periods of 7 and 10 years were considered by the Council, but rejected because the biology of the stock allows for rapid rebuilding. Rebuilding periods of less than 5 years were rejected by the Council due to the potential for negative economic effects associated with a compressed rebuilding schedule. A 5-year rebuilding program is proposed to balance Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements while considering the biology of the stock and the needs of fishing communities. Even though the proposed butterfish rebuilding plan is a 5-year plan, the primary measures of the rebuilding plan, such as the butterfish mortality cap and minimum codend mesh size increase for the Loligo fishery, would need to be permanent to ensure long-term sustainability of the butterfish stock.

        During Year 1 (2010) of the rebuilding program, the 2009 quotas would be maintained (ABC specification for butterfish at 1,500 mt; landings limited to 500 mt). Butterfish landings would be monitored and the butterfish fishery would be closed when landings are projected to reach 80 percent of the butterfish quota. Additionally, as described previously, the minimum codend mesh size requirement for the Loligo fishery would be increased from 1-7/8 inches (48 mm) to 2-1/8 inches (54 mm) during Trimesters I and III. The goal of the rebuilding plan during Year 1 would be to further butterfish rebuilding by keeping landings levels low, thereby discouraging a directed fishery, and by increasing some escapement of juvenile butterfish with a minimum codend mesh size increase up to 2-1/8 inches (54 mm). During Year 2 (2011) of the rebuilding program, in addition to management measures effective during Year 1 of the rebuilding plan, the butterfish mortality cap for the Loligo fishery would be implemented. The butterfish mortality cap for the Loligo fishery would directly control the butterfish landings and discards (of all ages) in the Loligo fishery, the primary source of butterfish fishing mortality, and facilitate rebuilding of the stock and protection of the rebuilt stock.
        The rebuilding program in Amendment 10 is expected to rebuild the butterfish stock within the 5-year rebuilding period. This conclusion is supported by the SSC-reviewed AR model, which suggests that the butterfish stock is able to rebuild within 1 year, provided long-term average recruitment occurs and F is kept at 0.1. Assuming future butterfish recruitment is similar to butterfish recruitment seen during 1968-2002, implementing the butterfish mortality cap in 2011 achieves an 88-percent probability of at least one large recruitment event occurring during years 2-5 of the butterfish rebuilding period. If the butterfish mortality cap is implemented in 2010, then the probability of at least one large recruitment event occurring during years 1-5 of the rebuilding period rises to 94 percent. In other words, implementing the butterfish mortality cap in 2011, rather than 2010, increases the risk of failing to take advantage of a good recruitment event (from 6 percent to 12 percent).

        The Council recommended the 5-year rebuilding timeline, in part, due to concerns that the SAW-38 stock estimate for 2002 would have to be used to set the butterfish mortality cap for 2010. Best available science suggests that the butterfish stock size has been highly variable during 1968-2002. Using the SAW-38 assessment data, the butterfish mortality cap for the Loligo fishery would be fairly low (approximately 580 mt for Trimester I, and 320 mt for Trimester III) and could result in closures of the Loligo fishery. If the butterfish mortality cap is set too low, given the current butterfish stock conditions, the measure could have unnecessarily severe economic effects on the Loligo fishery. Because a butterfish stock assessment is scheduled for November 2009, Amendment 10 proposes using the updated stock information when specifying a butterfish mortality cap for the Loligo fishery. A 2011 implementation of the butterfish mortality cap would allow the updated butterfish stock estimate to be used when setting the butterfish mortality cap, but the updated stock estimate would not yet be available when setting a butterfish mortality cap for 2010.

        In addition, the rebuilding program specifies that the minimum codend mesh size increase for the Loligo fishery would be implemented prior to the butterfish mortality cap. Amendment 10 proposes using a weighted average of the current and the previous year's data for to track the butterfish mortality cap for the Loligo fishery. If the butterfish mortality cap were to be implemented in 2010, then 2009 data (i.e., data prior to the implementation of the mesh size increase) would be used to calculate the butterfish mortality cap. Because the mesh size increase is expected to increase the escapement of juvenile butterfish, the Council thought it inappropriate to use data from 2009, when much of the industry used a smaller minimum codend mesh size, to calculate/track the butterfish mortality cap harvested by a fishery required to use gear with a larger mesh size. By implementing the butterfish mortality cap in 2011, the data used to monitor the butterfish mortality cap would better reflect the new 2-1/8-inch (54-mm) codend mesh size requirement.
        Corrections

        This proposed rule also contains minor corrections to existing regulations. These corrections would not revise the intent of any regulations; they would only clarify the intent of existing regulations by correcting technical errors. In § 648.48.13(a), transfer-at-sea requirements for squid and butterfish would be revised to omit references to a mackerel permit. In § 648.14(g)(2)(ii)(C), the reference to possession allowances would be corrected. In § 648.21(f)(1), the description of Loligo trimesters would be corrected. Lastly, in § 648.25(a), possession restrictions for mackerel would be revised to omit references to the butterfish fishery.
        Public comments are being solicited on Amendment 10 and its incorporated documents through the end of the comment period, September 14, 2009, stated in the NOA for Amendment 10 (74 FR 33986). All comments received by September 14, 2009, whether specifically directed to Amendment 10 or this proposed rule, will be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on Amendment 10. Public comments must be received by September 14, 2009, to be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the amendment. Comments received after 5 pm, eastern standard time, will not be considered in the decision to approve or disapprove Amendment 10. Public comments on this proposed rule must be received no later than 5 p.m., eastern standard time, on October 19, 2009.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304 (b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

        The Council prepared an FSEIS for Amendment 10; a notice of availability was published on July 2, 2009 (74 FR 31733). The FSEIS describes the impacts of the proposed Amendment 10 measures on the environment. The proposed measure to increase minimum codend mesh size from 1-7/8 inches (48 mm) to 2-1/8 inches (54 mm) for the Loligo fishery during Trimesters I (Jan-Apr) and III (Sep-Dec) would minimize bycatch and discards of non-target species to the extent practicable, including butterfish, an overfished species. Loss of revenue due to increased Loligo escapement associated with the mesh size increase would depend on the actual amount of Loligo escapement, but revenue loss would be mitigated because the mesh size increase would not be effective during Trimester II. The proposed measure to establish a butterfish mortality cap for the Loligo fishery would aid in the rebuilding of the butterfish stocks by directly controlling butterfish fishing mortality. If the butterfish mortality cap is attained and the Loligo fishery closes, bycatch of butterfish and other non-target species would be reduced. Loss of revenue is possible if the Loligo quota could not be harvested because the fishery was closed in response to butterfish bycatch. As the butterfish stock rebuilds and the butterfish mortality cap increases as the stock size increases, the likelihood of lost Loligo revenue associated with the butterfish mortality cap is expected to decrease. The requirement that vessels notify NMFS 72 hrs prior to embarking on a Loligo fishing trip is an administrative measure, but it is anticipated to have biological benefits by enhancing observer coverage of the Loligo fishery. The annual review of the butterfish mortality cap program is expected to have both biological and economic benefits by allowing new information (e.g., changes in stock estimates or bycatch rates) to be quickly incorporated into the management process for butterfish.

        An IRFA was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble. A summary of the analysis follows. A copy of this analysis is available from the Council or NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
        Description and Estimate of Number of Small Entities to Which the Rule Would Apply

        The majority of participants in this fishery are small entities, as only 2 grossed more than $4 million annually; therefore, there are no disproportionate economic impacts on small entities. The proposed measures in Amendment 10 would primarily affect vessels that participate in the Loligo fishery. In 2009, there were 426 vessels issued Loligo/butterfish moratorium permits. Section 10.10.14 in Amendment 10 describes the vessels, key ports, and revenue information for the Loligo fishery; therefore, that information is not repeated here.
        Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements

        This action proposes a trip notification requirement for the Loligo fishery. The rationale for and description of the measure is included in the preamble of this rule; therefore, that information is not repeated here. The phone call to NMFS to declare a Loligo fishing trip is expected to be less than 2 min in duration. If a vessel representative cancels a declared fishing trip, then a trip cancellation call to NMFS would also be required. The 426 vessels issued Loligo permits in 2009 averaged 12 Loligo trips per year; therefore, each of these permit holders could average about 12 calls per year. Assuming each trip could be cancelled, permit holders could also place an average of 12 additional calls per year. The estimated duration of the cancellation call is expected to be less than 1 min. The cost of these calls would vary, based on where the calls originated, but cost is expected to be minimal. This trip notification requirement does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules.
        Economic Impacts of the Proposed Action Compared to Significant Non-Selected Alternatives
        Some of the proposed measures (e.g., trip notification, minimum mesh size increase, annual assessment of butterfish mortality cap program) in Amendment 10 are expected to have economic impacts. A detailed economic analysis of the proposed measures, as well as the non-selected alternatives, is in Section 7.5.1 of Amendment 10.

        Two of the proposed measures in Amendment 10 are not anticipated to have more than minimal economic effects on MSB fishery participants. The requirement that vessels notify NMFS 72 hrs prior to embarking on a Loligo fishing trip is an administrative measure to facilitate the placement of observers aboard the Loligo fleet. As described previously, the economic burden on fishery participants associated with this measure is expected to be minimal. This rule also proposes that the butterfish mortality cap be reviewed by the Council's SSC on an annual basis, and that modifications to the butterfish mortality cap be implemented through the MSB specifications process. This measure is also administrative and would have only minimal economic effects on fishery participants.

        Implementing a 2-1/8-inches (54-mm) minimum codend mesh size requirement for the Loligo fishery is expected to have a larger economic effect on fishery participants than the no action alternative (maintaining the 1-7/8-inches (48-mm) minimum mesh size requirement), but less of an economic effect than implementing any of the other action alternatives (minimum mesh size requirements of 2-3/8 inches (60 mm), 2-1/2 inches (64 mm), or 3 inches (76 mm)). The factors considered in evaluating economic effects of the action alternatives are the cost of replacing a codend and the loss in revenue that may result from increased harvest effort due to Loligo escapement through the larger mesh. While the cost of replacing a codend may be substantial, fishery participants routinely replace codends and, as such, the cost of a codend with a larger minimum mesh size may not be a significant additional cost. Replacing a codend can cost approximately between $200 and $700, depending on the size of the net. Notifying fishery participants well in advance of regulatory changes may allow participants to plan purchases, thereby minimizing costs associated with a replacement codend. The cost of replacement codends is not anticipated to vary by mesh size among the action alternatives.

        The loss of revenue associated with increased harvest effort due to Loligo escapement is difficult to quantify. There are no published gear studies of Loligo selectivity; therefore, quantifying the Loligo retention associated with the different mesh sizes is difficult. Studies of other squid species suggest that squid, like fish, are size-selected by gear. Given this, it could be expected that economic effects associated with the action alternatives increase with mesh size. Economic effects associated with an increased minimum mesh size for the Loligo fishery are mitigated because the mesh size increase would not be in effect during Trimester II (May-Aug). The rapid growth of Loligo may allow fishery participants to minimize Loligo escapement by shifting fishing effort to later in the year, when larger squid would have an increased retention rate.
        Implementing a butterfish mortality cap for the Loligo fishery has the potential for greater economic effects on fishery participants than the no action alternative (no butterfish mortality cap). Under the action alternatives, the Loligo fishery would close when the butterfish mortality cap was harvested. If the Loligo fishery is closed in response to butterfish bycatch before the entire Loligo fishery is harvested, then a loss of revenue is possible. If the Loligo fishery can be prosecuted with minimal butterfish bycatch and without triggering the butterfish mortality cap, then there would be no economic differences between the no action and action alternatives. However, there may be additional costs associated with butterfish avoidance strategies. The potential for Loligo revenue loss would be dependent upon the size of the butterfish mortality cap. As described previously, the butterfish mortality cap is determined based on the level of butterfish abundance. As the butterfish stock rebuilds, the mortality cap would increase and the potential for lost Loligo revenue should decrease. When the butterfish stock rebuilds, a directed butterfish fishery could resume, provided discards were kept low, and would have economic benefits for fishery participants.

        The economic effects on fishery participants between the action alternatives (butterfish mortality cap allocated by trimester in the same proportions as the Loligo quota, Loligo landings, or butterfish bycatch rates) is anticipated to be minimal. However, because the proposed action (butterfish morality cap based on butterfish bycatch rates) best approximates existing fishery conditions, by considering the ratio of butterfish caught to Loligo landed, it is anticipated that the proposed action would be less constraining on the Loligo fishery than the non-selected action alternatives, butterfish mortality caps based on only Loligo information. As described in Section 7.5.1. of the amendment, if the butterfish mortality cap is based on accurate assumptions about the size of the butterfish stock and butterfish bycatch rates by trimester, then potential Loligo revenue loss may be relatively small ($1.0 million), with maximum losses per vessel averaging 0.6 percent and ranging up to 4.1 percent. If assumptions about butterfish stock size and bycatch rates are incorrect, then potential Loligo revenue loss may be relatively large ($15.8 million), with maximum losses per vessel averaging 9.1 percent and ranging up to 65 percent. These ranges assume equal distribution of losses based on distributions of landings, but vessels with access to other fisheries may target those fisheries to mitigate lost Loligo revenue.

        As a tool to minimize bycatch, Amendment 10 considered eliminating current exemptions from Loligo minimum mesh size requirements for the Illex fishery. There is no minimum codend mesh size requirement for vessels retaining Illex, but there is a 1-7/8-inch (48-mm) minimum mesh size requirement for vessels retaining Loligo. Because squid species can seasonally co-occur, during the months of June-September, the Illex fishery is exempt from the Loligo minimum mesh size requirement on the Illex fishing grounds (i.e., the area seaward of 50-fm (91.45-m) depth contour) where Loligo is less often present. Because the Loligo fishery accounts for more bycatch than the Illex fishery, the Council recommended maintaining the current exemption to the Loligo minimum mesh size requirement for the Illex fishery. The economic effects on fishery participants of maintaining the no action alternative are expected to be less than the economic effects associated with any of the action alternatives (Illex exemption during June-August, Illex exemption during June-July, discontinuation of Illex exemption). Similar to the economic effects associated with the proposed increase to the minimum mesh size for Loligo, costs to Illex fishery participants associated with any of the action alternatives would include replacement codends and increased harvesting effort due to Illex escapement. While the cost of replacing a codend may be substantial, fishery participants routinely replace codends and, as such, the cost of a codend with a larger minimum mesh size may not be a significant additional cost. Additionally, the rapid growth of Illex could allow fishery participants to minimize Illex escapement by shifting effort to later in the year, when larger squid would have an increased retention rate.

        Lastly, Amendment 10 considered establishing GRAs to reduce butterfish discards in MSB fisheries. The action alternatives included four GRAs, to be effective during January-April, that varied by minimum codend mesh size requirements (i.e., 3 inches (76 mm) or 3-3/4 inches (96 mm)) and effective area (i.e., area accounting for 50 percent or 90 percent of MSB discards). Because the GRAs are limited in temporal and geographic scope, the Council concluded they were not a viable solution to butterfish discarding in MSB fisheries and did not recommend establishing butterfish GRAs (no action alternative). Establishing GRAs would likely have resulted in shifts in the distribution of fishing effort with biological effects that would be difficult to predict. Based on average annual revenue from trips that would be affected by GRAs, potential economic effects associated with the action alternatives per vessel ranged from revenue losses of $498,000-$559,000. However, given that fishing vessels are flexible in their fishing practices, these losses would most likely not be fully realized.

        This proposed rule contains a collection-of-information requirement subject to review and approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement has been submitted to OMB for approval. Public reporting burden for a trip notification requirement for the Loligo fishery is estimated to average 3 min per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection information.

        Public comment is sought regarding: Whether this proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Send comments on these or any other aspects of the collection of information to NMFS, Northeast Regional Office at the ADDRESSES above, and to David Rostker by e-mail David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov or fax (202) 395-7285.
        Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648

        Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

          Dated: August 28, 2009
          James W. Balsiger,
          Acting Assistant Administrator For Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES

        1. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as follows:

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

        2. In § 648.13, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:

          § 648.13
          Transfers at sea.
          (a) Only vessels issued a Loligo and butterfish moratorium or Illex moratorium permit under § 648.4(a)(5) and vessels issued a squid/butterfish incidental catch permit and authorized in writing by the Regional Administrator to do so, may transfer or attempt to transfer Loligo, Illex, or butterfish from one vessel to another vessel.

        3. In § 648.14, paragraph (g)(1)(iii) is added and paragraph (g)(2)(ii)(C) is revised to read as follows:

          § 648.14
          Prohibitions.
          (g) ***
          (1) ***
          (iii) Observer requirements for Loligo fishery. Fail to comply with any of the provisions specified in § 648.26.
          (2) ***
          (ii) ***
          (C) Take, retain, possess or land mackerel, squid, or butterfish in excess of a possession allowance specified in § 648.25.

        4. In § 648.21, paragraphs (a)(2) and (f)(1) are revised, and paragraphs (b)(3)(iii) and (b)(3)(iv) are added to read as follows:

          § 648.21
          Procedures for determining initial annual amounts.
          (a) * * *

          (2) IOY, including RQ, DAH, DAP, butterfish mortality cap for the Loligo fishery, and bycatch level of the total allowable level of foreign fishing (TALFF), if any, for butterfish, which, subject to annual review, may be specified for a period of up to 3 years;
          (b)* * *
          (3) * * *

          (iii) The butterfish mortality cap will be allocated to the Loligo fishery as follows: Trimester I - 65 percent; Trimester II - 3.3 percent; and Trimester III - 31.7 percent.
          (iv) Any underages of the butterfish mortality cap for Trimesters I or II will be applied to Trimester III of the same year, and any overages of the butterfish mortality cap for Trimesters I and II will be applied to Trimester III of the same year.
          (f) * * *
          (1) A commercial quota will be allocated annually for Loligo squid into trimester periods based on the following percentages: Trimester I (January-April) - 43.0 percent; Trimester II (May-August) - 17.0 percent; and Trimester III (September-December) - 40.0 percent.

        5. In § 648.22, paragraph (a)(5) is added to read as follows:

          § 648.22
          Closure of the fishery.
          (a)* * *
          (5) NMFS shall close the directed fishery in the EEZ for Loligo when the Regional Administrator projects that 80 percent of the butterfish mortality cap is harvested in Trimester I and/or 90 percent of the butterfish mortality cap is harvested in Trimester III.

        6. In § 648.23, paragraphs (a)(3) introductory text and (a)(3)(i) are revised to read as follows:

          § 648.23
          Gear restrictions.
          (a) * * *

          (3) Owners or operators of otter trawl vessels possessing Loligo harvested in or from the EEZ may only fish with nets having a minimum mesh size of 2-1/8 inches (54 mm), during Trimesters I (Jan-Apr) and III (Sept-Dec), or 1-7/8 inches (48 mm), during Trimester II (May-Aug), diamond mesh, inside stretch measure, applied throughout the codend for at least 150 continuous meshes forward of the terminus of the net, or for codends with less than 150 meshes, the minimum mesh size codend shall be a minimum of one-third of the net measured from the terminus of the codend to the headrope, unless they are fishing consistent with exceptions specified in paragraph (b) of this section.
          (i) Net obstruction or constriction. Owners or operators of otter trawl vessels fishing for and/or possessing Loligo shall not use any device, gear, or material, including, but not limited to, nets, net strengtheners, ropes, lines, or chafing gear, on the top of the regulated portion of a trawl net that results in an effective mesh opening of less than 2-1/8 inches (54 mm), during Trimesters I (Jan-Apr) and III (Sept-Dec), or 1-7/8 inches (48 mm), during Trimester II (May-Aug), diamond mesh, inside stretch measure. “Top of the regulated portion of the net” means the 50 percent of the entire regulated portion of the net that would not be in contact with the ocean bottom if, during a tow, the regulated portion of the net were laid flat on the ocean floor. However, owners or operators of otter trawl vessels fishing for and/or possessing Loligo may use net strengtheners (covers), splitting straps, and/or bull ropes or wire around the entire circumference of the codend, provided they do not have a mesh opening of less than 4-1/2 inches (11.43 cm) diamond mesh, inside stretch measure. For the purposes of this requirement, head ropes are not to be considered part of the top of the regulated portion of a trawl net.

        7. In § 648.25, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:

          § 648.25
          Possession restrictions.
          (a) Atlantic mackerel. During a closure of the directed Atlantic mackerel fishery that occurs prior to June 1, vessels may not fish for, possess, or land more than 20,000 lb (9.08 mt) of Atlantic mackerel per trip at any time, and may only land Atlantic mackerel once on any calendar day, which is defined as the 24 hr period beginning at 0001 hours and ending at 2400 hours. During a closure of the directed fishery for mackerel that occurs on or after June 1, vessels may not fish for, possess, or land more than 50,000 lb (22.7 mt) of Atlantic mackerel per trip at any time, and may only land Atlantic mackerel once on any calendar day.

        8. Section 648.26 is added to read as follows:

          § 648.26
          Observer requirements for the Loligo fishery.
          (a) A vessel issued a Loligo and butterfish moratorium permit, as specified at § 648.4(a)(5)(i), must, for the purposes of observer deployment, have a representative provide notice to NMFS of the vessel name, contact name for coordination of observer deployment, telephone number for contact; and the date, time, and port of departure, at least 72 hrs prior to beginning any fishing trip, unless it complies with the possession restrictions in paragraph (c) of this section.
          (b) If the vessel representative notifies NMFS of an upcoming trip, and then that trip is cancelled, the representative is required to provide notice to NMFS of the vessel name, contact name for coordination of observer deployment, and telephone number for contact, and the intended date, time, and port of departure for the cancelled trip within 72 hrs of the initial notification.
          (c) A vessel issued a Loligo and butterfish moratorium permit, as specified at § 648.4(a)(5)(i), that does not have a representative provide the trip notification required in paragraph (a) of this section is prohibited from fishing for, possessing, harvesting, or landing 2,500 lb (1.13 mt) or more of Loligo per trip at any time, and may only land Loligo once on any calendar day, which is defined as the 24 hr period beginning at 0001 hours and ending at 2400 hours.
          (d) If a vessel issued a Loligo and butterfish moratorium permit, as specified at § 648.4(a)(5)(i), possesses, harvests, or lands 2,500 lb (1.13 mt) or more of Loligo per trip or per calendar day and is selected by NMFS to carry an observer, but the trip selected for observer coverage is cancelled, then that vessel is required to carry an observer, provided an observer is available, on its next trip.

      [FR Doc. E9-21322 Filed 9-2-09; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        [Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2013-0010; 4500030114]
        RIN 1018-BD54
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Spring Pygmy Sunfish

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; revision and reopening of comment period.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the reopening of the comment period on our October 2, 2012, proposed rule to designate critical habitat for the spring pygmy sunfish (Elassoma alabamae), under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). In this document, we propose to add one critical habitat unit (123 hectares (ha) (303 acres (ac)) in Madison County, Alabama, to the critical habitat designation. As a result, our proposed revised critical habitat designation for the species now includes three critical habitat units, totaling approximately 749 ha (1,852 ac), in Alabama. This reopened comment period will provide the public with an opportunity to submit written comments on both the revision described in this document and the October 2, 2012, proposed rule, as well as intervening relevant publications. Comments previously submitted need not be resubmitted, as they will be fully considered in preparation of the final rule.

          DATES:

          The comment period for the proposed rule published October 2, 2012, at 77 FR 60180 is reopened. We will consider comments received or postmarked on or before December 5, 2018. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit written comments by one of the following methods:
          (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R4-ES-2013-0010, which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click on the Search button. On the resulting page, in the Search panel on the left side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, click on the Proposed Rule box to locate this document. You may submit a comment by clicking on “Comment Now!”
          (2) By hard copy: Submit your comments by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R4-ES-2013-0010, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.

          We request that you send comments only by methods described above. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see Public Comments, below, for more details).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          William Pearson, Field Supervisor, Alabama Ecological Services Field Office, 1208 Main Street, Daphne, AL 36526; telephone 251-441-5181. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Public Comments

        We will accept written comments and information during this reopened comment period on our proposed designation of critical habitat for the spring pygmy sunfish that was published in the Federal Register on October 2, 2012 (77 FR 60180); the revision to the proposed boundaries of Unit 1 described in our April 29, 2013, Federal Register publication (78 FR 25033); the potential exclusions to the designation that we described in our February 5, 2014, Federal Register publication (79 FR 6871); and the new proposed Unit 3 that is described in this document. We will consider information and recommendations we receive from all interested parties. We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal will be based on the best scientific data available and be as accurate and effective as possible.
        We request comments or information from any interested party on any aspect of the proposed designation. However, we particularly seek comments concerning:
        (1) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitats as “critical habitat” under section 4 of the Act, including whether there are threats to the species from human activity, the degree of which can be expected to increase due to the designation, and whether that increase in threat outweighs the benefit of designation such that the designation of critical habitat is not prudent.
        (2) Land use designation and current or planned activities in the subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.
        If you submitted comments or information on the proposed rule during the initial comment period from October 2, 2012, to December 3, 2012; during the second comment period from April 29, 2013, to May 29, 2013; or during the third comment period from February 5, 2014, to March 7, 2014, please do not resubmit them. We have incorporated them into the public record as part of the previous three comment periods, and we will fully consider them in the preparation of our final determination.

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

        Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing the proposed rule, are available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2013-0010, or by appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alabama Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
        Background
        Species Information
        For information on the spring pygmy sunfish's biology, status, distribution, and habitat, refer to the October 12, 2012, proposed listing and critical habitat rule (77 FR 60180), and the October 2, 2013, final listing rule (78 FR 60766).
        Previous Federal Actions
        On October 2, 2012, we published a proposed rule (77 FR 60180) to list the spring pygmy sunfish as a threatened species and to designate critical habitat for the species. In that proposed rule, we proposed to designate two critical habitat units, totaling approximately 12.9 kilometers (km) (8 stream miles (mi)) and 654.4 hectares (ha) (1,617 acres (ac)) of spring system habitat and adjacent upland buffer in Limestone County, Alabama. Previous Federal actions occurring before October 2, 2012, are summarized in that proposed rule.
        On April 29, 2013, we published a document (78 FR 25033) reopening the comment period on the proposed listing and critical habitat for 30 days. That document requested public comments on amendments to the required determinations section of the October 2, 2012, proposal, the draft economic analysis, and a proposed reduction in the size of the critical habitat designation based on information we received during the original public comment period. Specifically, we proposed to reduce the size of Unit 1 by 27.3 ha (67.6 ac), resulting in a proposed critical habitat designation totaling approximately 12.9 km (8 stream mi) and 627.02 ha (1,549.4 ac).
        On October 2, 2013, we published a final rule (78 FR 60766) listing the spring pygmy sunfish as a threatened species.
        On February 5, 2014, we again reopened the comment period, for an additional 30 days, on the proposed designation of critical habitat to announce exclusions we are considering to proposed critical habitat Unit 1 (79 FR 6871). In that document, we asked for public comments on excluding lands enrolled in candidate conservation agreements with assurances (CCAAs) in accordance with section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Specifically, we are considering excluding all areas covered by the Belle Mina Farms Ltd., McDonald Farm, and Horton Farm CCAAs based on our partnerships with the landowners and the conservation benefits that these agreements afford the spring pygmy sunfish. We will make the final determination on these exclusions in our final rule.
        Critical Habitat
        It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to the designation of critical habitat for the spring pygmy sunfish in this document.
        Section 3 of the Act defines critical habitat as the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features (PBFs) essential to the conservation of the species and that may require special management considerations or protection, and specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. If the proposed rule is made final, section 7 of the Act will prohibit destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat by any activity funded, authorized, or carried out by any Federal agency. Federal agencies proposing actions affecting critical habitat must consult with us on the effects of their proposed actions, under section 7(a)(2) of the Act.
        Evaluation of a Documented New Population of Spring Pygmy Sunfish

        In November 2015, surveys conducted by the Geologic Survey of Alabama (GSA) and Service employees on Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) in Madison County, Alabama, verified a new population of spring pygmy sunfish in Blackwell Swamp following the documentation of the species at the swamp in September 2015, by researchers from Jacksonville State University. The discovery of the new population is significant because it occurs outside the Beaverdam Spring complex, the only known occupied site on October 2, 2013, when we listed the spring pygmy sunfish as a threatened species under the Act, and increases the number of known metapopulations from one to two. Based on new information gathered during the November 2015 survey, we are revising the proposed designation of critical habitat to include a new unit (Unit 3) in Madison County, Alabama. This new unit contains all of the PBFs for the spring pygmy sunfish. Because of the limited range of the spring pygmy sunfish, we have determined that the new population in Blackwell Swamp and its associated habitat is essential to the conservation of the species and may require special management considerations or protection. A map of proposed Unit 3 appears under Proposed Regulation Promulgation, below.
        Proposed Critical Habitat Designation
        Based on the above information, we are proposing to revise the proposed critical habitat designation to include Blackwell Swamp as Unit 3. We provide occupancy and ownership tables below that include information on all three proposed critical habitat units.

          Table 1—Occupancy of the Proposed Critical Habitat Units for the Spring Pygmy Sunfish

            Unit
            Location
            Occupied?

            1
            Beaverdam Spring/Creek
            Yes.

            2
            Pryor Spring/Branch
            No.

            3
            Blackwell Swamp/Run
            Yes.

          Table 2—Ownership of the Proposed Critical Habitat Units for the Spring Pygmy Sunfish

            Unit
            Location
            Private ownership km (mi); ha (ac)
            Federal ownership km (mi); ha (ac)
            Total length km (mi)
            Total area ha (ac)

            1
            Beaverdam Spring/Creek
            5.9 (3.7); 210 (518)
            3.5 (2.21); 344 (849)
            9.5 (5.9)
            553 (1,367)

            2
            Pryor Spring/Branch
            0.2 (0.15); 8.1 (20)
            3.1 (1.95); 65 (162)
            3.4 (2.1)
            73 (182)

            3
            Blackwell Swamp/Run
            0; 0
            2.3 (1.4); 123 (303)
            2.3 (1.4)
            123 (303)

            Total

            6.1 (3.85); 218 (538)
            8.8 (5.56); 532 (1,314)
            15.2 (9.4)
            749 (1,852)

          * Totals may not sum due to rounding.

        We present a brief description of Unit 3, and reasons why it meets the definition of critical habitat, below.
        Unit 3: Blackwell Swamp/Run, Madison County, Alabama
        Unit 3 includes a total of 123 ha (303 ac) of Federal land and 2.3 stream km (1.4 mi), all of which is federally owned within the Wheeler NWR in Madison County, Alabama. This unit is located about 4.3 km (2.7 mi) due west of the town of Triana. This unit is 0.96 km (0.6 mi) north of Blackwell Run's confluence with the Tennessee River; approximately 1 km (0.5 mi) south of Swancott Road SW; about 1 km (0.5 mi) west of Landess Circle; and just to the east of B. Road/County Line Road SW. Unit 3 is currently occupied by spring pygmy sunfish and contains all the PBFs essential to the species' survival and eventual recovery. Unit 3 provides habitat for the spring pygmy sunfish via the spring systems of Blackwell Swamp, which include spring runs and a large spring-fed pool that was enlarged after Blackwell Spring Run was impounded (PBF 1).
        There is adequate water quality (PBF 2), water quantity and flow (PBF 3), and a diversity of emergent vegetation (PBF 4) to support the normal life stages and behavior of the spring pygmy sunfish and its prey sources (PBF 4).
        Wheeler NWR actively manages water levels in proposed Unit 3 to enhance use by waterfowl. The water in the unit is replenished by surface flow from runoff, a small stream in the northeast corner, and numerous spring seeps of the Blackwell Spring system. The Tennessee River does not influence the spring pool unless allowed to enter the pool through the water control structure, which may occur in the course of waterfowl management. During flood conditions, water inundates and enters secondary channels and sloughs located to the south and southeastern portion of the unit and flows in a southerly direction with the spring run, sometimes overtopping the roads on the west and east side of the unit.
        Threats to the spring pygmy sunfish and its habitat in Unit 3 that may require special management or protection of the PBFs include structures, such as boat ramps; an unpaved, gravel-maintained, refuge road (11.7 km; 7.3 mi) circling the unit; and sewer, gas, and water easements, including a City of Huntsville sewer line right-of-way to the east. Additional threats outside and adjacent to the unit include increased agriculture, urbanization, and industrialization activities (such as channel modification for flood control, construction of impoundments, and water extraction) that significantly alter spring flow regime and water quality and quantity; inadequate stormwater management; water diversion; significant changes in streambed material composition and quality as a result of construction projects and maintenance activities that damage or destroy aquatic vegetation and vegetation in the riparian zone; off-road vehicle use; bridge and road construction and maintenance, and culvert and pipe placement; and other watershed and floodplain disturbances that release sediments or nutrients into the water. Many threats that result in decreased water quality and quantity are likely to be amplified during drought events.
        Consideration of Economic Impacts
        The spring pygmy sunfish occurs in Unit 3, which is entirely within Wheeler NWR. In areas where the spring pygmy sunfish is present, Federal agencies already are required to consult with the Service under section 7 of the Act on activities they authorize, fund, or carry out that may affect the species. If we finalize the proposed critical habitat designation, measures to avoid the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat would be incorporated into the existing consultation process for refuge activities. Therefore, the draft economic analysis prepared for Unit 1 and Unit 2 (78 FR 25033) is not significantly affected by the addition of Unit 3 in proposed critical habitat.
        Authors
        The primary authors of this document are the staff members of the Alabama Ecological Services Field Office.

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

        Proposed Regulation Promulgation
        Accordingly, we propose to further amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as proposed to be amended at 77 FR 60180 (October 2, 2012) as set forth below:

          PART 17—ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

        1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless otherwise noted.

        2. Amend § 17.95(e) by revising paragraph (5) in, and adding a paragraph (8) to, the entry proposed at 77 FR 60180 for “Spring Pygmy Sunfish (Elassoma alabamae)” as set forth below:

          § 17.95
           Critical habitat—fish and wildlife.

          (e) Fishes.

          Spring Pygmy Sunfish (Elassoma alabamae)

          (5) Index map of critical habitat for the spring pygmy sunfish follows:
           BILLING CODE 4333-15-P

            EP05NO18.008

          (8) Unit 3: Blackwell Swamp/Run, Madison County, Alabama.
          (i) General Description: Unit 3 includes a total of 123 ha (303 ac) of land and 2.3 stream km (1.4 stream mi), all which is federally owned within the Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge. Unit 3 is located approximately 4.3 km (2.7 mi) due west of the town of Triana. This unit is 0.96 km (0.6 mi) north of Blackwell Run's confluence with the Tennessee River; approximately 1 km (0.5 mi) south of Swancott Road SW; about 1 km (0.5 mi) west of Landess Circle; and just to the east of B. Road/County Line Road SW.
          (ii) Map of Unit 3 follows:

            EP05NO18.009

          Dated: August 14, 2018.
           James W. Kurth,
          Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Exercising the Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

      [FR Doc. 2018-24162 Filed 11-2-18; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 4333-15-C


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        Surface Transportation Board
        49 CFR Chapter X
        [STB Ex Parte No. 676]
        Rail Transportation Contracts Under 49 U.S.C. 10709

          AGENCY:
          Surface Transportation Board, DOT.

          ACTION:
          Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          The Surface Transportation Board seeks public comments on a proposal to require railroads to include a disclosure statement in any document that they consider to be a rail transportation contract under 49 U.S.C. 10709.

          DATES:
          Comments are due by May 12, 2008.

          ADDRESSES:

          Comments may be submitted either via the Board's e-filing format or in the traditional paper format. Any person using e-filing should attach a document and comply with the instructions at the E-FILING link on the Board's Web site, at: http://www.stb.dot.gov. Any person submitting a filing in the traditional paper format should send an original and 10 copies to: Surface Transportation Board, Attn: STB Ex Parte No. 676, 395 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001.

          Copies of written comments will be available from the Board's contractor, ASAP Document Solutions (Mailing Address: Suite 103, 9332 Annapolis Rd., Lanham, MD 20706; e-mail address: asapdc@verizon.net; telephone number: 202-306-4004). The comments will also be available for viewing and self-copying in the Board's Public Docket Room, Room 131, and will be posted to the Board's Web site at: http://www.stb.dot.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Timothy J. Strafford at 202-245-0356. [Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.]

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        In recent proceedings, the Board has noted that there is often no clear distinction between regulated common carrier rates and unregulated rail transportation contracts. See, e.g., Kansas City Power & Light Company v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, STB Docket No. 42095 (STB served July 27, 2006); Interpretation of the Term “Contract” in 49 U.S.C. 10709, STB Ex Parte No. 669 (STB served Mar. 29, 2007). The Board has instituted this rulemaking proceeding to consider imposing a requirement that each rail carrier provide a full disclosure statement when it seeks to enter into a rail transportation contract under 49 U.S.C. 10709. The statement would explicitly advise the shipper that the carrier intends the document to be a rail transportation contract, and that any transportation under the document would not be subject to regulation by the Board. Moreover, it would advise the shipper that it has a statutory right to request a common carriage rate that the carrier would then have to supply promptly, and such a rate might be open to challenge before the Board. The proposal would also require that, before entering into a rail transportation contract, the carrier provide the shipper an opportunity to sign a written informed consent statement in which the shipper acknowledges, and states its willingness to forgo, its regulatory options. Interested persons are invited to comment on the proposal and the Board welcomes suggestions as to what language should be included in this full disclosure/informed consent requirement.
        This action will not significantly affect either the quality of the human environment or the conservation of energy resources.

          Authority:
          49 U.S.C. 721, 49 U.S.C. 10709.

          Decided: March 6, 2008.

          By the Board, Chairman Nottingham, Vice Chairman Mulvey, and Commissioner Buttrey.
          Anne K. Quinlan,
          Acting Secretary.

      [FR Doc. E8-5058 Filed 3-12-08; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4915-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        [FWS-R8-ES-2007-0008; 92210-1117-0000-FY08 B4]
        RIN 1018-AV07
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Critical Habitat for the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus)

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; reopening of comment period.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) announce the reopening of the public comment period on the June 19, 2007, proposed rule (72 FR 33808) to revise critical habitat for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). This action will provide all interested parties with an additional opportunity to submit written comments on the proposed revised designation, draft economic analysis (DEA), and addendum to the DEA. Comments previously submitted need not be resubmitted as they are already incorporated into the public record and will be fully considered in any final decision.

          DATES:
          We are reopening the comment period and will accept information received or postmarked on or before August 13, 2008.

          ADDRESSES:

          You may submit comments by one of the following methods:

          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R8-ES-2007-0008, Division of Policy and Directives Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222, Arlington, VA 22203. We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see the Public Comments section below for more information).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Jim Bartel, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, 6010 Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, CA 92011; telephone 760/431-9440; facsimile 760/431-5901. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Public Comments

        We will accept comments and information during this reopened comment period on our proposed revision to critical habitat for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat published in the Federal Register on June 19, 2007 (72 FR 33808), the additions to revised critical habitat and the notice of availability of the DEA published in the Federal Register on April 16, 2008 (73 FR 20581), and the addendum to the DEA made available to the public on the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov on June 11, 2008. You may obtain copies of all of these documents on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. If you submitted comments or information previously on the proposed rule, revisions, or DEA during previous open comment periods, please do not resubmit them. These comments have been incorporated into the public record and will be fully considered in the preparation of our final determination.

        You may submit your comments and materials concerning the proposed rule, DEA and the addendum to the DEA by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will not consider comments sent by e-mail or fax or to an address not listed in the ADDRESSES section. If you submit a comment via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire comment—including any personal identifying information—will be posted on the Web site. If you submit a hardcopy comment that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all hardcopy comments on http://www.regulations.gov.

        Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
        Background

        On June 19, 2007, we published a proposed rule to revise critical habitat for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat (72 FR 33808). On April 16, 2008, we published a notice in the Federal Register (73 FR 20581) announcing the availability of the draft economic analysis and changes to the proposed revised critical habitat designation for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat. Five critical habitat units, totaling approximately 7,779 acres (3,148 hectares), are proposed as revised critical habitat for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat. These units, which generally correspond to the three units in the 2007 proposed rule plus two additional units, if finalized, would entirely replace the current critical habitat designation for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat in 50 CFR 17.95(a). The proposed critical habitat is located within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, California. For locations of these proposed units, please consult the proposed rule. The original public comment period for the proposed critical habitat rule closed on August 20, 2007. The public comment period was reopened for 30 days upon publication of the April 16, 2008 Federal Register notice, ending on May 16, 2008. An addendum to the DEA was made available for public comment on June 11, 2008, on the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Because the addendum to the DEA was not available on the Federal eRulemaking Portal during the previous comment period, we are reopening the comment period to provide all interested parties with an additional opportunity to submit written comments on the proposed revised designation, the DEA, and the addendum to the DEA.
        Critical habitat is defined by the Act as:
        (1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed pursuant to section 4 of the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features (a) essential to the conservation of the species, and (b) which may require special management considerations or protection, and
        (2) Specific areas outside the geographic areas occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.
        If the proposed critical habitat designation is finalized, section 7(a)(2) of the Act would require that Federal agencies ensure that actions they fund, authorize, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
        Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate or revise critical habitat on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available, after taking into consideration economic, and any other relevant, impacts of specifying any particular area as critical habitat.

          Authority:

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

          Dated: July 8, 2008.
          David Verhey,
          Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

      [FR Doc. E8-17054 Filed 7-28-08; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P