        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
        Coast Guard
        46 CFR Part 45
        [Docket No. USCG-2013-0954]
        Special Load Line Exemption for Lake Michigan/Muskegon Route: Petition for Rulemaking

          AGENCY:
          Coast Guard, DHS.

          ACTION:
          Notice of decision.

          SUMMARY:
          On May 27, 2014, the Coast Guard published a Notice of Availability and Request for Public Comment regarding a petition for a rulemaking action. The petition requested that the Coast Guard establish a load line-exempted route on Lake Michigan, along the eastern coast to Muskegon, MI. Upon review of the comments as well as analysis of safety considerations and other factors described in the discussion section, the Coast Guard has decided not to proceed with the requested rulemaking. The public comments, and the Coast Guard's reasoning for its decision, are discussed in this notice.

          DATES:
          The petition for rulemaking published on May 27, 2014 (79 FR 30061) is denied.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          If you have questions on this notice, contact Mr. Thomas Jordan, Naval Architecture Division (CG-ENG-2), U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, at telephone 202-372-1370, or by email at thomas.d.jordan@uscg.mil. If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.
          All Federal Register notices, public comments, and other documents cited in this notice may be viewed in the on-line docket at www.regulations.gov (enter docket number “USCG-2014-0954” in the search box).

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Regulatory History and Background:
        The purpose of a load line (LL) assignment is to ensure that a vessel is seaworthy for operation on exposed coastal and offshore waters, including the Great Lakes. In general, LL assignment requires that vessels are robustly constructed, fitted with watertight and weathertight closures, and are inspected annually to ensure that they are being maintained in a seaworthy condition. (A more-detailed discussion of LL assignment is given in our previous Notice of Availability, 79 FR 30061 on May 27, 2014.)
        Because river barges are not typically constructed to the required hull strength standards for load line assignment, nor subject to the same periodic inspections, they are not normally allowed to operate on the Great Lakes. However, certain river barges are allowed on carefully-evaluated routes, under restricted conditions as follows. There are currently three such routes on Lake Michigan:

          Burns Harbor route: In 1985, a LL-exempted route was established along the southern shore of Lake Michigan to allow river barges to operate under fair weather conditions between Calumet (Chicago), IL, and Burns Harbor, IN, a distance of 27 nautical miles (NM), with several ports of refuge along the way (the longest distance between them is just 11 NM). The tows must remain within 5 NM of shore, and the barges are prohibited from carrying liquid or hazardous cargoes, and must have a minimum freeboard of 24 inches.

          Milwaukee route: In 1992, a special LL regime was established along the western shore of Lake Michigan, between Calumet and Milwaukee, WI, a distance of 92 NM (the longest distance between ports of refuge is 33 NM). This special LL regime revised the normal robust construction requirements for a Great Lakes LL, in conjunction with similar cargo restrictions, weather limitations, and freeboard assignment as for the Burns Harbor route. Barges more than 10 years old are required to have an initial dry-dock inspection to verify the material condition of the hull, but a newer barge could obtain the special LL provided it passed an initial afloat inspection by the American Bureau of Shipping (ABS). All barges were subject to annual ABS inspections to verify that they were being maintained in a seaworthy condition. Tows are limited to three barges, and the towing vessel must be least 1,000 HP.

          Milwaukee route risk assessment study: However, the towing industry still considered the cost of the special LL assignment to be too prohibitive for establishing river barge service to Milwaukee. Accordingly, in 2000, the Port of Milwaukee organized a risk assessment (RA) working group that included port officials, towing & barge companies, and terminal operators (the Risk Assessment report can be viewed on-line in the docket). The RA group reviewed meteorological information and evaluated the viability of the ports of refuge along the route, and concluded that restricting the age of eligible rivers barges to 10 years, in conjuction with self-inspection and self-certication by barge owners/operators, provided the same level of seaworthiness assurance as LL assignment by ABS.
        The RA meetings were attended by USCG representatives, and the recommendations were reviewed by the Ninth Coast Guard District, which endorsed them. The Milwaukee route exemption went into effect in 2002.

          Muskegon route: Meanwhile, in 1996, the special LL regime for the Milwaukee route was extended along the eastern shore of Lake Michigan to Muskegon, a distance of 119 NM beyond Burns Harbor. River barges can still operate as far as Burns Harbor without any LL, but must obtain the special LL to proceed beyond that point to Muskegon. Recognizing the longer distance and more severe weather conditions on the eastern side of Lake Michigan, there were some additional requirements pertaining to the towing vessel.
        Because the Muskegon route was not evaluated as part of the Milwaukee risk assessment study, it was not included in the exemption.

          Petition for LL exemption on the Muskegon route: In October 2013, the Coast Guard received two letters requesting that we establish a load line exemption for river barges on the Muskegon route. The basis for the request was that the LL requirements (route restrictions and load line inspection requirements) were preventing Michigan from transporting agricultural products on river barges via the Mississippi-Illinois River system.
        In response to the petition request, the Coast Guard opened a public docket USCG-2014-0954 and published a Notice of Availability and Request for Public Comment (79 FR 30061, May 27, 2014) with a 90-day comment period. The comment period closed on August 25, 2014.
        Discussion of Comments
        In response to the notice, 92 comments were posted in the docket, submitted by 42 individuals, 16 commercial companies (mostly agricultural-associated), several trade associations, resolutions signed by various Michigan municipal organizations as well as state and Congressional representatives. All comments can be viewed on-line in the docket.
        To summarize, the comments fall into three categories:

          Supportive: 59 comments supported the petition on general principles. They commented on the potential economic benefits, such as reduced shipping costs for northbound cargoes (fertilizer was mentioned) and southbound cargoes (grain), as well as employment/job creation. However, none of these comments included any specific details or estimates with respect to shipment costs, cargo volumes, employment levels, etc.
        One supportive commenter reported that a local steel fabricator could not compete on a contract for steel tanks that could have been transported by a non-LL river barge from Muskegon for downriver delivery to the Gulf of Mexico. Because of the extra cost of using a LL barge to get the steel tanks to Calumet and then transhipping it onto a river barge, the company could not compete.
        Another supportive comment mentioned the impending shut-down of the B. C. Cobb power plant in Muskegon, which burns 640,000 tons of coal per year, delivered by Lake freighters. Without the annual tonnage of coal delivery, the port would no longer qualify for dredging support by the Army Corps of Engineers. The commenter viewed the route exemption as a possible means of encouraging new cargo movements through the port (such as fertilizer and grain), and thereby maintain its dredging eligibility.

          Opposed: 23 comments opposed the petition, typically over concerns about catastrophic environmental impact if a cargo were lost (especially a load of fertilizer). Several mentioned the Lake Erie algae bloom in the summer of 2014, which shut down the Toledo municipal water supply for several days.
        Other opposing comments expressed concern that the route would cause the spread of Asian carp and/or other invasive species from the Mississippi River system.
        From a vessel safety perspective, several opposing commenters stated that the eastern side of Lake Michigan has the most unpredictable weather and is the most-exposed. One commenter pointed out that the voyage distance to Muskegon was approximately 114 miles, which would take 16 to 23 hours, more than enough time (in their opinion) for the weather to change unexpectedly. Another commenter (an experienced Lake tug & barge operator) stated that attempting to get a string of three barges into any of the ports-of-refuge under adverse weather conditions would be very difficult and risky; they felt that the tug master would be more likely to take a chance and try to ride out the weather on the open Lake rather than risk entry into a refuge, thus exposing river barges to storm conditions and increasing the likelihood of a casualty.

          Conditionally supportive, or concerned: 10 commenters either expressed conditional support for the petition provided that the environmental risks were addressed, or simply expressed their concerns about possible adverse effects (without clearly supporting or opposing the petition).
        Discussion of Decision
        Upon review of the petition itself and the docket comments, the Coast Guard has decided to deny the rulemaking petition. The Coast Guard will not amend the regulations to provide for the requested route exemption, for reasons discussed below.
        The Coast Guard recognizes that there are similarities between the two Lake Michigan routes, which invites comparison between the LL-exempted Milwaukee route and the LL-required Muskegon route. For example, barges on both routes are built to the same structural (river-service) standards and subject to the same level of weather restrictions. However, there are some significant differences between the routes that affect operational safety, as further explained below. The public comments submitted to the docket did not provide sufficient information that alleviates the operational safety concerns found on this route.

          Weather/Safety considerations: Although several comments spoke of “improved forecasting technology” over the years since the earlier rulemakings, no specific details were provided. The evaluations conducted during consideration of the earlier exempted or conditional load line routes noted that the prevailing weather patterns on the eastern side of Lake Michigan are generally more severe than the western side. The survey/certification requirements in the existing special LL regime provide an additional, necessary safety net to account for risks associated with severe weather. An exemption from the special LL regime could be detrimental to safety.

          Ports-of-refuge: the Muskegon route extends approximately 119 NM beyond Burns Harbor. There are three large harbors along the route (St. Joseph, Holland, and Grand Haven), and two smaller harbors that might be suitable ports-of-refuge. However, the current viability of these harbors has not been verified (Army Corps of Engineering fact sheets for these ports mention that several of them have experienced channel shoaling due to winter storms and Hurricane Sandy). Furthermore, the intermediate distance between Burns Harbor and St. Joseph is 41 NM, and between St. Joseph and Holland is 47 NM. These distances are much longer than the longest intermediate distance on the Milwaukee route (33 NM). The availability of and distance to a port of safe refuge is a critical element in the evaluation of load line conditional or exempted routes. The ability to reach a port of safe refuge is important if unexpected weather or damage causes the need to seek safety from the open Lake.

          Economic benefits: Although several comments suggested that further reductions/relaxation of certain loadline requirements could result in economic, operational benefits. These economic benefits have not been quantified and may be offset by the costs associated with other safety requirements necessary to protect river barges operating along this exposed route, for example, costs associated with complying with mandatory maximum age-restrictions on the barges, similar to the Milwaukee route. As such, the Coast Guard is unable to verify the claims of economic benefits. The existing special LL regime on the Muskegon route is a less restrictive LL regime than that required for an unrestricted Great Lakes LL. River barges are already permitted to operate on this route, under certain controlled conditions.

          Risk assessment: Unlike the Milwaukee route, no risk assessment has been performed for the Muskegon route. In the absence of such a risk assessment, and in consideration of the more-volatile weather patterns and the longer transit times between ports of refuge, the Coast Guard believes that the initial and annual LL surveys, undertaken per the special loadline requirements for this route, provide a necessary margin of seaworthiness assurance.
        For the reasons above, the Coast Guard denies the petition and will not undertake the requested rulemaking.
        This notice is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 553(e), 555(e) and 46 U.S.C. 5108.

          Dated: April 21, 2015.
          J.G. Lantz,
          Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards, U.S. Coast Guard.

      [FR Doc. 2015-09790 Filed 4-27-15; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 679
        [I.D. 062005A]
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Public Workshop

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of public workshop.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS will present a workshop on proposed catch-monitoring standards for the non-American Fisheries Act (AFA) trawl catcher/processor sector. These standards are necessary to support proposed groundfish and prohibited species allocations to this sector that are under consideration by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council.

          DATES:
          The workshop will be held Monday, June 27, 2005, from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m.

          ADDRESSES:
          The workshop will be held at the Nordby Center, located in Fishermen's terminal, 1711 W Nickerson St, Seattle, WA.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Alan Kinsolving, 907-586-7228.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The North Pacific Fisheries Management Council is developing proposed Amendment 80 to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area (FMP). Amendment 80 would allocate prohibited species and target species other than Pacific cod and pollock to trawl catcher/processor vessels that are not qualified to fish for pollock under the AFA. One aspect of the analysis of alternatives being developed for Amendment 80 includes options for catch monitoring, weighing, and accounting standards for the non-AFA trawl catcher/processor sector. NMFS is conducting the June 27, 2005, workshop so that interested industry members may provide guidance to NMFS on the development and implementation of these standards.

        This workshop is not intended to be a forum for providing public comment on the proposed rule to implement proposed Amendment 79 to the FMP. That proposed rule also would establish catch monitoring standards for some vessels within the non-AFA trawl catcher/processor sector. Written comments on Amendment 79 may be submitted to NMFS consistent with the protocol set forth in the preamble to the proposed rule published in the Federal Register on June 16, 2005 (70 FR 35054).

        This workshop is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Alan Kinsolving (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

          Dated: June 20, 2005.
          Alan D. Risenhoover
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 05-12584 Filed 6-23-05; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 665
        RIN 0648-BJ27
        Pacific Island Fisheries; Sea Turtle Limits in the Hawaii Shallow-Set Pelagic Longline Fishery

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of availability of a fishery ecosystem plan amendment; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS announces that the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) proposes to amend the Fishery Ecosystem Plan for the Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific (FEP). Amendment 10 would facilitate management of Hawaii shallow-set longline fishery interactions with sea turtles to ensure a continued supply of fresh domestic swordfish to U.S. markets, consistent with sea turtle conservation. The proposed action would also ensure that the fishery operates in compliance with the Reasonable and Prudent Measures (RPM) and associated Terms and Conditions (T&C) of a recent NMFS biological opinion (BiOp).

          DATES:
          NMFS must receive comments on the proposed amendments by March 23, 2020.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2019-0098, by either of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2019-0098, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Send written comments to Michael D. Tosatto, Regional Administrator, NMFS Pacific Islands Region (PIR), 1845 Wasp Blvd. Bldg. 176, Honolulu, HI 96818.

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

          The Council prepared Amendment 10, including an environmental assessment (EA) and regulatory impact review (RIR). Amendment 10 and supporting documents are available at https://www.regulations.gov, or from the Council, 1164 Bishop St., Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813, tel 808-522-8220, fax 808-522-8226, www.wpcouncil.org.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Joshua Lee, Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS PIR, 808-725-5177.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The Hawaii shallow-set pelagic longline fishery targets swordfish (Xiphias gladius) in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone and on the high seas. The Council and NMFS manage the fishery under the FEP and its implementing regulations, as authorized by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The Council proposes to amend the FEP to revise the annual fleet interaction limit (“hard cap”) for leatherback turtles from 26 to 16. If the fleet reaches the limit, NMFS would close the fishery for the remainder of the calendar year. The Council proposes to remove the hard cap for North Pacific loggerhead turtles (currently 17).

        Amendment 10 would also establish trip interaction limits of two leatherback turtles and five North Pacific loggerhead turtles. If a vessel reaches either limit on a shallow-set trip, NMFS would require the vessel to stop fishing and return to port. The first time a vessel reaches the limit for either species, it would be prohibited from shallow-set fishing for five days. If a vessel reaches an interaction limit a second time for either species in a calendar year, NMFS would prohibit that vessel from shallow-set fishing for the remainder of that calendar year. In the following year, that vessel would have an annual hard cap limit of two leatherback or five loggerhead turtles.

        Amendment 10 would ensure consistency with the reasonable and prudent measures and terms and conditions of the 2019 BiOp that NMFS completed for this fishery, while maintaining fishing opportunities during peak swordfish season (October through March). This action is needed to provide managers and the fishery with the necessary tools to respond to and mitigate fluctuations in loggerhead and leatherback turtle interactions, to ensure a continued supply of fresh swordfish to U.S. markets consistent with the conservation needs of these sea turtles.
        NMFS must receive comments on Amendment 10 by March 23, 2020 for consideration in the decision to approve, partially approve, or disapprove the amendment. NMFS soon expects to publish and request public comment on a proposed rule that would implement the measures recommended in Amendment 10.

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

          Dated: January 15, 2020.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2020-00879 Filed 1-22-20; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No. 130904778-3778-01]
        RIN 0648-XC855
        Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Fishery; Proposed 2014-2016 Fishing Quotas

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes commercial quotas for the Atlantic surfclam and ocean quahog fisheries for 2014, 2015, and 2016. The proposed quotas are unchanged from the quotas for the 2011, 2012, and 2013 fishing years. This action sets allowable harvest levels of Atlantic surfclams and ocean quahogs, prevent overfishing, and allow harvesting of optimum yield. This action would also continue to suspend the minimum shell size for Atlantic surfclams for the 2014 fishing year. It is expected that the industry and dealers will benefit from the proposed status quo quotas, as they will be able to maintain a consistent market.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received by November 22, 2013.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2013-0139, by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2013-0139, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Fax: (978) 281-9177, Attn: Jason Berthiaume.
          • Mail: John K. Bullard, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope: “Comments on the 2014-2016 Surfclam/Ocean Quahog Specifications.”

            Instructions: All comments received are part of the public record and will generally be posted to www.regulations.gov without change. All Personal Identifying Information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.
          A copy of the Environmental Assessment prepared for this action is available upon request from the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management (Council), 800 North State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 09901.
          NMFS will accept anonymous comments. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted via Microsoft Word, Microsoft Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Jason Berthiaume, Fishery Management Specialist, 978-281-9177.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Fishery Management Plan (FMP) requires that NMFS, in consultation with the Mid-Atlantic Council (Council), specify quotas for surfclam and ocean quahog for a 3-year period, with an annual review, from a range that represents the optimum yield (OY) for each fishery. It is the policy of the Council that the levels selected allow sustainable fishing to continue at that level for at least 10 years for surfclams, and 30 years for ocean quahogs. In addition to this, the Council policy also considers the economic impacts of the quotas. Regulations implementing Amendment 10 to the FMP (63 FR 27481, May 19, 1998) added Maine ocean quahogs (locally known as Maine mahogany quahogs) to the management unit, and provided for a small artisanal fishery for ocean quahogs in the waters north of 43°50′ N. lat., with an annual quota within a range of 17,000 to 100,000 Maine bu (0.6 to 3.524 million L). As specified in Amendment 10, the Maine mahogany ocean quahog quota is allocated separately from the quota specified for the ocean quahog fishery. Regulations implementing Amendment 13 to the FMP (68 FR 69970, December 16, 2003) established the ability to set multi-year quotas. An annual quota review is conducted by the Council every year to determine if the multi-year quota specifications remain appropriate. The fishing quotas must be in compliance with overfishing definitions for each species. In recommending these quotas, the Council considered the most recent stock assessments and other relevant scientific information.
        In June 2013, the Council voted to recommend maintaining the 2013 quota levels of 5.333 million bu (284 million L) for the ocean quahog fishery, 3.400 million bu (181 million L) for the Atlantic surfclam fishery, and 100,000 Maine bu (3.524 million L) for the Maine ocean quahog fishery for 2014-2016. The proposed quotas for the 2014-2016 Atlantic surfclam and ocean quahog fishery are shown in the table below.

          Proposed 2014-2016 Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Quotas

            Year
            ABC
            ACL
            ACT
            Commercial Quota

              Ocean Quahog

            2014-2016
            5.7 million bu (306 million L)
            5.7 million bu (306 million L)
            Maine ACT: 105,010 Maine bu (3.7 million L)
            Maine Quota: 100,000 Maine bu (3.524 million L).

            Non-Maine ACT: 5.56 million bu (298 million L)
            Non-Maine Quota: 5.3 million bu (284 million L).

              Atlantic Surfclam

            Year
            Allowable biological catch (ABC)
            Annual catch limit (ACL)
            Annual catch target (ACT)
            Commercial quota

            2014
            7.8 million bu (415 million L)
            7.8 million bu (415 million L)
            3.8 million bu (202 million L)
            3.4 million bu (181 million L).

            2015
            6.7 million bu (202 million L)
            6.7 million bu (202 million L)
            3.8 million bu (202 million L)
            3.4 million bu (181 million L).

            2016
            6.2 million bu (188 million L)
            6.2 million bu (188 million L)
            3.8 million bu (115 million L)
            3.4 million bu (115 million L).

        The Atlantic surfclam and ocean quahog quotas are specified in “industry” bushels of 53.24 L per bushel, while the Maine ocean quahog quota is specified in Maine bushels of 35.24 L per bushel. Because Maine ocean quahogs are the same species as ocean quahogs, both fisheries are assessed under the same ocean quahog overfishing definition. When the two quota amounts (ocean quahog and Maine ocean quahog) are added, the total allowable harvest is still lower than the level that would result in overfishing for the entire stock.
        Surfclams
        In 1999, the Council expressed its intention to increase the surfclam quota to OY over a period of 5 years (OY = 3.4 million bu (181 million L)). The proposed 2014-2016 status quo surfclam quota was developed after reviewing the results of the Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (SAW) 56 for Atlantic surfclam, released to the public in 2013. The surfclam quota recommendation is consistent with the SAW 56 finding that the Atlantic surfclam stock is not overfished, nor is overfishing occurring. Based on this information, the Council is recommending, and NMFS is proposing, to maintain the status quo surfclam quota of 3.4 million bu (181 million L) for 2014-2016. This quota represents the maximum allowable quota under the FMP.
        Ocean Quahogs
        The proposed 2014-2016 quota for ocean quahogs also reflects the status quo quota of 5.333 million bu (284 million L) in 2010. In April 2013, the ocean quahog stock assessment was updated and found that the ocean quahog stock is not overfished, nor is overfishing occurring. Ocean quahog is a low productivity stock that is being fished down from its pre-fishery level; however, after several decades of relatively low fishing mortality, the stock is still above the biomass target reference points. Based on this information, the Council is recommending, and NMFS is proposing, to maintain the status quo quota of 5.333 million bu (284 million L) for 2014-2016.

        The proposed 2014-2016 quota for Maine ocean quahogs is the status quo level of 100,000 Maine bu (3.524 million L). In 2008, the State of Maine completed a stock assessment of the resource within the Maine Mahogany Quahog Zone. The findings of the Maine quahog survey did not change the status of the entire ocean quahog resource. The proposed quota represents the maximum allowable quota under the FMP.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
        This action does not introduce any new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements. This proposed rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with other Federal rules.
        This proposed rule is exempt from the requirements of E.O. 12866.

        The Council prepared a draft EA for this action that analyzes the impacts of this proposed rule. A copy of the draft EA is available from the Federal e-Rulemaking portal www.regulations.gov. Type “NOAA-NMFS-2013-0139” in the Enter Keyword or ID field and click search. A copy of the EA is also available upon request from the Council (see ADDRESSES).

        The Council prepared an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA), as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), which is included in the EA for this action and supplemented by information contained in the preamble of this proposed rule. 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 of the preamble and in the SUMMARY of the proposed rule. A summary of the IRFA follows. A copy of this analysis is available from the Council (see ADDRESSES).
        On June 20, 2013, the Small Business Administration (SBA) issued a final rule revising the small business size standards for several industries effective July 22, 2013 (78 FR 37398). The rule increased the size standard for finfish fishing from $4.0 to $19.0 million, shellfish fishing from $4.0 to $5.0 million, and other marine fishing from $4.0 to $7.0 million.
        All of the entities (fishing vessels) affected by this action are considered small entities under the SBA size standards for small shellfish fishing businesses ($5.0 million in annual gross sales). Therefore, there are no disproportionate effects on small versus large entities. Information on costs in the fishery is not readily available and individual vessel profitability cannot be determined directly; therefore, expected changes in gross revenues were used as a proxy for profitability.
        Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which This Proposed Rule Would Apply
        The proposed measures would only affect vessels holding an active Federal open access surfclam and/or ocean quahog permit. The SBA defines a small commercial shellfish fishing entity as a firm with gross annual receipts not exceeding $5 million. In 2012, a total of 42 vessels reported harvesting surfclams and/or ocean quahogs from Federal waters under the Individual Fishing Quota system. In addition, 12 vessels participated in the limited access Maine ocean quahog fishery, for a total of 54 participants in 2012. Average 2012 gross income was $950,000 per vessel. Each vessel in this analysis is treated as a single entity for purposes of size determination and impact assessment. All 54 commercial fishing entities fall below the SBA size threshold for small commercial shellfish fishing entities.
        Economic Impacts of This Proposed Action Compared to Significant Non-Selected Alternatives
        1. Specifications
        The proposed quotas for 2014-2016 reflect the same quota levels set for 2011-2013. Therefore, it is not expected that there will be any different economic impacts beyond status quo resulting from the proposed quota level. Leaving the ocean quahog quota at the harvest level of 5.333 million bu (284 million L) is not expected to constrain the fishery. The surfclam quota is proposed to be set to the maximum allowed under the FMP of 3.4 million bu (181 million L).
        The Maine ocean quahog quota is proposed to be set at the maximum allowed under the FMP of 100,000 Maine bu (3.524 million L). It is anticipated that by maintaining the status quo quota level for the next 3 years, the fishing industry will benefit from the stability of product demand from the seafood processors and being able to predict future fishery performance based on past performance from the last 3 years.
        The non-selected alternatives for both the surfclam and ocean quahog would both result in more restrictive quotas. Therefore, the more restrictive non-selected alternatives would have a negative economic impact on the fishery when compared to the proposed action of status quo quotas.
        2. Minimum Size Suspension for Atlantic Surfclams
        In regard to the suspension of the minimum size limit for Atlantic surfclams, the minimum size limit has been suspended since 2005. Therefore, because this action would not impose a minimum size limit, and because no net change in fishing effort, participation in the fishery, or fishery expenses are expected, it is anticipated that this action would not impose any additional costs on the industry. In fact, continuing to suspend the minimum size limit would likely have positive economic affects in contrast to not suspending the minimum size limit.
        The non-selected alternative would result in the minimum size limit for surfclams not being suspended. As a result, the non-selected selected alternative would require fishery participants to adhere to the surfclam minimum size limit. Measuring surfclams would result in additional burden which would likely reduce operational efficiency. Therefore, the non-selected alternative of not suspending the minimum size limit would have negative economic impacts and would reduce vessel efficiency when compared to the proposed alternative of suspending the minimum size limit.

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

          Dated: November 1, 2013.
          Alan D. Risenhoover,
          Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, performing the functions and duties of the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2013-26773 Filed 11-6-13; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 52
        [R04-OAR-2005-GA-0005-200537e; FRL-8021-2]
        Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans Georgia: Approval of Revisions to the State Implementation Plan; Extension of Comment Period

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

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

          SUMMARY:
          EPA is extending the comment period for a proposed rule published November 29, 2005 (70 FR 71446). On November 29, 2005, EPA proposed to approve a correction to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the State of Georgia regarding the State's general “nuisance” rule. EPA has determined that this rule, Georgia Rule 391-3-1.02(2)(a)1, was erroneously incorporated into the SIP. EPA is proposing to remove this rule from the approved Georgia SIP because the rule is not related to the attainment and maintenance of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). At the request of several commentors, EPA is extending the comment period through January 23, 2006.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received on or before January 23, 2006.

          ADDRESSES:

          Comments should be submitted to: Sean Lakeman, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Phone: (404) 562-9043. E-mail: lakeman.sean@epa.gov. Additional instructions to comment can be found in the notice of proposed rulemaking published November 29, 2005 (70 FR 71446).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Sean Lakeman, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404) 562-9043. Mr. Lakeman can also be reached via electronic mail at lakeman.sean@epa.gov.

            Dated: January 6, 2006.
            A. Stanley Meiburg,
            Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

       [FR Doc. E6-355 Filed 1-12-06; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        RIN 1018-AF45
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Clarification of Take Prohibitions for Coastal Cutthroat Trout

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; clarification.

          SUMMARY:
          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), provide notice that the Endangered Species Act prohibitions against take of threatened species will apply to Southwestern Washington/Columbia River coastal cutthroat trout and will go into effect on the effective date of listing, if the proposed listing of this species is finalized. We also provide lists of actions that would, and would not, likely constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act and seek comment on those lists.

          DATES:
          Comments from all interested parties must be received by August 14, 2000.

          ADDRESSES:
          Comments and materials should be sent to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon State Office, 2600 SE 98th Avenue, Suite 100, Portland, Oregon 97266 (telephone 503/231-6179; facsimile 503/231-6195), email: coastal_cutthroat@fws.gov. Comments and materials received will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above address.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Kemper McMaster, State Supervisor, 503/231-6179.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Based on questions we have received regarding the application of the take prohibition of section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), to the potential listing of coastal cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki clarki) as threatened, we are providing the following clarification of our position relative to take prohibitions for threatened species.
        Background
        On April 5, 1999, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the Service jointly published a proposed rule (64 FR 16397) to list the Southwestern Washington/Columbia River coastal cutthroat trout evolutionarily significant unit (ESU) in Washington and Oregon as threatened. On November 22, 1999, we assumed sole regulatory jurisdiction over all life forms of coastal cutthroat trout under the Act (see 65 FR 21376). On April 14, 2000 (65 FR 20123), we extended by 6 months (until October 5, 2000) the timeframe to take final action on the proposed rule. We needed additional time to review new information available since the status review was published and to examine the role of hatchery and above-barrier populations of the coastal cutthroat trout within southwest Washington and the Columbia River and their importance to conservation of the species in this area. Consequently, we will take final action on the April 5, 1999, proposed rule by October 5, 2000.
        Section 9 of the Act prohibits certain activities, including take, for endangered species. Section 4(d) of the Act allows the prohibition of any of these activities for threatened species, through promulgation of a special rule. The April 5, 1999, proposed rule included the stipulation that protective regulations pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act would be addressed in the future and that all relevant National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requirements would be met at that time. This stipulation reflects the approach that NMFS takes when proposing a species as threatened under the Act. However, the Service promulgated regulations establishing prohibitions for all threatened species under its jurisdiction on April 28, 1978 (43 FR 18181), and amended these regulations on May 31, 1979 (44 FR 31580). As a result, our regulations at 50 CFR 17.31 apply all of the take prohibitions for endangered species at § 17.21, except § 17.21(c)(5), to threatened wildlife. Since we now have sole regulatory authority for coastal cutthroat trout, these regulations will apply at the time of listing of any coastal cutthroat trout. Therefore, further action relative to NEPA and RFA requirements is not necessary for application of these regulations to coastal cutthroat trout in Southwestern Washington/Columbia River region, should the proposed listing be finalized.
        The regulations at 50 CFR 17.21 and 17.31 prohibit taking (to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct) of listed species of fish or wildlife without a special exemption. Harm is further defined to include significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing behavioral patterns such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Harass is defined as creating the likelihood of injury to listed species to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns, which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 17.3).

        We recognize that some activities that provide for the conservation of the species may result in harm or harassment to individual coastal cutthroat trout. These activities may be permitted through a section 10(a)(1)(A) permit. In the future, we may also implement a section 4(d) rule to remove the prohibition against take resulting from activities that contribute to the conservation of the species. Such a 4(d) rule must go through a full regulatory process, including publication of a proposal in the Federal Register and a public comment period. For example, a section 4(d) rule could remove the prohibition against take resulting from State-regulated recreational fisheries or activities covered by local land-use planning regulations, so long as such activities provide for the conservation of the species. Activities that may result in harm or harassment to individual coastal cutthroat trout may also be permitted through section 10(a)(1)(B) with the development of a habitat conservation plan that minimizes and mitigates the impact to the maximum extent practical.
        Activities That Would Not Constitute a Violation of Section 9 of the Act
        Our policy, as published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34272), is to identify to the maximum extent practicable those activities that would or would not constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act, as stipulated in 50 CFR 17.21 and 17.31. By presenting this information, we hope to increase public awareness of the potential effects of the proposed listing on new and ongoing activities within the range of coastal cutthroat trout in the Southwest Washington/Columbia River region. We believe the following actions would not be likely to result in a violation of section 9, provided the activities are carried out in accordance with all existing regulations and permit requirements:
        (1) Actions that may affect coastal cutthroat trout and are authorized, funded, or carried out by a Federal agency when the action is conducted in accordance with an incidental take statement issued by us pursuant to section 7 of the Act;
        (2) State, local, and other activities for the conservation of the coastal cutthroat trout approved by us under section 4(d), section 6(c)(1), or section 10(a)(1) of the Act;
        (3) The planting of native vegetation within riparian areas, using hand tools or mechanical auger. This does not include any site preparation that involves the removal of native vegetation (such as deciduous trees and shrubs) or that goes beyond that necessary to plant individual trees, shrubs, or other plants;
        (4) The installation of fences to exclude livestock impacts to the riparian area and stream channel. The installation of new off-channel livestock watering facilities and the operation and maintenance of existing off-channel livestock watering facilities when such facilities consist of low-volume pumping, gravity feed, or well systems, and employ in-water intakes that are screened consistent with NMFS' current Juvenile Fish Screen Criteria For Pump Intakes. This does not include the potential impacts associated with the grazing activity itself or negative effects attributable to depleting stream flow due to water withdrawal;
        (5) The placement of human access barriers, such as gates, fences, boulders, logs, vegetative buffers, and signs, to limit use- and disturbance-associated impacts. These impacts may include timber theft, disturbance to wildlife, poaching, illegal dumping of waste, erosion of soils, and sedimentation of aquatic habitats, particularly in sensitive areas such as riparian habitats or geologically unstable zones. This does not include road maintenance or the potential impacts associated with the road itself;

        (6) The current operation and maintenance of fish screens on various water facilities that meet the current NMFS' Juvenile Fish Screen Criteria for Pump Intakes. This does not include the use of traps or other collection devices at screen installations, operation of the diversion structure, or negative effects attributable to depleting stream flow due to water diversion;
        (7) The installation, operation, and maintenance of screens where the existing canal or ditch is located off the main stream channel when: (a) The canal or ditch is dewatered prior to screen and bypass installation and prior to fish entering the canal or ditch; (b) Installed screens and bypass structures meet the current NMFS' Juvenile Fish Screen Criteria; and (c) Bypass is accomplished through free (volitional) access, with adequate velocities, construction materials, and stream re-entry conditions that will not result in harm or death to fish. This does not include the use of traps or other collection devices at screen installations, placement or operation of the diversion structure, or negative effects attributable to depleting stream flow due to water diversion;
        (8) The general maintenance of existing structures, such as homes, apartments, and commercial buildings, which may be located in close proximity to a stream corridor, but outside of the stream channel. This does not include potential impacts associated with sediment or chemical releases that may adversely affect coastal cutthroat trout or their habitat, nor does this include those activities that may degrade existing riparian areas or alter streambanks (such as removal of streamside vegetation and streambank stabilization); and
        (9) The lawful use of existing State, county, city, and private roads. This does not include road maintenance and the potential impacts associated with the road itself that may destroy or alter coastal cutthroat trout habitat (such as grading unimproved roads, stormwater and contaminant runoff from roads, failing road culverts, and road culverts that block fish migration), unless authorized by us through section 6, 7, or 10 of the Act.
        Activities That Would Constitute a Violation of Section 9 of the Act
        We believe that the following could result in a violation of section 9:
        (1) Take of coastal cutthroat trout without a permit or other authorization from us. Take includes harassing, harming, pursuing, hunting, shooting, wounding, killing, trapping, capturing, or collecting, or attempting any of these actions, except in accordance with applicable State, National Park Service, and Tribal fish and wildlife conservation laws and regulations;
        (2) To possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship illegally taken coastal cutthroat trout;
        (3) Introduction of nonnative fish species that compete or hybridize with, or prey on, coastal cutthroat trout;
        (4) Implementation of activities that destroy or alter coastal cutthroat trout habitat including, but not limited to: dredging, channelization or diversion; riparian vegetation removal that leads to reduced shade or the recruitment of large woody debris; in-stream vehicle operation or streambed material removal; grading unimproved roads; road maintenance activities such as side-casting into riparian zones or waterways; failure to control stormwater and contaminant runoff from roads or to maintain failing road culverts; and installation of road culverts that block fish migration; or other activities that result in the destruction or significant degradation of water quality or quantity, water temperature, cover, channel stability, substrate composition, turbidity, and migratory corridors used by the species for foraging, cover, migration, and spawning;
        (5) Discharges, release, or dumping of toxic chemicals, silt, or other pollutants into waters supporting coastal cutthroat trout that result in death or injury of individuals of the species, including misuse of toxic chemicals that enter the water and result in death or injury of individuals; and
        (6) Destruction or alteration of stream, riparian, estuarine, or lakeshore habitat and adjoining uplands of waters supporting coastal cutthroat trout by timber harvest, grazing, mining, hydropower development, road construction, habitat restoration, or other development activities that result in long- or short-term destruction or significant degradation of water quality or quantity, water temperature, cover, channel stability, substrate composition, turbidity, and migratory corridors used by the species for foraging, cover, migration, and spawning.
        We will review other activities not identified above on a case-by-case basis to determine if a violation of section 9 of the Act may be likely to result from such activity. We do not consider these lists to be exhaustive and provide them as information to the public.
        Comments Solicited
        This rulemaking action does not propose any changes to the regulation prohibiting take for threatened wildlife, as stipulated in 50 CFR 17.31, or the manner in which this prohibition is applied. We are soliciting comments on the above list of activities that would, and would not, likely constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. We are not soliciting comments on the application of this regulation to any other populations of coastal cutthroat trout that may be listed in the future.

        Author: The primary authors for this rulemaking action are John A. Young, Regional Office, Region 1, and Robin Bown, Oregon State Office (see ADDRESSES section).
        Authority

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

          Dated: July 6, 2000.
          Jamie Rappaport Clark,
          Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

      [FR Doc. 00-17921 Filed 7-13-00; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
        49 CFR Chapter I, Subchapter B
        [Docket No. PHMSA-91-13289 (FS-1)]
        RIN 2137-AC00
        Safeguarding Food From Contamination During Transportation

          AGENCY:
          Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.

          ACTION:
          Withdrawal of notices of proposed rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), the successor agency to the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), is withdrawing the notice of proposed rulemaking published on May 21, 1993, and the supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking published on December 21, 2004. In those notices, the Agency proposed to implement the Sanitary Food Transportation Act of 1990 by amending its regulations to address the safe transportation of food and food products in commerce. On August 10, 2005, the President signed the Sanitary Food Transportation Act of 2005, which transferred authority for regulating the safe transportation of food from the U.S. Department of Transportation to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Helen Engrum, Office of Hazardous Materials Standards, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001, telephone (202) 366-8553.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        I. Background

        The Sanitary Food Transportation Act of 1990 (SFTA); required the Department of Transportation (DOT) to promulgate regulations to promote the safe transportation of food products. (Pub. L. 101-500, 104 Stat. 1213 [Nov. 3, 1990]). Among other requirements, SFTA required DOT, in consultation with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Environmental Protection Agency, to:

        (1) Issue regulations with respect to the transportation of food, food additives, drugs, devices, and cosmetics, as defined in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.), in motor vehicles or rail cars that are used to transport either refuse or non-food products that could make the food unsafe as a result of such transportation;
        (2) Issue regulations governing the construction and use of cargo tanks and rail cars used to transport food products, including prohibiting the transportation of food products in cargo tanks and rail cars used to transport non-food products that would make the products unsafe; and
        (3) Designate and publish a list of non-food products that may not be transported in cargo tanks and tank cars that are also used to transport food products.
        II. Current Rulemaking
        On May 21, 1993, the Agency published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to implement SFTA. (58 FR 29698). Commenters generally opposed the proposals in the NPRM and recommended that DOT defer to the HHS' Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and USDA on food safety issues.
        After considering the comments to the NPRM, the Agency concluded the expertise for ensuring the safety of our nation's food supply, including transportation, lies with USDA and FDA. Based on its work with USDA and FDA, DOT determined that the public interest would be more effectively served and better addressed by building on the present statutory authority, existing enforcement and technical expertise, and operational framework already established within USDA and FDA. Implementation of a food transportation safety program under DOT would have required unnecessary duplication of personnel and funds to promulgate regulations and to conduct certain training, research and testing activities. It could result in duplication, overlap, or conflict with current or pending FDA and USDA regulations.
        After a thorough review of the alternatives, the Agency issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) on December 21, 2004 proposing to direct compliance with the existing requirements of FDA and USDA for the sanitary transportation of food. (69 FR 76432). In the SNPRM, the Agency proposed to add a new part 121 to subchapter B of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations to include definitions applicable to the transportation of food and food products and to refer to requirements of USDA (9 CFR parts 1 through 599) and FDA (21 CFR parts 1 through 1299) that apply to persons who offer for transportation or transport food in commerce by motor vehicle or rail car. We also proposed to recommend use of guidance documents and materials promulgated by FDA and USDA related to food transportation safety and security. This approach would have prevented duplication or conflict with existing regulations and would have assured primary responsibility for food safety would rest with FDA and USDA.
        In response to the SNPRM, we received approximately 17 comments from food associations, highway and rail associations, freight companies, the Dangerous Goods Advisory Council, and several state governments' departments of agriculture. The majority of comments strongly supported DOT's efforts to implement SFTA by relying on the agencies that are best equipped to address these issues. The commenters agreed safeguarding food and food products from contamination during transportation in commerce is best handled and carried out by USDA and FDA. Several commenters suggested revisions to USDA and FDA requirements to address perceived shortcomings in those regulatory programs. However, such revisions were not proposed and thus are outside the scope of the rulemaking.
        III. Sanitary Food Transportation Act of 2005
        On August 10, 2005, the President signed the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act—A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU; Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144). Subtitle B of Title VII of SAFETEA-LU—the Sanitary Food Transportation Act of 2005—amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to assign the regulatory authority for food transportation safety to HHS and to require DOT, in consultation with HHS and USDA to establish procedures for transportation safety inspections to identify suspected incidents of food contamination or adulteration. Accordingly, DOT's responsibilities in this area are limited to (1) developing and implementing a training program for its inspectors that perform commercial motor vehicle or railroad safety inspections, and (2) notifying HHS or USDA, as applicable, of any instances of potential food contamination or adulteration identified during safety inspections. DOT is no longer required to issue regulations applicable to the safe transportation of food.
        Accordingly, PHMSA is withdrawing the May 21, 1993 NPRM, and December 21, 2004 SNPRM and terminating this rulemaking docket. Consistent with the re-allocation of food safety responsibilities in SAFETEA-LU, we will continue to work with USDA and FDA on inspection and enforcement issues. To this end, the three agencies plan to enter into a memorandum of understanding to ensure the agencies work together effectively to assure the Nation's food supply is safe and secure, particularly in the distribution channels involving transportation. USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) and FDA will provide practical information regarding their regulations and activities concerning food safety and security. Further, FSIS and FDA will provide guidance to, and coordinate with, DOT on sharing of significant information resulting from DOT safety inspections. FSIS and FDA will work with DOT to develop standard training for transportation inspectors to enable them to recognize suspected incidents of contamination or adulteration or other potential food safety or security concerns encountered during their inspections and to report these incidents to FSIS or FDA.

          Issued in Washington, DC on December 20, 2005, under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.53(i).
          Stacey L. Gerard,
          Acting Assistant Administrator/Chief Safety Officer.

      [FR Doc. 05-24435 Filed 12-22-05; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        [Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2009-0083; MO 92210-0-0009]
        RIN 1018-AV84
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing and Designation of Critical Habitat for the Three Forks Springsnail and San Bernardino Springsnail

          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 April 12, 2011, proposed endangered status and designation of critical habitat for the Three Forks springsnail (Pyrgulopsis trivialis) and the San Bernardino springsnail (Pyrgulopsis bernardina) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We are proposing to revise the previously proposed critical habitat for the Three Forks springsnail by increasing the size of the Boneyard Bog Springs Unit to 5.3 acres (2.1 hectares), and by adding an additional unit, the Boneyard Creek Springs Unit. In total, we are proposing to designate as critical habitat 17.1 acres (6.9 hectares) for the Three Forks springsnail. We also announce the availability of a draft economic analysis (DEA) of the proposed designation of critical habitat and an amended required determinations section of the proposal. We are reopening the comment period to allow all interested parties an opportunity to comment simultaneously on the revised proposed rule, the associated DEA, and the amended required determinations section. Comments previously submitted need not be resubmitted, as they will be fully considered in preparation of the final rule.

          DATES:
          We will consider comments received on or before December 19, 2011. Comments must be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date. Any comments that we receive after the closing date may not be considered in the final decision on this action.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit written comments by one of the following methods:
          (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Search for Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2009-0083, which is the docket number for this rulemaking.
          (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R2-ES-2009-0083; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
          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:
          Steve Spangle, Field Supervisor, Arizona Ecological Services Field Office, 2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103, Phoenix, AZ 85021; telephone (602) 242-0210; facsimile (602) 242-2513. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at (800) 877-8339.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Public Comments

        We will accept written comments and information during this reopened comment period on our proposed listing and designation of critical habitat for the Three Forks springsnail and San Bernardino springsnail that published in the Federal Register on April 12, 2011 (76 FR 20464), revisions to the proposed critical habitat, our DEA of the proposed designation, and the amended required determinations provided in this document. We will consider information and recommendations from all interested parties. We are particularly interested in comments concerning:

        (1) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as “critical habitat” under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), 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) Specific information on:
        (a) The distribution of the Three Forks springsnail and San Bernardino springsnail;
        (b) The amount and distribution of the species' habitat;
        (c) What areas occupied by the species at the time of listing that contain features essential for the conservation of the species we should include in the designation and why; and
        (d) What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential to the conservation of the species and why.
        (3) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.
        (4) Any foreseeable economic, national security, or other relevant impacts, that may result from designating any area that may be included in the final designation. We are particularly interested in any impacts on small entities, and the benefits of including or excluding areas from the proposed designation that are subject to these impacts.
        (5) Whether our approach to designating critical habitat could be improved or modified in any way to provide for greater public participation and understanding, or to assist us in accommodating public concerns and comments.
        (6) Information on the extent to which the description of economic impacts in the DEA is complete and accurate.
        (7) The likelihood of adverse social reactions to the designation of critical habitat and how the consequences of such reactions, if likely to occur, would relate to the conservation and regulatory benefits of the proposed critical habitat designation.
        If you submitted comments or information on the proposed rule (76 FR 20464; April 12, 2011) during the initial comment period from April 12, 2011, to June 13, 2011, please do not resubmit them. We will incorporate them into the public record as part of this comment period, and we will fully consider them in the preparation of our final determination. Our final determination concerning critical habitat will take into consideration all written comments and any additional information we receive during both comment periods. On the basis of public comments, we may, during the development of our final determination, find that areas proposed are not essential, are appropriate for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, or are not appropriate for exclusion.

        You may submit your comments and materials concerning the proposed rule or DEA by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will not consider comments sent by email 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. We will post all hardcopy comments on http://www.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 and DEA, will be available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2009-0083, or by appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). You may obtain copies of the proposed rule and the DEA on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R2-ES-2009-0083, or by mail from the Arizona Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
        Background

        It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to the proposed listing and designation of critical habitat for Three Forks springsnail and San Bernardino springsnail in this document. For more information on previous Federal actions concerning these species, refer to the proposed designation of critical habitat published in the Federal Register
           on April 12, 2011 (76 FR 20464), which is available online at http://www.regulations.gov (at Docket Number FWS-R2-ES-2009-0083) or from the Arizona Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
        Previous Federal Actions
        On April 12, 2011 (76 FR 20464), we published a proposed rule to list as endangered and designate critical habitat for the Three Forks springsnail and San Bernardino springsnail. We proposed to designate approximately 11.1 acres (ac) (4.5 hectares (ha)) in Arizona in two units located in Apache County as critical habitat for Three Forks springsnail and 2.013 ac (0.815 ha) in four units located in Cochise County as critical habitat for San Bernardino springsnail. That proposal had a 60-day comment period, ending June 13, 2011. We received no requests for a public hearing, and, therefore, no public hearing will take place.
        Critical Habitat
        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 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.
        New Information and Changes From the Previously Proposed Critical Habitat

        In this document, we are notifying the public of changes to the proposed critical habitat rule. In the April 12, 2011, proposed rule (76 FR 20464), we mentioned that springsnails of the same genus as the Three Forks springsnail were recently found in a spring along Boneyard Creek between Three Forks Springs and Boneyard Bog Springs (Myers 2010, p. 1), but additional analysis was needed for a definitive determination of its taxonomy. Building on the field work of Myers (2010), Myers (2011, p. 5) found additional populations of Pyrgulopsis springsnails along Boneyard Creek. These additional populations are located in the same watershed and in between the two previously known locations, Three Forks Springs and Boneyard Bog Springs. The new populations found in Boneyard Creek are less than 1 mile (mi) (1.6 kilometer (km)) downstream from Boneyard Bog Springs and less than 2 mi (3.2 km) upstream of Three Forks Springs. Due to the proximity of these new populations in relation to Three Forks Springs and Boneyard Bog Springs, we believe that they are the same species. Two different species of springsnails occurring together in the same area is very rare (Liu et al. 2003, p. 2779). If there were different species of springsnails occurring together in this watershed, we can reasonably assume that other springsnail species would have been previously found in either the Three Forks Springs or Boneyard Bog Springs. Based on this information, we believe that the new populations of springsnails found in Boneyard Creek are Three Forks springsnails species.
        Also, since publication of the April 12, 2011, proposed rule (76 FR 20464), we have new information regarding the taxonomy of springsnails in Sonora, Mexico. We mentioned in the proposed rule that a springsnail belonging to the same family as the San Bernardino springsnail occurs in two cienegas, or spring ecosystems, in Sonora, Mexico, about 0.25 miles (mi) (0.4 kilometers (km)) south of the San Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge, but additional research was needed to verify if they were the same species as San Bernardino springsnails. Since publication of the proposed rule, we have new information that verifies springsnails in the two cienegas (spring ecosystems in the desert Southwest) in Sonora, Mexico, are San Bernardino springsnails (Varela Romero and Myers 2010, p. 10). However, we will not designate critical habitat for the species in either of those cienegas, because we do not designate critical habitat outside the United States. As such, there are no changes to critical habitat as proposed on April 12, 2011, for the San Bernardino springsnail.
        We are proposing to revise our proposed critical habitat designation for the Three Forks springsnail by increasing the size of the Boneyard Bog Springs Unit from 5.0 ac (2.0 ha) to 5.3 ac (2.1 ha) to capture an additional springhead that was discovered since the publication of the proposed rule. In addition, we are proposing a new unit, Boneyard Springs Creek Unit, which is approximately 5.8 ac (2.3 ha) in size, to encompass the newly discovered populations of Three Forks springsnails described above. In total, we are proposing to designate as critical habitat 17.1 ac (6.9 ha) for the Three Forks springsnail. For a full description of the previously proposed units for this species, please see the proposed critical habitat rule (76 FR 20464; April 12, 2011).

        In the proposed listing and designation of critical habitat rule (76 FR 20464; April 12, 2011), we identified specific sites that were currently occupied by Three Forks and San Bernardino springsnails, which contained the physical and biological features that are essential to the conservation of the species, and which may require special management considerations or protection. Subsequent to the publication of the proposed listing and critical habitat rule, we discovered new populations of Three Forks springsnails in areas that contain the essential physical and biological features. Therefore, the purpose of this proposed revision to the proposed critical habitat is to include these new areas that are currently occupied by Three Forks springsnail, contain the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species, and meet the definition of critical habitat. We believe the additional unit included in the proposed designation would provide for the conservation of Three Forks springsnail by:
        (1) Maintaining the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the species where the species is known to occur, and
        (2) Maintaining the current distribution, thus preserving genetic variation throughout the range of the species and minimizing the potential effects of local extirpation.
        Proposed Critical Habitat Designation
        We are proposing to revise the previously proposed critical habitat for the Three Forks springsnail by increasing the size of the Boneyard Bog Springs Unit, and by adding an additional unit, the Boneyard Creek Springs Unit. The proposed critical habitat units constitute our current and best assessment of the areas that meet the definition of critical habitat for the species. Proposed critical habitat for the Three Forks Spring Unit for the Three Forks springsnail, and all previously proposed units for the San Bernardino springsnail, are unchanged from our descriptions in the April 12, 2011, proposed rule (76 FR 20464), and are not repeated in this document. We present below brief descriptions of the revised Boneyard Bog Springs Unit and the new Boneyard Creek Springs Unit, and reasons why they meet the definition of critical habitat for the Three Forks springsnail.
        Boneyard Bog Springs Unit
        The proposed Boneyard Bog Springs Unit is a complex of springs, spring runs, spring seeps, and the segment of Boneyard Creek connecting them, and a small amount of upland area encircling them to make them a single unit of approximately 5.3 ac (2.1 ha), in the vicinity of UTM Zone 12 coordinate 659970, 3750730, in Apache County, Arizona. The entire unit is in Federal ownership and managed by the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests of the U.S. Forest Service. The unit encompasses eight major springheads and spring runs, each of which flows several yards (meters) to Boneyard Creek, a tributary of the Black River. The spring complex contains spring seeps along the spring runs and the tributary. We are proposing to designate a single critical habitat unit that includes the springheads, spring runs, seeps, and that portion of Boneyard Creek that connects the spring runs. Boneyard Creek is occupied where spring seeps are present along it, and the proposed unit provides for springsnail movement among the occupied seeps, spring runs, and springs, and is essential for habitat connectivity. The area within the proposed unit contains approximately 3.3 feet (ft) (1.0 meter (m)) in width of upland area adjacent to the springheads, spring runs, spring seeps, and tributary segment. The moist soils and vegetation in the adjacent uplands are essential to the species because they produce food for the snails and protect the substrate.
        Threats to the Three Forks springsnail in this unit that may require special management of the physical and biological features include wildfire, fire retardant used to fight wildfires, elk grazing, predation by nonnative crayfish, and potential competition from nonnative snails. Also, human-caused changes to the adjacent uplands, which may pose a threat to the aquatic habitats in this proposed unit, can be managed through conservation efforts by Arizona Game and Fish Department and through consultations between the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under section 7 of the Act. This proposed unit contains all the primary constituent elements and supports all of the Three Forks springsnail's life processes.
        Boneyard Creek Springs Unit
        The proposed Boneyard Creek Springs Unit is a complex of springs, spring runs, spring seeps, and the segment of Boneyard Creek connecting them, and a small amount of upland area encompassing them, in a single unit of approximately 5.8 ac (2.3 ha), in the vicinity of UTM Zone 12 coordinate 658300, 3749790, in Apache County, Arizona. The entire unit is in Federal ownership and managed by the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests of the U.S. Forest Service. The unit encompasses at least 11 major springheads and spring runs, which each flow a distance of several yards (meters) to Boneyard Creek, a tributary of the Black River. The spring complex contains spring seeps along the spring runs and the tributary. We are proposing to designate a single critical habitat unit that includes the springheads, spring runs, seeps, and that portion of Boneyard Creek that connects the spring runs. Boneyard Creek is occupied where there are spring seeps along it and provides for springsnail movement among the occupied seeps, spring runs, and springs, and is essential for habitat connectivity. The area within the proposed unit contains approximately 3.3 ft (1.0 m) in width of upland area adjacent to the springheads, spring runs, spring seeps, and tributary segment. The moist soils and vegetation in the adjacent uplands are essential to the species, because they produce food for the snails and protect the substrate they use.
        Threats to the Three Forks springsnail in this unit that may require special management of the physical and biological features include wildfire, fire retardant used to fight wildfires, elk grazing, predation by nonnative crayfish, and potential competition from nonnative snails. Also, human-caused changes to the adjacent uplands, which might pose a threat to the aquatic habitats, can be managed through conservation efforts by Arizona Game and Fish Department and through consultations between U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under section 7 of the Act. This proposed unit contains all the primary constituent elements and supports all of the Three Forks springsnail's life processes.
        Consideration of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
        Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate or revise critical habitat based upon the best scientific data available, after taking into consideration the economic impact, impact on national security, or any other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. We may exclude an area from critical habitat if we determine that the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the benefits of including the area as critical habitat, provided such exclusion will not result in the extinction of the species.
        When considering the benefits of inclusion for an area, we consider the additional regulatory benefits that area would receive from the protection from adverse modification or destruction as a result of actions with a Federal nexus (activities conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies), the educational benefits of mapping areas containing essential features that aid in the recovery of the listed species, and any benefits that may result from designation due to State or Federal laws that may apply to critical habitat.

        When considering the benefits of exclusion, we consider, among other things, whether exclusion of a specific area is likely to result in conservation; the continuation, strengthening, or encouragement of partnerships; or implementation of a management plan. In the case of Three Forks springsnail and San Bernardino springsnail, the benefits of critical habitat include public awareness of the presence of the species and the importance of habitat protection, and, where a Federal nexus exists, increased habitat protection for the species due to protection from adverse modification or destruction of critical habitat. In practice, situations with a Federal nexus exist primarily on Federal lands or for projects undertaken by Federal agencies.

        We have not proposed to exclude any areas from critical habitat. However, the final decision on whether to exclude any areas will be based on the best scientific data available at the time of the final designation, including information obtained during the comment period and information about the economic impact of designation. Accordingly, we have prepared a draft economic analysis concerning the proposed critical habitat designation (DEA), which is available for review and comment (see ADDRESSES section).
        Draft Economic Analysis
        The purpose of the DEA is to identify and analyze the potential economic impacts associated with the proposed critical habitat designation for the Three Forks springsnail and San Bernardino springsnail. The DEA describes the economic impacts of all potential conservation efforts for the Three Forks springsnail and San Bernardino springsnail; some of these costs will likely be incurred regardless of whether we designate critical habitat. The economic impact of the proposed critical habitat designation is analyzed by comparing scenarios both “with critical habitat” and “without critical habitat.” The “without critical habitat” scenario represents the baseline for the analysis, considering protections already in place for the species (e.g., under the Federal listing and other Federal, State, and local regulations). The baseline, therefore, represents the costs incurred regardless of whether critical habitat is designated. The “with critical habitat” scenario describes the incremental impacts associated specifically with the designation of critical habitat for the species. The incremental conservation efforts and associated impacts are those not expected to occur absent the designation of critical habitat for the species. In other words, the incremental costs are those attributable solely to the designation of critical habitat, above and beyond the baseline costs; these are the costs we may consider in the final designation of critical habitat when evaluating the benefits of excluding particular areas under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Thus, the analysis forecasts both baseline and incremental impacts likely to occur if we finalize the proposed listing and critical habitat designation. For a further description of the methodology of the analysis, see Chapter 2, “Framework for the Analysis,” of the DEA.
        The DEA provides estimated costs of the foreseeable potential economic impacts of the proposed critical habitat designation for the Three Forks springsnail and San Bernardino springsnail over the next 12 years, which was determined to be the appropriate period for analysis because limited planning information is available for most activities to forecast activity levels for projects beyond a 12-year timeframe. It identifies potential incremental costs as a result of the proposed critical habitat designation; these are those costs attributed to critical habitat over and above those baseline costs attributed to listing. The DEA quantifies economic impacts of Three Forks springsnail and San Bernardino springsnail conservation efforts associated with the following categories of activity: (1) Pesticide use, (2) groundwater pumping, (3) wildfire suppression, and (4) management of ungulate grazing. Additionally, the DEA quantifies economic impacts of additional administrative costs associated with the following categories of activity: (1) Additional effort to address adverse modification in a new consultation, and (2) incremental consultation resulting entirely from critical habitat designation. Total undiscounted costs are estimated at $70,700. The estimated costs are limited to administrative impacts that are likely to result from the designation of critical habitat.
        As we stated earlier, we are soliciting data and comments from the public on the DEA, as well as all aspects of the proposed rule and our amended required determinations. We may revise the proposed rule or supporting documents to incorporate or address information we receive during the public comment period. In particular, we may exclude an area from critical habitat if we determine that the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the benefits of including the area, provided the exclusion will not result in the extinction of this species.
        Required Determinations—Amended

        In our April 12, 2011, proposed rule (76 FR 20464), we indicated that we would defer our determination of compliance with several statutes and executive orders until the information concerning potential economic impacts of the designation and potential effects on landowners and stakeholders became available in the DEA. We have now made use of the DEA data to make these determinations. In this document, we affirm the information in our proposed rule concerning Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), E.O. 12630 (Takings), E.O. 13132 (Federalism), E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), E.O. 13211 (Energy, Supply, Distribution, and Use), the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), and the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951). However, based on the DEA data, we are amending our required determination concerning the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
        Regulatory Flexibility Act
        Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 802(2)), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Based on our DEA of the proposed designation, we provide our preliminary regulatory flexibility analysis. Based on comments we receive, we may revise this determination as part of our final rule.

        According to the Small Business Administration, small entities include small organizations, such as independent nonprofit organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than $11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this designation as well as types of project modifications that may result. In general, the term “significant economic impact” is meant to apply to a typical small business firm's business operations.
        To determine if the proposed designation of critical habitat for the Three Forks springsnail and San Bernardino springsnail would affect a substantial number of small entities, we considered the number of small entities affected within particular types of economic activities, such as ranch operations. In order to determine whether it is appropriate for our agency to certify that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, we considered each industry or category individually. In estimating the numbers of small entities potentially affected, we also considered whether their activities have any Federal involvement. Critical habitat designation will not affect activities that do not have any Federal involvement; designation of critical habitat only affects activities conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies. In areas where the springsnails are present, once the species are listed, the Federal agencies are required to consult with us under section 7 of the Act on activities they fund, permit, or implement that may affect the species. If we finalize this proposed critical habitat designation, consultations to avoid the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat would be incorporated into the existing consultation process.
        In the DEA, we evaluated the potential economic effects on small entities resulting from implementation of conservation actions related to the proposed designation of critical habitat for the Three Forks springsnail and San Bernardino springsnail. Currently, livestock grazing is excluding from all units so no cattle operators will be impacted by the designation of critical habitat. The DEA does not anticipate impacts to small entities as a result of this designation, as all units are on State or federally owned land. Please refer to the DEA of the proposed critical habitat designation for a more detailed discussion of potential economic impacts.
        In summary, we have considered whether the proposed designation would result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Information for this analysis was gathered from the Small Business Administration, stakeholders, and the Service. For the above reasons and based on currently available information, we certify that, if promulgated, the proposed critical habitat designation would not have a significant economic impact on small business entities. Therefore, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
        References Cited

        A complete list of all references cited in this proposed rule is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or upon request from the Field Supervisor, Arizona Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
        Authors
        The primary authors of this notice are the staff members of the Arizona Ecological Services Field Office, Southwest Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

          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, which was proposed to be amended at 76 FR 20464, April 12, 2011, as follows:

          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; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500, unless otherwise noted.

          2. In § 17.95(f), amend the proposed entry for “Three Forks Springsnail (Pyrgulopsis trivialis),” which we proposed at 76 FR 20464 on April 12, 2011, by:
          a. Revising proposed paragraph (f)(5);
          b. Revising proposed paragraph (f)(7); and
          c. Adding a new paragraph (f)(8), to read as set forth below.

            § 17.95
            Critical habitat—fish and wildlife.

            (f) Clams and Snails.

            Three Forks Springsnail (Pyrgulopsis trivialis)

            (5) Note: Index map of critical habitat for the Three Forks springsnail follows:
            BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

              EP17NO11.002

            BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

            (7) Boneyard Bog Springs Unit (2.1 ha; 5.3 ac). The Boneyard Bog Springs Unit consists of all areas within boundary points with the following coordinates in UTM Zone 12 with the units in meters using North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83): 659968, 3750753; 659990, 3750731; 660021, 3750713; 660060, 3750717; 660070, 3750742; 660176, 3750787; 660190, 3750781; 660199, 3750758; 660208, 3750744; 660159, 3750685; 660125, 3750680; 660088, 3750684; 660081, 3750690; 660072, 3750691; 660072, 3750676; 660076, 3750675; 660076, 3750664; 660069, 3750664; 660067, 3750663; 660060, 3750654; 660052, 3750648; 660034, 3750649; 660029, 3750654; 660027, 3750663; 660008, 3750659; 659997, 3750649; 659997, 3750639; 659988, 3750639; 659982, 3750641; 659958, 3750660; 659954, 3750671; 659945, 3750675; 659942, 3750688; 659933, 3750685; 659904, 3750662; 659889, 3750669; 659885, 3750687; 659902, 3750702; 659919, 3750712; Thence returning to 659968, 3750753.

            (8) Boneyard Creek Springs Unit (2.3 ha; 5.8 ac). The Boneyard Creek Springs Unit consists of all areas within boundary points with the following coordinates in UTM Zone 12 with the units in meters using North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83): 658758, 3750008; 658765, 3749996; 658763, 3749984; 658732, 3749975; 658714, 3749981; 658698, 3749968; 658661, 3749971; 658655, 3749981; 658655, 3749998; 658642, 3750000; 658638, 3750024; 658623, 3750034; 658606, 3750036; 658580, 3750029; 658568, 3750020; 658553, 3750013; 658537, 3750005; 658519, 3749993; 658507, 3749985; 658492, 3749992; 658479, 3749976; 658469, 3749960; 658467, 3749945; 658460, 3749935; 658452, 3749913; 658405, 3749863; 658371, 3749841; 658343, 3749805; 658312, 3749789; 658273, 3749741; 658272, 3749733; 658268, 3749725; 658261, 3749722; 658254, 3749720; 658242, 3749699; 658211, 3749682; 658184, 3749655; 658140, 3749634; 658119, 3749610; 658074, 3749624; 658024, 3749603; 657999, 3749549; 657932, 3749492; 657916, 3749492; 657904, 3749509; 657912, 3749527; 657933, 3749545; 657982, 3749559; 658020, 3749623; 658072, 3749642; 658111, 3749632; 658129, 3749649; 658174, 3749667; 658201, 3749691; 658223, 3749705; 658246, 3749743; 658311, 3749811; 658336, 3749826; 658403, 3749893; 658410, 3749904; 658420, 3749908; 658434, 3749917; 658447, 3749962; 658473, 3749991; 658493, 3750013; 658509, 3750003; 658523, 3750019; 658528, 3750030; 658538, 3750043; 658564, 3750055; 658584, 3750053; 658598, 3750061; 658616, 3750068; 658657, 3750052; 658658, 3750032; 658656, 3750020; 658667, 3750002; 658666, 3749982; 658692, 3749984; 658712, 3749994; 658730, 3749994; Thence returning to 658758, 3750008.

            Dated: November 8, 2011.
            Rachel Jacobson,
            Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

      [FR Doc. 2011-29780 Filed 11-16-11; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P