        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 622
        [Docket No. 100713296-0333-01]
        RIN 0648-BA06
        Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Emergency Rule to Re-Open the Recreational Red Snapper Season

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

          ACTION:
           Proposed emergency rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS issues this proposed emergency rule to authorize the Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS (RA) to re-open the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) recreational red snapper season after the September 30, 2010, end of the fishing season. Such a re-opening would only occur if NMFS determines that the recreational red snapper quota was not met by the 12:01 a.m., local time, July 24, 2010, closure date. Because of the Deepwater Horizon MC252 oil spill and the associated large-area fishery closure (fishery closed area) in the north-central Gulf, the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) requested NMFS publish this proposed emergency rule. The Council does not expect the recreational quota will be reached by the closure date because the fishery closed area is located where a substantial portion of the recreational red snapper fishing effort occurs. The intent of this rulemaking is to provide fishermen the opportunity to harvest the recreational red snapper quota, and flexibility to achieve the optimum yield for the fishery, thus enhancing social and economic benefits to the fishery.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received no later than 5 p.m., eastern time, on August 31, 2010.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by “0648-BA06”, by any one of the following methods:

          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal http://www.regulations.gov.

          • Fax: 727-824-5308, Attn: Steve Branstetter.
          • Mail: Steve Branstetter, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.

          Instructions: No comments will be posted for public viewing until after the comment period is over. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to http://www.regulations.gov without change. All Personal Identifying Information (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.

          To submit comments through the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov, enter “NOAA-NMFS-2010-0124 “ in the keyword search, then check the box labeled “Select to find documents accepting comments or submissions”, then select “Send a Comment or Submission.” NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter N/A in the required fields, if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

          Copies of the environmental assessment, the initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA), and the regulatory impact review for this rule may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue S., St. Petersburg, FL 33701; telephone 727-824-5305; fax 727-824-5308; e-mail steve.branstetter@noaa.gov; or may be downloaded from the SERO Web site at http://sero.nfms.noaa.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Steve Branstetter, 727-824-5796.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The Gulf reef fish fishery is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the Council and is implemented through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the legal authority for the promulgation of emergency regulations under section 305(c).
        Background
        On April 20, 2010, an incident involving a deepwater oil drilling platform occurred approximately 50 miles (80.5 km) southeast of Venice, Louisiana. An explosion and subsequent fire damaged the Deepwater Horizon MC252 oil rig, which capsized and sank. Oil has continued to flow into the Gulf from a damaged well head on the sea floor. In response to the Deepwater Horizon MC252 oil spill, NMFS issued a series of emergency rules (75 FR 24822, May 6, 2010; 75 FR 26679, May 12, 2010; 75 FR 27217, May 14, 2010) to close a portion of the Gulf exclusive economic zone (EEZ) to all fishing. NMFS continues to adjust the spatial dimensions of the fishery closed area as new information becomes available regarding areas affected by the oil. Currently, EEZ waters are closed to all fishing from western Louisiana eastward to Pensacola, Florida, and reopened to finfish only in the EEZ waters from Pensacola to Cape San Blas, Florida. This fishery closed area has had a severe impact on recreational fishing efforts within the north-central Gulf, which is the primary fishing area for red snapper by the recreational sector.

        The recreational red snapper fishing season opened on June 1, 2010, and the fishing season ends on September 30, 2010 (in accordance with regulations at 50 CFR part 622.34(m)), unless the quota is met before this date, in which case NMFS will publish a notification in the Federal Register announcing an earlier closure date. NMFS announced the closure date on May 3, 2010 (75 FR 23186), through a final rule that adjusted the recreational and commercial quotas for the red snapper. The closure date for the recreational red snapper season of 12:01 a.m., local time, July 24, 2010, was based on projections of when the recreational red snapper quota would be met.
        Need for This Proposed Emergency Rule
        Because of the Deepwater Horizon MC252 oil spill and the associated fishery closed area, the Council did not expect the recreational red snapper quota would be met by the projected closure date. Therefore, in a letter to the RA dated June 23, 2010, the Council requested that NMFS promulgate emergency regulations authorizing the RA to re-open the recreational red snapper season after the September 30, 2010, closure. The re-opening would only occur if NMFS determines that the quota has not been met during the June 1 through July 23 open season and the re-opening would otherwise be in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable law, taking into account the best available science. The “Policy Guidelines for the Use of Emergency Rules” (62 FR 44421, August 21, 1997) list three criteria for determining whether an emergency exists.
        (1) Results from recent, unforeseen events or recently discovered circumstances; and

        (2) Presents serious conservation or management problems in the fishery; and

        (3) Can be addressed through emergency regulations for which the immediate benefits outweigh the value of advance notice, public comment, and deliberative consideration of the impacts to the same extent as would be expected under the normal rulemaking process.
        This proposed rule meets all three criteria for promulgation of emergency regulations. This rule meets the first criteria for an emergency in that the explosion and subsequent sinking of the Deepwater Horizon MC252 oil rig and subsequent uncontrolled release of oil and the fishery closures it necessitated, constitutes recent unforeseen circumstances.
        The rule meets the second criteria for an emergency because the spread of oil, which resulted in the need for an unprecedented safety closure of more than 30 percent of the Gulf, has prevented fishermen from being able to fish for red snapper in this area. This reduction in fishing effort has resulted in economic hardship to the recreational fishing industry and reduced the likelihood the 3.403 million lb (1.544 million kg) recreational quota would be reached before the July 24 closing date. The framework procedure under the FMP authorizes the RA to re-open a fishery that has been closed prematurely to allow the quota to be filled, but such authority extends only through September 30 for the recreational red snapper season.
        The rule meets the third criteria for an emergency because allowing the recreational season to re-open after September 30 will alleviate some of the economic hardship caused by the Deepwater Horizon MC252 oil spill. Neither a regulatory amendment nor a plan amendment can be implemented in time to provide economic relief to the recreational fishing community in 2010. The Council has determined an emergency rule is the only way to provide these potential benefits. However, based on the rationale provided below, NMFS has included a 15-day comment period in this rulemaking to solicit comments on the economic effects associated with the proposed regulations.
        In accordance with the Council's request for emergency action, this proposed rule would provide the authority to the RA to re-open the recreational red snapper season after September 30 if it is determined the quota was not met by July 24, thereby providing fishermen the opportunity to harvest the full recreational red snapper quota. The intent of this rule is to provide the flexibility necessary to achieve optimum yield for the fishery and increase social and economic benefits to fishery participants.
        NMFS currently has the authority to re-open the recreational red snapper season prior to September 30. However, because of the delay in obtaining harvest data, it is likely a re-opening could occur only a short time before September 30. If substantial amounts of recreational red snapper quota remain, the quota may not be caught by September 30. Without this rule, the fishing season would close on September 30 whether the quota was met or not. A re-opening after September 30 would have three possible outcomes. In the first outcome, the fishery closed area could remain closed and re-opening the recreational red snapper season would allow economic and social benefits to accrue to those fishermen who had access to the fishery prior to the July 24 closure. Under a second outcome, if the well head is permanently capped and portions of the current closed area are re-opened to fishing, re-opening the recreational red snapper season would allow economic and social benefits to be distributed to fishermen in different states and ports. In the third outcome, delaying the recreational red snapper season re-opening until after September 30 could increase the possibility of the fishery closed area being even larger. As a result, total economic benefits would be reduced for any recreational red snapper season re-opening. Because of these potential effects, NMFS is soliciting public comment on this proposed rule before making a final determination.
        Classification
        This action is issued pursuant to section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. 1855(c).
        This proposed emergency rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

        NMFS prepared an IRFA, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble. A copy of this analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). A summary of the analysis follows.
        The purpose of this proposed rule is to facilitate the harvest of optimum yield and maximize the social and economic benefits of the red snapper component of the recreational sector of the reef fish fishery. This is expected to be accomplished by providing an opportunity for fishermen who were prevented from fishing for or harvesting red snapper as a result of oil-related closures to fish for red snapper if it is determined the quota was not been met by July 24, 2010, and previously closed waters are re-opened. The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for this proposed rule.
        This proposed rule, if implemented, would be expected to directly affect federally permitted for-hire fishing businesses that sell services to fish for red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico. The for-hire fleet is comprised of charterboats, which charge a fee on a vessel basis, and headboats, which charge a fee on an individual angler (head) basis. A Gulf reef fish for-hire permit is required to harvest red snapper in the Federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico. During 2009, there were 1,424 Federal reef fish for-hire permits that were valid (non-expired) and, therefore, fishable for any portion of the year. Although the Federal for-hire permit does not distinguish between headboats and charter boats, an estimated 79 headboats operate in the Gulf of Mexico.
        It cannot be determined with available data how many of the for-hire vessels permitted to operate in the reef fish fishery fish for or harvest red snapper, either through directed effort or incidental harvest, so all permitted vessels are assumed, for this analysis, to comprise the universe of potentially affected vessels. The average charterboat is estimated to earn approximately $88,000 (2008 dollars) in annual revenues, while the average headboat is estimated to earn approximately $461,000 (2008 dollars).
        No other small entities have been identified that would be expected to be directly affected by this proposed action.
        The Small Business Administration has established size criteria for all major industry sectors in the U.S. including fish harvesters. A business involved in the for-hire fishing industry is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $7.0 million (NAICS code 713990, recreational industries). Based on the average revenue estimates provided above, all for-hire vessels expected to be directly affected by this proposed rule are determined for the purpose of this analysis to be small business entities.

        This proposed rule would not establish any new reporting, record-keeping, or other compliance requirements. No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been identified.
        As previously discussed, this proposed rule, if implemented, would be expected to directly affect all for-hire vessels that fish for red snapper. All vessels that possess a Federal reef fish for-hire permit may fish for red snapper. There were 1,424 vessels that possessed a valid (non-expired) Federal reef fish for-hire permit in 2009. While not all federally permitted reef fish for-hire vessels fish for red snapper, all such vessels are assumed, for the purpose of this analysis, to be potentially directly affected by this proposed rule.
        It cannot be determined, with available data, whether this proposed rule, if implemented, would result in a significant reduction in profits for a substantial number of small entities. Neither the number of affected entities nor the magnitude of effects can be determined with available data. This proposed rule would allow for the re-opening of the recreational red snapper season after September 30 if the quota has not been met during the June 1 through July 23 fishing season. Assuming quota is available, re-opening the season after September 30 rather than prior to September 30 (which can occur under the status quo), may result in re-allocation of revenues and profits from for-hire businesses in some areas of the Gulf to businesses in other areas of the Gulf. This could occur if previously closed areas are re-opened and fishermen in those areas are able to go fishing, or if a larger area of the Gulf is closed due to an expansion of the presence of oil and fishermen in the newly closed area are not able to fish. Either situation may reduce the total revenues and profits that accrue to all relevant for-hire businesses.
        While specific quota underages cannot be forecast at this time, in the absence of this proposed rule (status quo), any re-opening, if appropriate and practical, would occur prior to September 30. As a result, resultant economic benefits would likely accrue to the same small business entities that have been able to sell red snapper for-hire trips during the June 1 through July 23 fishing season. Delaying the re-opening of the season until after September 30 increases the opportunity that the fishery closed area expands and a reduction in revenues and profits for for-hire businesses previously able to operate in the fishery occurs. Delaying the re-opening also increases the opportunity that closed areas may be re-opened to fishing in general.
        While the re-opening of waters previously closed due to the oil spill would be expected to result in increased revenues and profits for for-hire businesses in adjacent communities, the total revenues associated with the remaining red snapper quota would potentially be distributed over a larger number of businesses (businesses near previously open areas and those near newly opened areas), resulting in a redistribution of revenues and a reduction in revenues to businesses that might have had less competitive access to the resource prior to September 30.
        Thus, re-opening of the red snapper recreational season after September 30 could result in decreased profits overall (if the fishery closed area expands), and decreased profits for some business entities due to a re-distribution of revenues. However, due to uncertainty associated with these findings, public comment is solicited on whether this proposed rule would be expected to result in a significant reduction in profits for a substantial number of small entities.
        Two alternatives to the proposed action were considered. The first alternative to the proposed action would not allow any re-opening either before or after September 30 of recreational red snapper season if the quota is not met during the June 1 through July 23 season. Failure to re-open the season and not allow the quota to be harvested would be expected to result in reduced profits to small business entities than the proposed action and would not achieve the Council's objectives.
        The second alternative to the proposed action would re-open the recreational red snapper season before September 30 if quota is available (status quo). It cannot be determined with available data whether this alternative would be expected to result in an increase or decrease in profits to small business entities compared to the proposed action. If the season is re-opened before September 30, benefits could continue to accrue to fishermen who were fishing in the open areas before July 24. However, if the season re-opens after September 30, more of the fishery closed area could be re-opened and benefits could be dispersed among fishermen who were fishing before July 24 as well as additional fishermen in or from other states or ports. Therefore, this alternative would not increase, as much as the proposed action, the opportunity for fishermen who have been prevented from fishing for or harvesting red snapper as a result of the fishery closed area to fish for any red snapper quota that is available after July 23. As a result, this alternative would not achieve the Council's objectives.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 622

        Fisheries, Fishing, Puerto Rico, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Virgin Islands.

          Dated: August 11, 2010.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 622—FISHERIES OF THE CARIBBEAN, GULF, AND SOUTH ATLANTIC

        1. The authority citation for part 622 continues to read as follows:

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

        2. In § 622.34, paragraph (m) is revised to read as follows:

          § 622.34
          Gulf EEZ seasonal and/or area closures.
          (m) Closure of the recreational fishery for red snapper. The recreational fishery for red snapper in or from the Gulf EEZ is closed from January 1 through May 31, each year. During the closure, the bag and possession limit for red snapper in or from the Gulf EEZ is zero.

      [FR Doc. 2010-20191 Filed 8-11-10; 4:15 pm]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 73
        [DA 04-503; MB Docket No. 04-42; RM-10850]
        Radio Broadcasting Services; Bowling Green and Glasgow, KY

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          This document requests comments on a petition for rulemaking filed by Heritage Communications, Inc. requesting the reallotment of Channel 236C0 from Glasgow, Kentucky, to Bowling Green, Kentucky, and modification of the license for Station WGGC to reflect the changes. Channel 236C0 can be allotted to Bowling Green at coordinates 36-54-43 and 86-11-21. The license for Station WGGC was modified to specify operation on Channel 236C0 in lieu of Channel 236C at Glasgow, Kentucky. See BMLH-19990728KA. The proposal complies with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, and therefore, the Commission will not accept competing expressions of interest in the use of Channel 236C0 at Bowling Green.

          DATES:
          Comments must be filed on or before April 19, 2004, and reply comments on or before May 4, 2004.

          ADDRESSES:

          Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve the petitioner's counsel, as follows: Mark N. Lipp, J. Thomas Nolan, Vinson & Elkins, L.L.P., 1455 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC 20004-1008.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Kathleen Scheuerle, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No. 04-42, adopted February 25, 2004, and released February 27, 2004. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Information Center at Portals II, CY-A257, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC. This document may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractors, Qualex International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 202-863-2893, or via e-mail qualexint@aol.com.

        Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of l980 do not apply to this proceeding.

        Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing permissible ex parte contacts.

        For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

          List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
          Radio, Radio broadcasting.

        For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR Part 73 as follows:

          PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES
          1. The authority citation for Part 73 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336.

            § 73.202
            [Amended]
            2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Kentucky, is amended by removing Channel 236C at Glasgow and adding Channel 236C0 at Bowling Green.

            Federal Communications Commission.
            John A. Karousos,
            Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau.

      [FR Doc. 04-5911 Filed 3-15-04; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF STATE
        48 CFR Parts 645 and 652
        [Public Notice 8395]
        RIN 1400-AC33
        Department of State Acquisition Regulation

          AGENCY:
          State Department.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          This proposed rule will update the Department of State Acquisition Regulation (DOSAR) to conform to recent Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) changes and adds a new DOSAR clause and provision regarding reporting certain categories of Government-furnished and contractor-acquired property.

          DATES:
          The Department will accept comments from the public up to September 27, 2013.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
          • Email: RamirezIM2@state.gov. You must include the RIN in the subject line of your message.
          • Mail (paper, disk, or CD-ROM submissions): Ella Ramirez, Senior Procurement Analyst, Policy Division, Department of State, Office of the Procurement Executive, 2201 C Street NW., Suite 900, State Annex Number 27, Washington, DC 20522-0602.
          • Fax: 703-875-6155.

          • Persons with access to the Internet may also view this notice and provide comments by going to the regulations.gov Web site at http://www.regulations.gov/index.cfm and searching on docket DOS-2013-8395.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Ella Ramirez, Senior Procurement Analyst, Policy Division, Department of State, Office of the Procurement Executive, 2201 C Street NW., Suite 900, State Annex Number 27, Washington, DC 20522-0602; email address: RamirezIM2@state.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        This proposed rule provides updates to the DOSAR Government Property coverage to correspond with current FAR requirements and to implement Department of State policies regarding Government Property. The proposed rule would make the following changes:
        • Update DOSAR Part 645, Government Property to conform to the current version of FAR Part 45. FAR Part 45 was completely revised and re-structured in 2007. Part 45 has been updated since, most recently in April 2012. DOSAR Part 645 was last updated in 1999, and is therefore out of date.
        • Add a new DOSAR provision and clause regarding management and reporting of Government-furnished and contractor-acquired property. The provision at DOSAR 652.245-70, Status of Property Management System, was inadvertently left out of the previously approved information collection and it is now being added to update the DOSAR rule. The provision requests information from offerors regarding their property management systems in order to comply with FAR 45.201(c), which says that the solicitation shall require all offerors to submit a description of the offeror's property management system, plan, and any customary commercial practices, voluntary consensus standards, or industry-leading practices and standards to be used by the offeror in managing Government property. Additionally, the Department must be able to determine if there will be a need for a review of the prospective contractor's property control system. The new clause at DOSAR 652.245-71, Accounting for Government Property, requests quarterly reporting of U.S. Department of State capitalized property which consists of the following:
        ○ Highway motor vehicles and aircraft, regardless of cost, that are provided by the Government or acquired by a contractor for the Government;
        ○ Software exceeding $500,000 in value, including labor costs to develop, that is provided by the Government or acquired by a contractor for the account of the Government; and
        ○ Personal property greater than $25,000 (and not included in the above list) that is provided by the Government or acquired by the contractor for the account of the Government. The personal property must be complete within itself; must not lose its identity or become a component part of other property when put into use; and is of a durable nature with an estimated useful life expectancy to exceed two years.
        This clause is being added due to the need to obtain current data to support the Department of State (DOS) financial statements. From a financial accounting perspective, DOS must have a way of keeping track of its capital assets; therefore, this clause requires reporting of all personal property that meets the criteria for capitalization, as set forth in the Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) at 4 FAM 734.2.
        Regulatory Findings
        Administrative Procedure Act
        In accordance with provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, the Department is publishing this proposed rule and inviting public comment.
        Regulatory Flexibility Act
        The Department of State, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), has reviewed this regulation and, by approving it, certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This determination was based on the fact that the reporting requirements are targeted at a very narrow segment of government property and based on a determination that there are only 14 contractors who are currently subject to the reporting requirements of the clause. Only four of these are small business concerns. Thus, it was concluded that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
        Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995
        This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any year and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995.
        Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996

        This rule is not a major rule as defined by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.). This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and import markets. This determination was based on the fact that the reporting requirements are targeted at a very narrow segment of government property, and on a determination that there are only 14 contractors who are currently subject to the reporting requirements of the clause. The rule does not place new requirements on contract performance, but merely addresses reporting of existing information.
        Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
        Executive Orders (E.O.) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasized the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. The Department of State does not consider this rule to be a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), Regulatory Planning and Review.
        In addition, the Department is exempt from Executive Order 12866 except to the extent that it is promulgating regulations in conjunction with a domestic agency that are significant regulatory actions. The Department has nevertheless reviewed the regulation to ensure its consistency with the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in the Executive Orders and finds that the benefits of the proposed rule outweigh any costs.
        Executive Order 13132
        This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to require consultations or warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.
        Executive Order 13175
        The Department has determined that this rulemaking will not have tribal implications, will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, and will not pre-empt tribal law. Accordingly, the requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply to this rulemaking.
        Paperwork Reduction Act

        The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) applies, because the proposed rule imposes information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

        The Department of State is seeking OMB approval for the information collection described below.
        • Title of Information Collection: Department of State Acquisition Regulation (DOSAR) 652.245-70, Status of Property Management System
        • OMB Control Number: 1405-0050
        • Type of Request: Revision of Currently Approved Collection
        • Originating Office: Bureau of Administration, Office of Procurement Executive, Policy Division (A/OPE/PD)
        • Form Number: None
        • Respondents: Business and other for-profit and not-for-profit organizations wishing to receive Department of State contracts.
        • Estimated Total Number of Respondents: 3,466
        • Estimated Total Number of Responses: 9,330
        • Average Time Per Response: 30 hours
        • Total Estimated Burden Time: 275,984
        • Frequency: On Occasion
        • Obligation to Respond: Required to Obtain or Retain a Benefit
        The total number of responses was increased by fourteen from 9,316 to 9,330. As a result of this change, the total estimated burden was increased from 275,970 hours to 275,984 hours. The increase in the responses and the burden is due to the impact of this DOSAR provision.
        The Department will accept comments from the public up to September 27, 2013.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
          • Web: www.Regulations.gov, search for this notice by using this rule's docket number—DOS-2013-8395.
          • E-Mail: RamirezIM2@state.gov with the subject line, “DOSAR Rule Comments.”
          • Fax: 703-875-6155

          Direct requests for additional information regarding the collection listed in this notice, including requests for copies of the proposed collection instrument and supporting documents, to Ella Ramirez, Senior Procurement Analyst, who may be reached at (703) 516-1693, or at RamirezIM2@state.gov.

            Abstract of proposed collection:

          The proposed rule will update the Department of State Acquisition Regulation (DOSAR) to conform to recent Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) changes, and adds a new DOSAR provision, 652.245-70, regarding reporting on the status of offeror's property management systems. Respondents are offerors on solicitations for contracts under which specified government property will be provided. This is an existing IC, 1405-0050, Department of State Acquisition Regulation (DOSAR) 652.245-70, Status of Property Management System. This provision was inadvertently left out of the previously approved Information Collection package. The new provision is being inserted into the DOSAR and concurrently added into the current IC. The new DOSAR provision (and IC requirement) asks for procedures for government property management (transportation, software, personal property). Over the course of the last two fiscal years (FY 11 and FY 12), only four solicitations were issued under which this new reporting was required, and on those solicitations, an average of 2.3 submissions was received. Based on conversations with a sample of submitters, we estimate that approximately 1.0 hour is required to research, document and incorporate the information into the proposal.
          We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department to:
          • Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department.
          • Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
          • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
          • Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
          Please note that comments submitted in response to this Notice are public record. Before including any detailed personal information, you should be aware that your comments as submitted, including your personal information, will be available for public review.
          Legal Authorities are as follows:

        (1) Code of Federal Regulations, title 48, chapter 6, Department of State Acquisition Regulation
        (2) Code of Federal Regulations, title 48, chapter 1, Federal Acquisition Regulation

        (3) Public Law 103-236, Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995

        (4) Foreign Service Buildings Act of 1926, as amended (22 U.S.C. 302)
        (5) Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act of 1986 (22 U.S.C. 4852)
        (6) Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 (22 U.S.C. 4864)

          Methodology:

        The information collections may be sent to the Office of Finance via email at RM-FPRAPROP@state.gov.

          List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 645 and 652
          Government procurement, Electronic commerce, Contracts.

        Accordingly, for reasons set forth in the preamble, title 48, chapter 6 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
        1. Revise part 645 to read as follows:

          PART 645—GOVERNMENT PROPERTY

              Subpart 645.1—General
              Sec.
              645.107
              Contract clauses.
              645.107-70
              DOSAR contract clause and solicitation provision.

            Authority:
            40 U.S.C. 121; 22 U.S.C. 2651a; 48 CFR Subpart 1.3.

        645.107 Contract clauses.
        645.107-70 DOSAR contract clause and solicitation provision.

        (a) The contracting officer shall insert the provision at 652.245-70, Status of Property Management System, in solicitations when any of the following conditions apply:
        (1) Highway motor vehicles and aircraft, regardless of cost, are provided by the Government or acquired by the contractor for the account of the Government;
        (2) Software exceeding $500,000 in value, including labor costs to develop, is provided by the Government or acquired by the contractor for the account of the Government; or
        (3) Personal property greater than $25,000 (and not in paragraphs (a)(1) or (2) of this section) is provided by the Government or acquired by the contractor for the account of the Government. The personal property must be complete within itself; does not lose its identity or become a component part of other property when put into use; and is of a durable nature with an estimated useful life expectancy to exceed two years.
        (b) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 652.245-71, Accounting for Government Property, in all solicitations and contracts than contain the provision at 652.245-70.

          PART 652—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES

        2. The authority citation for part 652 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
           40 U.S.C. 486(c); 22 U.S.C. 2658.

        3. Add section 652.245-70 to read as follows:

          652.245-70
          Status of Property Management System.
          As prescribed in 645.107-70(a), insert the following provision:
          Status of Property Management System (DATE)

            (a) When used in this provision, government-furnished property, government property, and contractor-acquired property are as defined in FAR 45.101.
            (b) Offerors shall include in their quote or offer:
            (1) Whether the offeror's property management system that will be used on this contract to track government-furnished property and/or contractor-acquired property has been determined to be adequate by a Federal property manager;
            (2) The name, address, telephone number and email address of both the—
            (i) Cognizant Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO) responsible for review and determination of adequacy of the contractor's property system; and
            (ii) The cognizant contractor government property manager;
            (3) The voluntary consensus standard or industry leading practices and standards to be used in the management of government property, or existing property management plans, methods, practices or procedures for accounting of property.

          (End of provision)

        4. Add section 652.245-71 to read as follows:

          652.245-71
          Accounting for Government Property.
          As prescribed in 645.107-70(b), insert the following clause:
          Accounting for Government Property (DATE)

            (a) Definitions. As used in this clause:

              Disposition means government property that has been removed from use on the contract.

              Highway motor vehicle means any vehicle, self propelled or drawn by mechanical power, designed and operated principally for highway transportation of property or passengers. (41 CFR 102-34.35)
            (b) The Contractor shall establish and maintain a property management system that is in accordance with the clause at FAR 52.245-1, Government Property. This clause supplements these requirements by specifying the U.S. Department of State capitalized property reporting requirements.
            (c) The Contractor shall submit electronically one report on an annual basis and three other reports on a quarterly basis for the following:
            (1) Where highway motor vehicles and aircraft, regardless of cost, are provided by the Government or acquired by the Contractor for the account of the Government;
            (2) Where software exceeding $500,000 in value, including labor cost to develop, is provided by the Government or acquired by the Contractor for the account of the Government; or
            (3) Where personal property greater than $25,000 (not in paragraph (c)(1) or (c)(2) of this clause) is provided by the Government or acquired by the Contractor for the account of the Government. The personal property must be complete within itself; does not lose its identity or become a component part of other property when put into use; and is of a durable nature with an estimated useful life expectancy to exceed two years.
            (d) The Contractor shall submit all annual and quarterly reports in the following format, except as stated in paragraph (e) of this clause:
            (1) Property shall be grouped by the following property classifications:
            (i) Highway motor vehicles;
            (ii) Communications equipment;
            (iii) Information technology (formerly called automated data processing) equipment;
            (iv) Reproduction equipment;
            (v) Security equipment;
            (vi) Software;
            (vii) Software-in-development;
            (viii) Medical equipment;
            (ix) Aircraft property; and
            (x) Other depreciable personal property.
            (2) Data elements for each unit of property shall include:
            (i) Contract number: Federal Government contract or purchase order number;
            (ii) Task Order number;
            (iii) Property classification: From classification listed in paragraph (d)(1) of this clause;
            (iv) Denotation as either government-furnished property (GFP) or contractor-acquired property (CAP);
            (v) Noun name of property (i.e. generator);
            (vi) Description of property;
            (vii) Manufacturer;
            (viii) Model;
            (ix) Serial number;
            (x) National Stock Number if applicable
            (xi) Unique-item identifier or equivalent: such as barcode label (tag number) or system-assigned number. For highway motor vehicles, this must be the vehicle identification number (VIN);
            (xii) Date received: Date contractor took possession;
            (xiii) Date placed in service;
            (xiv) Acquisition method:
            (A) Contractor Acquired Property (CAP); or
            (B) Government-furnished property (GFP); (If from another DOS contract, or government agency, please specify).
            (xv) Acquisition cost (As defined in FAR clause 52.245-1(a)): Use estimated fair-market value for property transferred or donated, at the time acquired, if actual cost is unknown;

            (xvi) Estimated useful life in years: The period during which the property is expected to provide the service for which it was intended. This should normally be equivalent to the depreciation schedule;
            (xvii) Current location of the property: Country and city
            (xviii) Disposal Date
            (xix) Disposal Method
            (e) The Contractor shall submit a full property report, as described in this clause, including affirmation, for the report covering the first quarter of the base contract. Thereafter, submission of reports shall follow the time frames outlined in paragraph (h) of this clause. Quarterly property reports, other than the annual report, may be either full property reports or only updates to the full property report. Quarterly reports do not require affirmations even when the Contractor chooses to submit a full property report. Affirmations are only required for the report covering the first quarter of the contract and the annual report for each subsequent option year of the contract. If the Contractor submits a full property report, dispositions subsequent to any previous report must also be identified in the report. If a Contractor submits a quarterly report in the form of an update, the update shall include acquisitions and dispositions.
            (f) The Contractor shall provide any required affirmation in the following format. The affirmation shall be signed by the Contractor's managerial personnel (as defined in FAR clause 52.245-1):

            “I hereby affirm that a physical inventory of the government property (as defined in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 45.101) of Department of State contract number (insert contract number) has been completed as of (insert date), the inventory has been reconciled to our records and the property information in our report, and that to the best of my knowledge and belief, this inventory is accurate, current, and complete.
            Signed:

            Printed:

            Title:

            Date:

            (g) In addition to the information required above, the Contractor shall include in all property reports:
            (1) The current degree to which properly qualified Government personnel have evaluated the Contractor's property management system as being an adequate property management system;
            (2) The name, mailing address, telephone number, and email address of the qualified Government person(s) who performed the evaluation of the Contractor's property management system; and
            (3) The cognizant contractor government property manager.
            (h) Reports shall cover the following time periods and are due on the following dates:

                Report
                Period covered
                Due date

                1st Quarter Report
                For 1st quarter ending December 31
                January 15.

                2nd Quarter Report(Annual Property Report)

                For 2nd quarter ending March 31
                April 30.

                3rd Quarter Report
                For 3rd quarter ending June 30
                July 15.

                4th Quarter Report
                For 4th quarter ending September 30
                October 8.

            (i) The Contractor shall send a copy of all reports to the individuals listed below. The Contractor shall submit reports in electronic format as an attachment to an email. The affirmation described in paragraph (f) of this clause shall be in Adobe Acrobat (.pdf) format (including the signature), while the inventories, both quarterly and annual, shall be in Microsoft Excel format (Adobe Acrobat and Microsoft Excel versions shall be compatible with versions used by DOS). Send all reports to:
            (1) The contracting officer;
            (2) The Property Administrator;
            (3) The contracting officer's representative (COR);
            (4) Propertyreports@state.gov;

            (5) RM-FPRA-PROP@state.gov; and
            (6) All individuals listed below (if any):
            (i) Contracting officer shall list individuals, if any.
            (ii) [Reserved]
            (j) The Contractor shall cooperate by responding timely to all follow up questions and requests for supporting documentation whether requested by the Department or external auditors.

            (End of clause)

               Dated: June 12, 2013.
              Corey M. Rindner,
              Procurement Executive, Department of State.

      [FR Doc. 2013-18167 Filed 7-26-13; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4710-24-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-day Finding on Petition To List the Tibetan Antelope as Endangered Throughout Its Range

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Notice of 90-day petition finding.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the 90-day finding that a petition to list the Tibetan antelope (Pantholops hodgsonii) as endangered throughout its range has presented substantial information indicating that the action may be warranted. A status review of the species is initiated.

          DATES:
          This finding was made on April 14, 2000. Comments and information may be submitted until June 26, 2000.

          ADDRESSES:

          Submit comments, information, and questions to the Chief, Office of Scientific Authority; Mail Stop: Room 750, Arlington Square; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Washington, D.C. 20240 (Fax number: 703-358-2276; E-mail address: r9osa@fws.gov). Address express and messenger-delivered mail to the Office of Scientific Authority; Room 750, 4401 North Fairfax Drive; Arlington, Virginia 22203. You may inspect the petition finding, supporting data, and comments received, by appointment, from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, at the Arlington, Virginia, address.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Dr. Kurt A. Johnson, Office of Scientific Authority, at the above address (Telephone number: 703-358-1708; E-mail address: r9osa@fws.gov).

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
        Background

        Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973 as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires us to make a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents substantial information indicating that the requested action may be warranted. To the maximum extent practicable, we make this finding within 90 days following receipt of the petition, and we promptly publish a notice in the Federal Register. If the finding is positive, section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act also requires us to commence a status review of the species. We now announce a 90-day finding on a recently received petition.
        On October 6, 1999, the Service received a petition from the Wildlife Conservation Society (Joshua R. Ginsberg, Ph.D., Director, Asia Program, and George B. Schaller, Ph.D., Director of Science) and the Tibetan Plateau Project of Earth Island Institute (Mr. Justin Lowe, Director) requesting that the Tibetan antelope be listed as endangered throughout its entire range. Dr. Schaller is considered to be the world's leading expert on the Tibetan antelope. The Tibetan antelope is also known by its Tibetan name “chiru.” These two common names will be used interchangeably in this document.
        The Tibetan antelope (Pantholops hodgsonii; sensu Wilson and Reeder 1993) is a medium-sized bovid endemic to the Tibetan Plateau in China (Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR), Xinjiang/Uygur Autonomous Region, and Qinghai Province) and small portions of India (Ladakh) and western Nepal (although no evidence exists that the species still occurs in Nepal). Adult males are characterized by long, slender, antelope-like black horns. Although the Tibetan antelope has been placed in the subfamily Antilopinae, recent morphological and molecular research indicate that the species is most closely allied to the goats and other members of the subfamily Caprinae (Gentry 1992, Gatesy et al. 1992; both cited in Ginsberg et al. 1999). The species is uniquely adapted to the high elevation and cold, dry climate of the Tibetan Plateau (Schaller 1998). The sexes segregate almost completely during the spring and early summer (May and June), when adult females and their female young migrate north to certain calving grounds and return south by late July or early August, covering distances as long as 300 kilometers (186 miles) each way (Schaller 1998). Seasonal migrations by chiru constitute a critical aspect of the species' ecology and help define the ecosystem as a whole.
        There are no accurate estimates of Tibetan antelope numbers in the past, although the few early western explorers who ventured onto the Tibetan Plateau noted the presence of large herds in many areas (Bonvalot 1892, Deasy 1901, Hedin 1903, Hedin 1922, Rawling 1905, and Wellby 1898; all cited in Schaller 1998). Schaller (1999) suggested that upwards of 1 million Tibetan antelope roamed the Tibetan Plateau as recently as 40-50 years ago. Historical population estimates of 500,000 to 1 million appear to be reasonable based on the limited information available.
        Although data on the current population dynamics of chiru are fragmentary and preliminary (Schaller 1998), it is clear that the total population has declined drastically in the past 30 years and is continuing to decline. Schaller (1998) estimated that the total population in the mid-1990's may have been as low as 65,000-75,000 individuals. If one assumes that the historical population of chiru was 500,000 individuals, the mid-1990's estimate represents a population decline of 85 percent. Although overall mortality rates are not known, poaching mortality has been estimated to be as high as 20,000 individuals per year (SFA 1998). Annual recruitment of young has been estimated at around 12 percent, although recruitment failures have been documented in certain areas as a result of bad winter weather (Schaller 1998). If one assumes that the total current population of chiru is 75,000 individuals and that the population is currently declining at a rate of 1,000-3,000 individuals per year, then barring any changes, the species is likely to go functionally extinct within the next 25 to 75 years. The species' role as the dominant, native, grazing herbivore of the Tibetan Plateau ecosystem has already been diminished, and its influence on ecosystem structure and function would likely be substantially reduced or eliminated well before the species actually goes extinct.

        Changes in Chinese Government policy have led to increasing human development and activity on the Tibetan Plateau, including road development, settlement by pastoralists, resource extraction activities, and rangeland use for domestic livestock grazing (Ginsberg et al. 1999). These activities have already adversely modified or destroyed Tibetan antelope habitat in some areas and threaten to modify or destroy habitat over a large area in the near future. However, Tibetan antelope populations are declining principally because large numbers of chiru are being killed illegally for their wool, known in trade as shahtoosh (“king of wool”), which is one of the finest animal fibers known (Ginsberg et al. 1999). In China, the chiru is a Class 1 protected species under the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Protection of Wildlife (1989); all killing of Class 1 animals is prohibited except by special permit from the central government.
        Most chiru poaching takes place in the Arjin Shan, Chang Tang, and Kekexili Nature Reserves in China by a variety of hunters, including local herders, residents, officials, military personnel, gold miners, and truck drivers (Schaller 1993, Schaller and Gu 1994). Organized, large-scale poaching rings have developed in some areas. Tibetan antelope are always killed to collect their fiber. No cases of capture-and-release wool collection are known, nor is naturally-shed fiber collected from shrubs and grass tufts as is often stated (primarily by people within the shahtoosh industry). Hunters shear the hides and collect and clean the under-fur of the antelope, or sell the hides to dealers who prepare the shahtoosh (Wright and Kumar 1997).

        Shahtoosh is smuggled out of China by truck or animal caravan, through Nepal or India, and into the region of Jammu and Kashmir. This activity is in violation of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), as well as Indian and Chinese law. In Jammu and Kashmir, shahtoosh is processed into expensive, high-fashion shawls and scarves which are greatly valued by some people from around the world, including the United States. To reach consumer markets, the shawls must be smuggled out of India and into the consumer countries, in violation of CITES and domestic laws of those countries. The international demand for chiru fiber and shahtoosh products is the most serious threat to the continued existence of the Tibetan antelope.

        Schaller speculates that, during the 1980's and 1990's, tens of thousands of chiru were killed for their wool (Ginsberg et al. 1999). One chiru carcass yields about 125-150 grams (4-5 ounces) of fiber. In the winter of 1992, an estimated 2,000 kilograms (kg) (4,420 pounds) of wool reached India, and consignments of 600 kg (1,325 pounds) were seized (and released) in India during 1993 and 1994 (Bagla 1995, cited in Ginsberg et al. 1999). This amount alone represents 17,000 chiru. In October 1998, 14 poachers in the TAR were convicted of collectively killing 500 chiru and purchasing 212 hides, and were sentenced to 3 to 13 years imprisonment (Xinhua 1998, cited in Ginsberg et al. 1999). The largest enforcement action to date within China, involving several jurisdictions and dubbed the “Hoh Xil Number One Action” by Chinese authorities, resulted in the arrest of 66 poachers and the confiscation of 1,658 chiru hides in April and May, 1999 (Liu 1999, cited in Ginsberg et al. 1999).
        Despite an Appendix-I listing under CITES, and protection by domestic legislation at the national level by China, Nepal, and India, existing regulatory mechanisms have been inadequate to prevent the poaching of Tibetan antelope or the international smuggling of raw shahtoosh and finished shahtoosh products.
        We find that the petition presents substantial information indicating that the requested action may be warranted. Specifically, substantial information indicates that the total population of Tibetan antelope has declined drastically over the last three decades, and that this decline has resulted primarily from overutilization for commercial purposes and inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. Habitat impacts, especially grazing of domestic livestock, appear to be a contributory factor in the decline, and could have potentially greater impacts in the near future.

        Pursuant to section 4(b)(3)(A), we hereby commence a review of the status of Pantholops hodgsonii. We encourage the submission of appropriate data, opinions, and publications regarding the subject petition or the status of the species. Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home address from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. In some circumstances, we may also withhold from the rulemaking record a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish for us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.

        Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act requires that we make a finding within 12 months of receipt of the petition as to whether the listing of P. hodgsonii as threatened or endangered is warranted.
        References Cited

        You may request a complete list of references cited in this Notice from the Office of Scientific Authority (see ADDRESSES section).
        Authority

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

          Dated: April 14, 2000
          Jamie Rappaport Clark,
          Director.

      [FR Doc. 00-10265 Filed 4-24-00; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 679
        RIN 0648-XA209
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crabs

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of availability of fishery management plan amendments; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          The North Pacific Fishery Management Council submitted Amendments 38 and 39 to the Fishery Management Plan for Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crabs (FMP) to NMFS for review. If approved, Amendment 38 would establish a mechanism in the FMP to specify annual catch limits and accountability measures for each crab stock. This action is necessary to account for uncertainty in the overfishing limit and prevent overfishing. If approved, Amendment 39 would modify the snow crab rebuilding plan to define the stock as rebuilt the first year the stock biomass is above the level necessary to produce maximum sustainable yield. Amendments 38 and 39 are intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the FMP, and other applicable laws.

          DATES:
          Written comments on the amendment must be received on or before 5 p.m., Alaska local time, on July 5, 2011.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by RIN 0648-XA209, by any one of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal http://www.regulations.gov.

          • Fax: (907) 586-7557, Attn: Ellen Sebastian
          • Mail: P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802.
          • Hand delivery to the Federal Building: 709 West 9th Street, Room 420A, Juneau, AK.

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

          Electronic copies of Amendments 38 and 39 and the Environmental Assessment prepared for this action may be obtained from the Federal eRulemaking Portal http://www.regulations.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Gretchen Harrington, 907-586-7228.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires that each regional fishery management council submit any fishery management plan or fishery management plan amendment it prepares to NMFS for review and approval, disapproval, or partial approval by the Secretary of Commerce. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving a fishery management plan amendment, immediately publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing that the amendment is available for public review and comment.

        This notice announces that proposed Amendments 38 and 39 to the Fishery Management Plan for Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crabs (FMP) are available for public review and comment. The crab fisheries in the exclusive economic zone of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands are managed under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. The FMP establishes a cooperative management regime that defers many aspects of crab fisheries management to the State of Alaska (State) with Federal oversight. State regulations are subject to the provisions of the FMP, and must be consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable Federal laws.
        The provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, as amended in 2007, establish, either expressly or by logical extension, five basic requirements that relate to and require amendment of the FMP. The Guidelines for National Standard 1 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (50 CFR 600.310; NS 1 Guidelines) provide guidance to regional fishery management councils about how to satisfy the obligations of the Magnuson-Stevens Act relative to the prevention of overfishing, achievement of optimum yield, and establishment of annual catch limits. The following is a summary of these five requirements.
        (1) The FMP must provide for the specification of annual catch limits (ACLs) that will prevent overfishing.
        (2) The FMP must establish an acceptable biological catch (ABC) control rule that accounts for relevant sources of scientific uncertainty.
        (3) The Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee must provide the Council with scientific advice on the ABC control rule and periodic recommendations for specifying the ABC for each fishery.

        (4) The FMP must establish accountability measures that prevent exceeding the ACLs and to correct overages of the ACL if they do occur.
        (5) The FMP must describe the maximum sustainable yield and assess and specify the optimum yield for the fishery.
        The Council unanimously recommended Amendment 38 to explicitly address these five basic requirements while maintaining the FMP's cooperative management regime that relies on State expertise in collecting and analyzing scientific data on crab and in establishing the total allowable catches (TACs). In addition, by recommending this approach, the Council acknowledges that the precautionary approach that is currently employed by the State in setting TAC further reduces the risk of realizing overfishing by incorporating variable scientific information that cannot be quantified in a control rule.
        Annual Catch Limits and Acceptable Biological Catch
        Amendment 38 would establish ABC control rules in the FMP and set the ACL equal to the ABC. Annually, the ABC control rule would be used to set the maximum ABC for each crab stock below the overfishing level (OFL) set for that stock. This mechanism would ensure that, at the maximum ABC, the probability of overfishing is less than 50 percent.
        The ABC control rules would be incorporated into the existing five-tier system used to set the OFLs. Annually, the Scientific and Statistical Committee assigns each crab stock to one of five tiers based on an evaluation of the reliable information available for that stock. No crab stocks have sufficient information to be in Tiers 1 or 2. Tier 3 stocks have sufficient information for the stock assessment model to estimate the biomass level and fishing rate necessary to achieve maximum sustainable yield. Tier 4 stocks have a stock assessment model that estimates biomass using the historical performance of the fishery and information from other stocks as necessary to estimate biological parameters. Tier 5 stocks have no reliable estimates of biomass and only historical catch data is available.

        For crab stocks in Tiers 1 through 4, the ABC control rule would calculate a buffer below the OFL using a 49 percent probability that the ABC exceeds the true, but unknown, OFL (noted as P*=0.49) and a probability distribution for the OFL. Scientific uncertainty would be incorporated into the ABC-setting process though the annual specification of the probability distribution for the OFL, which accounts for scientific uncertainty in the estimate of OFL and any other specified scientific uncertainty. The resulting ABC, and corresponding ACL, would be a total catch limit comprised of three catch components: (1) Non-directed fishery discard losses; (2) directed fishery discard losses; and (3) directed fishery retained catch. A discussion of this approach is provided in the Environmental Assessment (see ADDRESSES).
        To better understand and incorporate scientific uncertainty, Amendment 38 would direct the Crab Plan Team and the Scientific and Statistical Committee to annually evaluate and make recommendations on (1) The specification of the probability distribution of the OFL, (2) the methods to appropriately quantify uncertainty in the OFL estimate for the ABC control rule, and (3) the factors influencing scientific uncertainty that the State would account for on an annual basis in TAC-setting. The end result would be to incorporate additional scientific uncertainty into the ABC control rule where possible while continuing to consider uncertainty in the TAC-setting process.

        In developing this approach, the Council recognized that some scientific uncertainty relative to crab stock conditions is not applicable to the OFL setting process and is better addressed through the State TAC-setting process. This approach relies on the State to incorporate additional buffering to account for uncertainty through the annual TAC specification process and recognizes the State's role and expertise in crab research and management under the FMP. Additional uncertainty includes (1) management uncertainty (i.e., uncertainty in the ability of managers to constrain catch so the ACL is not exceeded and uncertainty in quantifying the true catch amount) and (2) scientific uncertainty identified and not already accounted for in the ABC. The State currently considers many factors that influence estimates of uncertainty in TAC-setting. The State also has the flexibility to use the expertise of its managers and biologists to be more conservative than existing harvest strategies as necessary to prevent overfishing and meet State management goals and Federal requirements. A discussion of the State's TAC-setting process is provided in the Environmental Assessment (see ADDRESSES).
        For crab stocks in Tier 5, the ABC control rule would set the maximum ABC at 10 percent below the OFL. No annual consideration of uncertainty is required for Tier 5 stocks because scientific uncertainty in the OFL estimate is incorporated in the size of the buffer. The State would consider additional scientific uncertainty and management uncertainty in the TAC-setting process. For Tier 5 stocks where only retained catch information is available, the OFL and ABC would be set for the retained catch portion only. For Tier 5 stocks where information on bycatch mortality is available, the OFL and ABC calculations could include discard losses, at which point the OFL and ABC would be applied to the retained catch plus the discard losses from directed and non-directed fisheries.
        Scientific and Statistical Committee
        The Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee would annually establish the ABC for each crab stock through the following process. First, the stock assessment author would prepare the stock assessment and recommend a proposed OFL and an ABC (at or less than the maximum ABC). Next, the Crab Plan Team would review the stock assessment and make recommendations on the OFL and ABC. The Scientific and Statistical Committee would then review the stock assessment documents, recommendations from the Crab Plan Team, and methods for addressing scientific uncertainty, and set the final OFL and ABC for each stock. The Scientific and Statistical Committee may set an ABC lower than the maximum ABC calculated using the ABC control rule, but it must provide an explanation for why a lower ABC was set.
        Accountability Measures
        Amendment 38 would establish accountability measures to comply with the Magnuson-Stevens Act requirement that FMPs include accountability measures to prevent ACLs from being exceeded and to correct overages of the ACL if they do occur.

        Accountability measures to prevent TACs from being exceeded, and to account for and minimize crab bycatch, are used in crab fishery management and would continue to be used to prevent ACLs from being exceeded. These accountability measures include: individual fishing quotas and the measures implemented under the Crab Rationalization Program to ensure that individual fishing quotas are not exceeded, measures to minimize crab bycatch in directed crab fisheries, and monitoring and catch accounting measures. These measures have been effective at preventing the TAC from being exceeded since the start of the Crab Rationalization Program in 2005.

        Accountability measures in the ABC-setting process would include downward adjustments to the ABC in the fishing season after an ACL has been exceeded. If catch exceeds the ACL, a lower maximum ABC in the subsequent season would result because maximum ABC varies directly with biomass, except for Tier 5 stocks. For Tier 5 stocks, the information used to establish the ABC is insufficient to reliably estimate abundance or discern the existence or extent of biological consequences caused by exceeding the ACL. Consequently, the subsequent fishing season's maximum ABC would not automatically decrease. However, when the ACL for a Tier 5 stock has been exceeded, the Scientific and Statistical Committee may choose to recommend a decrease in the ABC for the subsequent fishing season as an accountability measure.
        Given that the State sets the TAC, Amendment 38 also includes accountability measures for the State to exercise in the annual TAC-setting process. First, Amendment 38 would require that the State establish the annual TAC for each crab stock at a level sufficiently below the ACL so that the sum of the total catch (including all bycatch mortality and any uncertainty in bycatch estimates) and the State's assessment of additional uncertainty in the OFL estimate will not exceed the ACL. At the end of the fishing year, the total catch would be calculated and compared to the ACL.
        Second, if an ACL is exceeded, the FMP would require that the State implement accountability measures to account for any biological consequences to the stock resulting from the overage through a downward adjustment to the TAC for that species in the following fishing season. Note that this TAC adjustment is in additional to the downward adjustment to the ABC in the ABC-setting process discussed previously. This accountability measure would be under the FMP's category 2, which means that the State has the discretion under the FMP to determine the most appropriate method to account for any catch above the ACL in setting the TAC for the subsequent fishing season.
        The Council recognized that these accountability measures place the burden of accountability only on the directed crab fishery. Measures to minimize crab bycatch in the groundfish fisheries currently include prohibited species catch limits and area closures. The Council has initiated a comprehensive analysis of crab bycatch in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands groundfish fisheries to assess these existing crab protection measures and to determine whether changes or additional measures are necessary to further limit crab bycatch in the groundfish fisheries.
        Optimum Yield
        Amendment 38 would amend the FMP to establish an optimum yield range of 0 to less that the OFL catch. For crab stocks, the OFL is the annualized maximum sustainable yield (MSY) and is derived through the annual assessment process, under the framework of the tier system. Recognizing the relatively volatile reproductive potential of crab stocks, the cooperative management structure of the FMP, and the past practice of restricting or even prohibiting directed harvests of some stocks out of ecological considerations, this optimum yield range is intended to facilitate the achievement of the biological objectives and economic and social objectives of the FMP under a variety of future biological and ecological conditions. It enables the State to determine the appropriate TAC levels below the OFL to prevent overfishing or address other biological concerns that may affect the reproductive potential of a stock but that are not reflected in the OFL itself. The State establishes TACs at levels that maximize harvests, and associated economic and social benefits, when biological and ecological conditions warrant doing so.
        Snow Crab Rebuilding Plan
        Amendment 39 would modify the existing snow crab rebuilding plan to define “rebuilt” as the first year that the estimated biomass is above the level necessary to produce maximum sustainable yield, rather than the second consecutive year as currently defined. The Scientific and Statistical Committee recommended that a one year threshold is appropriate for snow crab based on the approved stock assessment model.

        An Environmental Assessment was prepared for Amendments 38 and 39 that describes the management background, the purpose and need for action, the management alternatives, and the environmental, social, and economic impacts of the alternatives (see ADDRESSES).

        Public comments are being solicited on proposed Amendments 38 and 39 to the FMP. NMFS will consider all public comments received by the end of the comment period in the approval/disapproval decision on Amendments 38 and 39. To be considered, comments must be received, not just postmarked or otherwise transmitted, by 5 p.m. Alaska local time on the last day of the comment period (see DATES). Comments received after that date will not be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the amendments.

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

          Dated: April 28, 2011.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2011-10798 Filed 5-3-11; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        Research and Special Programs Administration
        49 CFR Part 192
        [Docket No. RSPA-00-7666; Notice 7]
        RIN 2137-AD54
        Pipeline Safety: Pipeline Integrity Management in High Consequence Areas (Gas Transmission Pipelines)

          AGENCY:
          Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT.

          ACTION:
          Notice of public meeting.

          SUMMARY:
          This notice announces a one-day public meeting to solicit comments on issues raised at a recent meeting of the Technical Pipeline Safety Standards Committee (TPSSC), at a public meeting OPS held on March 14, 2003, and at a public workshop held February 21-22, 2003, which was jointly organized by the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) Foundation and the American Gas Association (AGA). At this meeting we intend to present the issues for comment and to question further those offering comments to assure that we completely understand each issue.

          ADDRESSES:

          The meeting is open to all. There is no cost to attend. This meeting will be held on Friday, April 25, 2003, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. at the Marriott at Washington Dulles Airport, 4520 Aviation Drive, Dulles, VA 20166. Tel: 703-471-9500; Web site: http://www.marriott.com. You may register electronically for this meeting at: http://primis.rspa.dot.gov/meetings. Please make your reservations as soon as possible as hotel rooms are limited. For other details on this meeting contact Juan Carlos at 202-366-1933.

          You may submit written comments by mail or delivery to the Dockets Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. The dockets facility is open from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except on Federal holidays. You should submit the original and one copy. Anyone who wants confirmation of receipt of their comments must include a stamped, self-addressed postcard. You may also submit comments to the docket electronically. To do so, log on to the Internet Web address http://dms.dot.gov. And click on “Help” for instructions on electronic filing of comments. All written comments should identify the docket number RSPA-00-7666; Notice 7.

          Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comments (or signing the comments, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the U.S. Department of Transportation's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Jean Milam at (202) 493-0967 or Jenny Donohue at (202) 366-4046, regarding this document. General information about RSPA/OPS programs may be obtained by accessing RSPA's Internet page at http://rspa.dot.gov.

          Information on Services for Individuals With Disabilities: For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance, contact Juan Carlos, (202) 366-1933.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        To better prevent pipeline failures that can imperil the health and safety of nearby residents and cause significant damage to their property, RSPA/OPS is promulgating a series of rules to require pipeline operators to develop integrity management programs. These programs are intended to identify the best methods for maintaining the structural soundness of pipelines operating across the United States. The programs operators develop are to include conducting baseline and periodic assessments of certain pipeline segments. RSPA/OPS has completed the integrity management program rules for hazardous liquid operators and is now addressing the requirements for natural gas transmission pipeline operators. RSPA/OPS proposed a rule on integrity management program requirements on January 28, 2003, (68 FR 4278).
        The proposed rule has been discussed at a meeting of the Technical Pipeline Safety Standards Committee (TPSSC) on March 27, 2003, at a public meeting OPS held in Washington, DC, on March 14, 2003, and at a workshop jointly organized by the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) Foundation and the American Gas Association (AGA) held in Houston, TX, on February 21-22, 2003. Discussions from the public meeting and the workshop are in the docket. Several issues were raised during these discussions that OPS/RSPA would like to explore further. RSPA/OPS is holding the April public meeting to present the issues for comment and to question further those offering comments to assure that we completely understand each issue.
        The preliminary agenda for the April meeting includes the following questions for discussion:
        Assessment
        Low Stress Pipelines
        Should assessment requirements for low-stress pipeline (i.e., operating at less than 30 percent SMYS) allow use of confirmatory direct assessment (CDA) for all assessments (baseline and reassessments)?
        Pressure Testing
        Should the requirement to pressure test pipelines to verify integrity against material and construction defects be limited to pipeline segments for which information suggests a potential vulnerability to such defects? If so, what information should be relied upon?
        Direct Assessment Equivalency
        Should the assessment intervals for direct assessment be revised to be the same as those applicable to in-line inspection or pressure testing? Are there opportunities to quickly schedule and assess research demonstrations to provide additional data on which to base judgments about validity?
        Plastic Transmission Lines
        What assessment requirements should be applicable to plastic transmission pipelines?
        Repairs
        Dents and Gouges
        Should a repair criteria for constraint dents on the bottom of the pipe be different from that allowed for dents located on the top? Should the presence of stress risers, cracking or metal loss affect this decision?
        Preventive and Mitigation Measures
        Third Party Damage
        Should additional third-party damage prevention methods be utilized instead of explicit assessments for third-party damage? What methods should be used in conjunction with other assessment methods to detect delayed third party damage?
        Segments Outside HCAs

        How can the requirements be clarified for the situations when an operator should look beyond the segment in a high consequence area, when segments outside the HCA are likely to have similar integrity concerns as those found inside an HCA?

        Performance Measures
        Should we require monthly electronic reporting of performance measures?
        Definitions
        High Consequence Area—Bifurcation Option
        Should a rule allow two options: following the definition of high consequence areas defined by final rule on August 6, 2002; (67 FR 50824) or using potential impact circles along the entire length of the pipeline? Under either option, an operator would calculate the potential impact circles for each segment, but the use of those circles would differ depending on the option. If the operator used the class location component of the high consequence area definition, the operator would treat entire class 3 and 4 areas as high consequence areas and use the potential impact circles to determine population density beyond 660 feet using specified number of buildings intended for human occupancy. Under the potential impact circle option, operators would use the circles to identify areas where the density of buildings intended for human occupancy exceeds a specified number and then focus the integrity assessments, repairs and other protections in these areas.
        Requirements for how an operator treats identified sites that are defined in the high consequence area would not change under either option.
        Population Threshold
        Should the criterion for determining the population density component of a high consequence area be based on 10 or 20 buildings intended for human occupancy within the impact circle?
        Impact Radius Safety Margin
        Should additional safety margin be applied to the potential impact circle radius calculated using the C-FER equation?
        Extrapolation
        Should a rule allow an operator to use data regarding the number of buildings within 660 feet of the pipeline (available now to operators because of the existing definition of class locations) to infer (extrapolate) the building density in potential impact circles larger than 660 feet? Should this be limited to an interim period of five years to allow operators to collect additional data on buildings beyond 660 feet?

          Issued in Washington, DC, on April 7, 2003.
          Stacey L. Gerard,
          Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.

      [FR Doc. 03-8814 Filed 4-9-03; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        RIN 1018-AG71
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designating Critical Habitat for Plant Species From the Islands of Kauai and Niihau, Hawaii

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; reopening of comment period and notice of availability of draft economic analysis.

          SUMMARY:
          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce the availability of the draft economic analysis for the proposed designations of critical habitat for plant species from the islands of Kauai and Niihau, Hawaii. We are also providing notice of the reopening of the comment period for the proposal to determine prudency and to designate critical habitat for these plants to allow peer reviewers and all interested parties to comment simultaneously on the proposed rule and the associated draft economic analysis. Comments previously submitted need not be resubmitted as they will be incorporated into the public record as part of this reopened comment period and will be fully considered in the final rule.

          DATES:
          We will accept public comments until June 27, 2002.

          ADDRESSES:
          Written comments and information should be submitted to Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Office, 300 Ala Moana Blvd., P.O. Box 50088, Honolulu, HI 96850-0001. For further instructions on commenting, refer to Public Comments Solicited section of this notice.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Paul Henson, Field Supervisor, Pacific Islands Office, at the above address (telephone: 808/541-3441; facsimile: 808/541-3470).

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        A total of 95 plant species historically found on Kauai and Niihau were listed as endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), between 1991 and 1996. Fifty-seven of these species are endemic to the islands of Kauai and/or Niihau, while 38 species are reported from one or more other islands, as well as Kauai, and/or Niihau.

        In other published proposals we proposed that critical habitat was prudent for 90 of the 95 species from the islands of Kauai and Niihau because the potential benefits of designating critical habitat essential for the conservation of these species outweigh the risks of designation (65 FR 66808, 65 FR 79192, 65 FR 82086, 65 FR 83158, 67 FR 3940, 67 FR 9806, 67 FR 15856, 67 FR 16492). In addition, we proposed that critical habitat designation was not prudent for three species of loulu palm (Pritchardia aylmer-robinsonii, P. napaliensis, and P. viscosa) because it would likely increase the threats from vandalism or collection of these species on Kauai and Niihau, and that critical habitat designation was not prudent for Acaena exigua and Melicope quadrangularis because they have not been seen recently in the wild, and no viable genetic material is known to exist (65 FR 66808, 65 FR 79192, 67 FR 3940, 67 FR 15856).

        In the January 28, 2002, revised prudency and critical habitat proposal (67 FR 3940), we proposed critical habitat for 83 of the 95 species from the islands of Kauai and Niihau. Critical habitat was not proposed for seven of the 95 species (Achyranthes mutica, Hibiscus brackenridgei, Isodendrion pyrifolium, Phlegmariurus mannii, Silene lanceolata, Solanum incompletum, and Vigna o-wahuensis) which no longer occur on the islands of Kauai or Niihau, and for which we were unable to identify any habitat that is essential to their conservation on the islands of Kauai or Niihau. Critical habitat was not proposed for three species of loulu palm nor for Melicope quadrangularis and Acaena exigua for the reasons given above.
        We have proposed to designate a total of 15 critical habitat units on Kauai and one unit on Niihau covering approximately 40,147 hectares (ha) (99,206 acres (ac)) on Kauai and 282 ha (697 ac) on Niihau.

        Critical habitat receives protection from destruction or adverse modification through required consultation under section 7 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) with regard to actions carried out, funded, or authorized by a Federal agency. Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that the Secretary shall designate or revise critical habitat based upon the best scientific and commercial data available, and after taking into consideration the economic impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. Based upon the previously published proposal to designate critical habitat for plant species from Kauai and Niihau, and comments received during the previous comment period, we have prepared a draft economic analysis of the proposed critical habitat designations. The draft economic analysis is available on the Internet and mailing address in the Public Comments Solicited section below.
        Public Comments Solicited
        We will accept written comments and information during this re-opened comment period. If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposal by any of several methods:
        (1) You may submit written comments and information to the Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Office, 300 Ala Moana Blvd., P.O. Box 50088, Honolulu, HI 96850-0001.
        (2) You may send comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to: kani_crithab@r1.fws.gov. If you submit comments by e-mail, please submit them as an ASCII file and avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Please also include “Attn: RIN 1018-AG71” and your name and return address in your e-mail message. If you do not receive a confirmation from the system that we have received your e-mail message, contact us directly by calling our Honolulu Fish and Wildlife Office at telephone number 808/541-3441.
        (3) You may hand-deliver comments to our Honolulu Fish and Wildlife Office at the address given above.

        Comments and materials received, as well as supporting documentation used in preparation of the proposal to designate critical habitat, will be available for inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the address under (1) above. Copies of the draft economic analysis are available on the Internet at http://pacificislands.fws.gov or by request from the Field Supervisor at the address and phone number under (1 and 2) above.
        Author(s)

        The primary authors of this notice are Marigold Zoll and Christa Russell (see ADDRESSES section).
        Authority

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

          Dated: May 17, 2002.
          Craig Manson,
          Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

      [FR Doc. 02-13189 Filed 5-24-02; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P