        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 697
        [Docket No.  030714172-3172-01; I.D.  063003A] ----
        RIN 0648-AR33
        Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act; Atlantic Striped Bass Fishery; Reopening of the Comment Period

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

          ACTION:
          Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR); reopening of comment period.

          SUMMARY:
          In a document published in the Federal Register on July 21, 2003,  NMFS requested comments on potential revisions to the Federal Atlantic striped bass regulations for the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) in response to recommendations from the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission) to the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary).  The comment period for the ANPR closed on August 20, 2003.  The intent of this document is to announce the reopening of the public comment period from August 26, 2003 to September 25, 2003.

          DATES:

          Written comments must be received at the appropriate address or facsimile (fax) number (see ADDRESSES) no later than 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on or before September 25, 2003.

          ADDRESSES:
          Written comments must be sent to:  Anne Lange, Chief, State-Federal Fisheries Division, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, 1315 East West Highway, Room 13317, Silver Spring, MD 20910.  Comments may also be sent via fax to (301) 713-0596.  Comments submitted via e-mail or Internet will not be accepted.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Tom Meyer, Fishery Management Biologist, (301) 713-2334, fax (301) 713-0596.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        As announced in the Federal Register on July 21, 2003 (68 FR 43074), NMFS requested comments on potential revisions to the Federal Atlantic striped bass regulations for the U.S. EEZ in response to recommendations from the Commission to the Secretary.  NMFS also solicited  comments on possible management measures and issues that NMFS should consider relative to these recommendations.  The ANPR comment period closed on August 20, 2003.  While NMFS received numerous correspondence expressing opinions about opening the EEZ during the comment period on the original ANPR, NMFS believes that additional concrete information would be useful to make a decision whether to proceed with this rulemaking.  Therefore, NMFS is reopening the comment period to solicit additional data or other information that it should consider relative to making a decision regarding possible management measures to address the Commission's recommendations.
        Background
        Atlantic Striped Bass management is based on the Commission's Atlantic Striped Bass Interstate Fishery Management Plan (ISFMP), first adopted in 1981.  From 1981-1994, four ISFMP Amendments were developed that provided a series of management measures that led to the rebuilding of the stocks.  In 1995, the Commission declared the Atlantic striped bass population fully restored and implemented Amendment 5 to the ISFMP to perpetuate the stock so as to allow a commercial and recreational harvest consistent with the long-term maintenance of the striped bass stock.  Since then the population has expanded to record levels of abundance.  To maintain this recovered population, the Commission approved Amendment 6 to the ISFMP (Amendment 6) in February 2003 (copies of Amendment 6 are available via the Commission's website at www.asmfc.org).   The Commission believes that the measures contained in Amendment 6 are necessary to prevent the overfishing of the Atlantic striped bass resource while allowing growth in both the commercial and recreational fishery.  Development of Amendment 6 took almost four years and involved extensive input from technical and industry advisors, and provided numerous opportunities for the public to comment on the future management of the species.-Amendment 6 incorporates results of the most recent Atlantic striped bass stock assessment, developed by the Atlantic Coast States, the Commission, NMFS, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see section 1.2.2 of Amendment 6).  In summary, the 2001 stock assessment concluded that the overall abundance of the stock is very high and fishing mortality remains below the target rate.  The stock's abundance increased steadily between 1982 and 1997 and since then has remained stable.  The fishing mortality rate increased steadily until 1999, but decreased slightly in 2000.  Amendment 6 also includes recommendations to the Secretary on the development of complementary measures in the EEZ.  Management of Atlantic striped bass in the EEZ was one of the issues that was considered throughout development of Amendment 6.
        Recommendation to the Secretary
        On April 24, 2003, the Secretary of Commerce received a letter from the Commission with the following three recommendations for implementation of regulations in the EEZ:  (1) Remove the moratorium on the harvest of Atlantic striped bass in the EEZ; (2) implement a 28-inch (71.1 cm) minimum size limit for recreational and commercial Atlantic striped bass fisheries in the EEZ; and (3) allow states the ability to adopt more restrictive rules for fishermen and vessels licensed in their jurisdictions.   -
        In support of its request, the Commission provided a number of reasons to justify  opening the EEZ to striped bass fishing.  These reasons include:

        (1) In 1995, due in part to a closure of the EEZ in 1990 to striped bass harvest, the population of this species was declared fully restored by the Commission.  The purpose of closing the EEZ was to protect strong year classes entering the population and to promote rebuilding of the overfished population.
        (2) The commercial harvest is controlled by hard quotas; when they are reached the fishery is closed; and overages are taken out of next year's quotas.  The Commercial quota will be landed regardless of whether or not the EEZ is opened.
        (3) Currently, recreational and commercial catches are occurring in the EEZ and these fish are required to be discarded.  Opening the EEZ will convert discarded bycatch of striped bass  to landings.
        (4) Because of management measures implemented since 1990, the striped bass population has recovered to a point where further examination of whether this fishery should occur in the EEZ is appropriate.  There are expectations among a number of fishing industry stakeholders that their past sacrifices would result in future opportunities to harvest striped bass, and therefore, there are potential credibility issues associated with keeping the EEZ closed, especially in light of the current status of the Atlantic striped bass stock.
        (5) The recommendation to open the EEZ is part of Amendment 6 to the Atlantic Striped Bass Interstate Fishery Management Plan (Amendment 6) which incorporates new management standards to ensure stock conservation including targets and thresholds for both mortality and spawning stock biomass.  Fishing mortality is currently below the target level, and spawning stock biomass is 1.5 times the target level.
        (6) Amendment 6 includes monitoring requirements and triggers that will allow the Commission to respond quickly to increased mortality.
        (7) The bulk of the public comment received by the Commission in opposition to opening the EEZ during the development of Amendment 6 cited expansion of the commercial fishery as rationale not to open the EEZ.  The Commission believes the rationale is incorrect because the commercial fishery is controlled by a hard quota.
        The Commission stated that its Atlantic Striped Bass Technical Committee would monitor annually the Atlantic striped bass population, and, if at some point in the future the Commission determines that the Atlantic striped bass population is overfished or that overfishing is occurring, it may recommend further management measures for the EEZ.
        By this document, NMFS is reopening the public comment period.  There were no changes from the ANPR previously published.  NMFS is specifically soliciting additional data or other information that it should consider relative to making a decision regarding possible management measures to address the Commission's recommendations.  After review of comments received from this notice and the ANPR, NMFS will decide whether to initiate a lengthy review and decision-making process, which would include preparation of either an Environmental Impact Statement or an Environmental Assessment, and the development of management measures to revise current Federal regulations for Atlantic striped bass in the EEZ.

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 1851 note.
         -
          Dated:  August 21, 2003.
          Bruce C. Morehead,
          Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 03-21806 Filed 8-25-03; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
        49 CFR Parts 523, 531, 533, 536 and 537
        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 86
        Notice of Intention To Reconsider the Final Determination of the Mid-Term Evaluation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Model Year 2022-2025 Light Duty Vehicles

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Department of Transportation's (DOT) National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

          ACTION:
          Notice of intent.

          SUMMARY:
          EPA announces its intention to reconsider the Final Determination of the Mid-Term Evaluation of greenhouse gas (GHG) standards for model year (MY) 2022-2025 light-duty vehicles and to coordinate its reconsideration with the parallel process to be undertaken by the DOT's NHTSA regarding Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for cars and light trucks for the same model years.

          DATES:
          March 22, 2017.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          William Charmley, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Fuel Emissions Laboratory/OAR, 2565 Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48105, telephone (734) 214-4466. Email: charmley.william@epa.gov and Rebecca Schade, Office of the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone: (202) 366-2992.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        By this notice, EPA announces its intention to reconsider its Final Determination of the Mid-Term Evaluation of GHG standards for MY 2022-2025 light-duty vehicles. The EPA has inherent authority to reconsider past decisions and to revise, replace or repeal a decision to the extent permitted by law and supported by a reasoned explanation. FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 515 (2009). In 2012, EPA committed to continuing to coordinate development of its Clean Air Act (CAA) section 202(a)(1) (42 U.S.C. 7521(a)) emission standards with NHTSA's development of CAFE standards for light-duty vehicles, but did not do so in development and publication of EPA's January 12, 2017 Midterm Evaluation of standards conducted under 40 CFR 86.1818-12(h) of EPA's regulations. EPA now announces it will reconsider that determination in coordination with NHTSA.

        The Mid-Term Evaluation was established to review standards set in a 2012 joint rulemaking by the EPA and NHTSA, which set federal GHG emissions and CAFE standards for MY 2017 and beyond for light-duty vehicles. 2017 and Later Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, Final Rule, 77 FR 62624 (Oct. 15, 2012). These standards, codified for EPA at 40 CFR 86.1818-12, apply to passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles (i.e., sport utility vehicles, cross-over utility vehicles and light trucks), collectively referred to in this notice as light-duty vehicles.

        The EPA and NHTSA finalized separate sets of standards under their respective statutory authorities. EPA set GHG standards (including standards for emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide, methane and air conditioning refrigerants) for MY 2017-2025 passenger cars and light-trucks under section 202(a) of the CAA. NHTSA sets national CAFE standards under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), as amended by the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007 (49 U.S.C. 32902). NHTSA set final CAFE standards for MY 2017-2021 light-duty vehicles and issued augural standards for MYs 2022-2025.

        The 2012 rulemaking establishing these standards included a regulatory requirement for the EPA to conduct a Mid-Term Evaluation of the GHG standards established for MYs 2022-2025. 77 FR 62625 (October 15, 2012), codified at 40 CFR 86.1818-12(h). In July 2016, EPA, NHTSA, and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) released for public comment a jointly prepared Draft Technical Assessment Report, which examined a range of issues relevant to GHG emissions and CAFE standards for MYs 2022-2025. 81 FR 49217 (July 27, 2016). In November, 2016, EPA issued a proposed determination for the Mid-Term Evaluation. 81 FR 87927 (Dec. 6, 2016). On January 12, 2017, the EPA Administrator signed the Final Determination of the Mid-Term Evaluation of light-duty vehicle GHG emissions standards for MYs 2022- 2025.

        Under 40 CFR 86.1818-12(h), no later than April 1, 2018, the EPA Administrator must determine whether the GHG standards previously established under 40 CFR 86.1818-12(c) for MYs 2022-2025 are appropriate under section 202(a) of the CAA, in light of the record then before the Administrator. Given that CO2 makes up the vast majority of the GHGs that EPA regulates under section 202(a), and given that the technologies available for regulating CO2 emissions do so by improving fuel economy (which NHTSA regulates under EPCA/EISA), NHTSA's views with regard to what CAFE standards would be maximum feasible for those model years is an appropriate consideration in EPA's determining what GHG standards would be appropriate under the CAA. See 40 CFR 86.1818-12(h)(1)(vii) (listing as one of the factors EPA should consider in the Mid-Term Evaluation “[t]he impact of the greenhouse gas emission standards on the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards and a national harmonized program”). However, NHTSA has not yet considered what CAFE standards would be the maximum feasible standards for MYs 2022-2025. Accordingly, EPA has concluded that it is appropriate to reconsider its Final Determination in order to allow additional consultation and coordination with NHTSA in support of a national harmonized program.
        For its part, NHTSA will continue to engage with stakeholders as it works to develop a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to set CAFE standards for MYs 2022-2025. As explained in the 2012 final rule, this proposal will be part of “a de novo rulemaking conducted . . . with fresh inputs and a fresh consideration and balancing of all relevant factors, based on the best and most current information before the agency at that time.” 77 FR 62652. A final rule for MY 2022 is statutorily required to be issued by NHTSA by April 1, 2020.
        In accord with the schedule set forth in EPA's regulations, the EPA intends to make a new Final Determination regarding the appropriateness of the MY 2022-2025 GHG standards no later than April 1, 2018.

          Dated: March 3, 2017.
          Elaine L. Chao,
          Secretary, Department of Transportation.

          Dated: March 3, 2017.
          E. Scott Pruitt,
          Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency.

      [FR Doc. 2017-05316 Filed 3-21-17; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 660
        [Docket No. 0912281446-91447-01]
        RIN 0648-XT32
        Fisheries Off West Coast States; Coastal Pelagic Species Fisheries; Annual Specifications

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

          ACTION:
           Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes a regulation to implement the annual harvest guideline (HG) and seasonal allocations for Pacific sardine in the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off the Pacific coast for the fishing season of January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010. This rule is proposed according to the Coastal Pelagic Species (CPS) Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The proposed 2010 acceptable biological catch (ABC) or maximum HG is 72,039 mt. 5,000 mt of this 72,039 mt would initially be set aside for use under an Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP), if issued, leaving the remaining 65,732 mt as the initial commercial fishing HG. That HG would be divided across the seasonal allocation periods in the following way: January 1-June 30, 22,463 mt would be allocated for directed harvest with an incidental set-aside of 1,000 mt; July 1-September 14, 25,861 mt would be allocated for directed harvest with an incidental set-aside of 1,000 mt; September 15-December 31, 11,760 mt would be allocated for directed harvest with an incidental set-aside of 1,000 mt with an additional 4,000 mt set aside to buffer against reaching the ABC. This rule is intended to conserve and manage Pacific sardine off the West Coast.

          DATES:
           Comments must be received by February 2, 2010.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this proposed rule identified by 0648-XT32 by any of the following methods:

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

          • Mail: Rodney R. McInnis, Regional Administrator, Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach,
          CA 90802.
          • Fax: (562)980-4047

          Instructions: No comments will be posted for public viewing until after the comment period has closed. 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.
          NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter N/A in the required fields if you prefer to remain anonymous). You may submit attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.
          Copies of the report “Assessment of Pacific Sardine Stock for U.S. Management in 2010” may be obtained from the Southwest Regional Office (see the Mailing address above).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Joshua Lindsay, Southwest Region, NMFS, (562) 980-4034.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The CPS FMP, which was implemented by publication of the final rule in the Federal Register on December 15, 1999 (64 FR 69888), divides management unit species into two categories: actively managed and monitored. Harvest guidelines for actively managed species (Pacific sardine and Pacific mackerel) are based on formulas applied to current biomass estimates. Biomass estimates are not calculated for species that are only monitored (jack mackerel, northern anchovy, and market squid).
        During public meetings each year, the biomass for each actively managed species within the CPS FMP is presented to the Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Council) CPS Management Team (Team), the Council's CPS Advisory Subpanel (Subpanel) and the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC). At that time, the biomass, the ABC and the status of the fisheries are reviewed and discussed. This information is then presented to the Council along with HG recommendations and comments from the Team, Subpanel and SSC. Following review by the Council and after hearing public comment, the Council makes its HG recommendation to NMFS.

        In November 2009, the Council adopted and recommended to NMFS an ABC or maximum HG of 72,039 mt for the 2010 Pacific sardine fishing year. This ABC is based on a biomass estimate of 702,204 mt and the harvest control rule established in the CPS FMP. This ABC/HG is slightly higher than the ABC/HG for the 2009 fishing season, which was 66,932 mt. The Council also recommended that 5,000 mt of the available 2010 ABC/HG be initially reserved for research activities that would be undertaken under a potential exempted fishing permit (EFP). In 2009, 2,400 mt was subtracted from the total HG for an EFP. The Council will hear proposals and comments on any potential EFPs at the March Council meeting and make a final recommendation to NMFS on whether or not to issue an EFP(s) for the 5,000 mt research set aside at their April 2010 Council meeting. NMFS will likely make a decision on whether or not to issue an EFP some time prior to the start of the second seasonal period (July 1, 2010). Any of the 5,000 mt that is not issued to an EFP will be rolled into the third allocation period's directed fishery. Any research set aside attributed to an EFP designed to be conducted during the closed fishing time in the second allocation period (prior to September 15), but not utilized, will roll into the third allocation period's directed fishery. Any research set aside attributed to an EFP designed to be conducted during closed fishing times in the third allocation, but not utilized, will not be re-allocated.
        The Council recommended that the remaining 67,039 mt (HG of 72,039 mt minus proposed 5,000 mt EFP set aside) be used as the initial overall fishing HG and be allocated across the seasonal periods established by Amendment 11 (71 FR 36999). The Council also recommended an incidental catch set aside of 3,000 mt and a management uncertainty buffer of 4,000 mt. Subtracting this set aside from the initial overall HG establishes an initial directed harvest fishery of 60,039 mt and an incidental fishery of 3,000 mt. The purpose of the incidental fishery is to allow for the restricted incidental landings of Pacific sardine in other fisheries, particularly other CPS fisheries, if and when a seasonal directed fishery is closed.
        The directed harvest levels and incidental set-aside would be initially allocated across the three seasonal allocation periods in the following way: January 1-June 30, 22,463 mt would be allocated for directed harvest with an incidental set aside of 1,000 mt; July 1-September 14, 25,861 mt would be allocated for directed harvest with an incidental set aside of 1,000 mt; September 15-December 31, 11,760 mt would be allocated for directed harvest with an incidental set aside of 1,000 mt. If during any of the seasonal allocation periods the applicable adjusted directed harvest allocation is projected to be taken, fishing would be closed to directed harvest and only incidental harvest would be allowed. For the remainder of the period, any incidental Pacific sardine landings would be counted against that period's incidental set-aside. The proposed incidental fishery would also be constrained to a 30 percent by weight incidental catch rate when Pacific sardine are landed with other CPS so as to minimize the targeting of Pacific sardine. In the event that an incidental set aside is projected to be attained, all fisheries will be closed to the retention of Pacific sardine for the remainder of the period. If the set-aside is not fully attained or is exceeded in a given seasonal period, the directed harvest allocation in the following seasonal period would automatically be adjusted to account for the discrepancy. Additionally, if during any seasonal period the directed harvest allocation is not fully attained or is exceeded, then the following period's directed harvest total would be adjusted to account for this discrepancy as well.

        If the total HG or these apportionment levels for Pacific sardine are reached or are expected to be reached, the Pacific sardine fishery would be closed via appropriate rulemaking until it re-opens either per the allocation scheme or the beginning of the next fishing season. The Regional Administrator would publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing the date of such closures.

        Detailed information on the fishery and the stock assessment are found in the report “Assessment of Pacific Sardine Stock for U.S. Management in 2010” (see ADDRESSES).
        The formula in the CPS FMP uses the following factors to determine the HG:
        1. Biomass. The estimated stock biomass of Pacific sardine age one and above for the 2010 management season is 702,204 mt.
        2. Cutoff. This is the biomass level below which no commercial fishery is allowed. The FMP established this level at 150,000 mt.
        3. Distribution. The portion of the Pacific sardine biomass estimated in the EEZ off the Pacific coast is 87 percent and is based on the average historical larval distribution obtained from scientific cruises and the distribution of the resource according to the logbooks of aerial fish-spotters.
         4. Fraction. The harvest fraction is the percentage of the biomass above 150,000 mt that may be harvested. The fraction used varies (5-15 percent) with current ocean temperatures; a higher fraction for warmer ocean temperatures and a lower fraction for cooler temperatures. Warmer ocean temperatures favor the production of Pacific sardine. For 2010, the fraction used was 15 percent, based on three seasons of sea surface temperature at Scripps Pier, California.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the CPS FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        These proposed specifications are exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
         The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as follows:

          The purpose of this proposed rule is to implement the 2010 HG for Pacific sardine in the U.S. EEZ off the Pacific coast. The CPS FMP and its implementing regulations require NMFS to set an annual HG for the Pacific sardine fishery based on the harvest formula in the FMP. The harvest formula is applied to the current stock biomass estimate to determine the ABC, from which the HG is then derived. The HG is determined using an environmentally-based formula accounting for the effect of ocean conditions on stock productivity.
          The HG is apportioned based on the following allocation scheme: 35 percent of the HG is allocated coastwide on January 1; 40 percent of the HG, plus any portion not harvested from the initial allocation is then reallocated coastwide on July 1; and on September 15 the remaining 25 percent, plus any portion not harvested from earlier allocations will be released. If the total HG or these apportionment levels for Pacific sardine are reached at any time, the Pacific sardine fishery is closed until either it re-opens per the allocation scheme or the beginning of the next fishing season. There is no limit on the amount of catch that any single vessel can take during an allocation period or the year; the HG and seasonal allocations are available until fully utilized by the entire CPS fleet.

          The small entities that would be affected by the proposed action are the vessels that compose the West Coast CPS finfish fleet. Approximately 109 vessels are permitted to operate in the sardine fishery component of the CPS fishery off the U.S. West Coast; 65 permits in the Federal CPS limited entry fishery off California (south of 39 N. lat.), and a combined 44 permits in Oregon and Washington's state Pacific sardine fisheries. This proposed rule has an equal effect on all of these small entities and therefore will impact a substantial number of these small entities in the same manner. These vessels are considered small business entities by the U.S. Small Business Administration since the vessels do not have annual receipts in excess of $4.0 million. Therefore, there would be no economic impacts resulting from disproportionality between small and large business entities under the proposed action.
          The profitability of these vessels as a result of this proposed rule is based on the average Pacific sardine ex-vessel price per mt. NMFS used average Pacific sardine ex-vessel price per mt to conduct a profitability analysis because cost data for the harvesting operations of CPS finfish vessels was unavailable.
          For the 2009 fishing year the maximum HG was set at 66,932 mt. The majority of the HG was harvested during the 2009 fishing season with an estimated coastwide ex-vessel value of $12.5 million. Although the 2009 HG was 25 percent lower than the HG for 2008, due to an increase in ex-vessel price per pound of sardine, coastwide ex-vessel revenue for 2009 was less than $2 million different than revenue for 2008 and above the average ex-vessel revenue achieved from 2002-2007.
          The proposed HG for the 2010 Pacific sardine fishing season (January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010) is 72,039 mt. This HG is slightly higher than the HG for 2009 of 66,932 mt. If the fleet were to take the entire 2010 HG, and assuming a coastwide average ex-vessel price per mt of $187, the potential revenue to the fleet would be approximately $13.5 million. This would be higher than average coastwide ex-vessel value achieved from 2002-2009. Whether this will occur depends greatly on market forces within the fishery and on the regional availability of the resource to the fleets and the fleets' ability to find pure schools of Pacific sardine. A change in the market and/or the potential lack of availability of the resource to the fleets could cause a reduction in the amount of Pacific sardine that is harvested, in turn, reducing the total revenue to the fleet from Pacific sardine.
          However, the revenue derived from harvesting Pacific sardine is only one factor determining the overall revenue of a majority of the CPS fleet and therefore the economic impact to the fleet from the proposed action can not be viewed in isolation. CPS finfish vessels typically harvest a number of other species, including anchovy, mackerel, squid, and tuna, making Pacific sardine only one component of a multi-species CPS fishery. A reliance on multiple species is a necessity because each CPS stock is highly associated to present ocean and environmental conditions. Because each species responds to such conditions in its own way, not all CPS stocks are likely to be abundant at the same time; therefore as abundance levels and markets fluctuate, the CPS fishery as a whole has endured by depending on a group of species.
          Based on the disproportionality and profitability analysis above, this rule if adopted, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of these small entities.

        As a result, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required and none has been prepared.
        This action does not contain a collection-of-information requirement for purposes of the Paper Reduction Act.

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

          Dated: January 7, 2010.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2010-496 Filed 1-12-10; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
        Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
        27 CFR Part 9
        [Docket No. TTB-2018-0008; Notice No. 177]
        RIN 1513-AC40
        Proposed Establishment of the West Sonoma Coast Viticultural Area
        Correction
        In proposed rule document 2018-26321 beginning on page 62750 in the issue of Thursday, December 6, 2018, make the following correction:
        On page 62751, in the first column, in the DATES heading, the second line, “January 7, 2018” should read “February 4, 2018”.

      [FR Doc. C1-2018-26321 Filed 12-11-18; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 1301-00-D


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 721
        [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0760; FRL-9998-80]
        RIN 2070-AB27
        Significant New Use Rule on Certain Chemical Substances; Partial Withdrawal (PMN P-13-270)

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Partial withdrawal of proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          EPA is withdrawing part of a proposed rule, published in the Federal Register on January 7, 2015, that proposed significant new use rules (SNURs) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for certain chemical substances. This withdrawal covers only the portion of the proposed rule that would have established a SNUR for the chemical substance generically described as aromatic dibenzoate, which was the subject of premanufacture notice (PMN) P-13-270. EPA has received test data for this chemical substance and based on its review is withdrawing the proposed SNUR for the chemical substance.

          DATES:

          As of October 8, 2019, EPA withdraws the proposed addition of 40 CFR 721.10735, which published in the Federal Register of January 7, 2015 (80 FR 845) (FRL-9919-23).

          ADDRESSES:

          The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0760, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566-0280. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

            For technical information contact: Kenneth Moss, Chemical Control Division (7405M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 564-9232; email address: moss.kenneth@epa.gov.

            For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202) 554-1404; email address: TSCA-Hotline@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        I. Does this action apply to me?
        A list of potentially affected entities is provided in the Federal Register of January 7, 2015 (80 FR 845) (FRL-9919-23). If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
        II. What proposed SNUR is being withdrawn?
        In the Federal Register of January 7, 2015 (80 FR 845) (FRL-9919-23), EPA issued proposed SNURs for 13 chemical substances, including the chemical substance generically described as aromatic dibenzoate, which was the subject of PMN P-13-270. EPA proposed a SNUR for this PMN substance that would designate certain activities as significant new uses based on a finding that the substance may cause significant adverse environmental effects and met the concern criteria at § 721.170(b)(4)(ii). The proposed SNUR would require notification before any use of the substance resulting in surface water concentrations exceeding 1 part per billion (ppb). In this Federal Register notice, EPA is only withdrawing the single proposed SNUR for PMN P-13-270 (proposed to be codified as 40 CFR 721.10735).
        III. Why is that proposed SNUR being withdrawn?
        Prior to the proposed SNUR, in the Federal Register of July 9, 2014 (79 FR 39268) (FRL-9910-01), EPA issued a direct final SNUR on this chemical substance in accordance with the procedures in 40 CFR 721.160(c)(3)(i). EPA received a notice of intent to submit adverse comments on the direct final SNUR, and, as required by 4 CFR 721.160(c)(3)(ii), EPA withdrew the direct final SNUR in the Federal Register of September 4, 2014 (79 FR 52563) (FRL-9915-69), which was subsequently followed by the issuance of the proposed rule in the Federal Register of January 7, 2015. The record for both the original direct final SNUR and the direct final SNUR withdrawal for this chemical substance was established as docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0166, and the record for the subsequent proposed rule was established as docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0760.
        Subsequent to the January 7, 2015 proposed SNUR, the PMN submitter conducted an acute 96-hour toxicity test in nematodes. The data were in agreement with, and further supported (weight-of-evidence), the Agency's original acute aquatic toxicity values of no effects at saturation. The PMN submitter also submitted an aerobic biodegradation study that indicated that the substance is inherently biodegradable under aerobic conditions, with an estimated half-life of 135 days. Due to the low water solubility of the PMN substance (0.004 mg/L), EPA then recommended a chronic sediment toxicity test as potentially useful in evaluating the chronic exposures of the substance in a sediment environment. The PMN submitter conducted this testing, which provided a sediment chronic value of 537.4 mg/kg (geometric mean of the no-observed and low-observed adverse effect concentrations, or NOEC and LOEC), based on the measurement endpoint of emergence ratio for aquatic invertebrates. The concentration of concern (COC) for sediment-dwelling organisms was calculated by EPA, using an uncertainty factor of 10, to be 53.74 mg/kg.
        Using a weight-of-evidence approach (taking into account the low water solubility of the substance, no adverse effects at the substance's saturation limit observed in the results from the submitted aqueous test data, and the significant difficulty of getting the substance into aqueous test solutions), EPA considers the substance to have a low (aqueous-only) environmental hazard. Further, the Agency determined that there is low acute and chronic aqueous-only ecological risk for the substance based on anticipated manufacture, processing and use exposure scenarios and low environmental hazard.

        EPA calculated a maximum benthic sediment concentration of approximately 50 mg/kg for the substance using the Point Source Calculator (PSC) (https://www.epa.gov/tsca-screening-tools/point-source-calculator-version-105-psc-v105) aquatic model to estimate chemical concentrations in sediment from point sources, with low-end receiving stream flow. This sediment concentration value (a reasonable high-end estimate of exposure) is below the sediment-based COC, supporting the conclusion that the sediment concentrations of the substance are not expected to reach the sediment-based COC. As a result, the Agency also determined that the substance does not pose a significant environment risk to sediment-dwelling organisms resulting from the release and use of the substance and concludes that the substance does not meet the criteria under § 721.170(b).
        Based on these conclusions from the review of all available scientific evidence, EPA is withdrawing the 2015 proposed SNUR for this chemical substance. Copies of the data and Agency review are available in the docket for the proposed rule, EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0760.

          List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 721
          Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated: September 26, 2019.
          Tala Henry,
          Deputy Director, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.

      [FR Doc. 2019-21719 Filed 10-7-19; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 622
        RIN 0648-BG18
        Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Amendment 43

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of availability; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          The Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) Fishery Management Council (Gulf Council) has submitted Amendment 43 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP) for review, approval, and implementation by NMFS. If approved by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), Amendment 43 would revise the hogfish fishery management unit (FMU) to be the West Florida stock and define the geographic range of this stock consistent with the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council's (South Atlantic Council) proposed boundary between the Florida Keys/East Florida and West Florida stocks, set the status determination criteria (SDC) and annual catch limits (ACLs) for the West Florida stock, increase the minimum size limit for the West Florida stock, and remove the powerhead exception for harvest of hogfish in the Gulf reef fish stressed area. The purpose of Amendment 43 is to establish management measures for the West Florida hogfish stock in the Gulf using the best scientific information available.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received by January 3, 2017.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on Amendment 43 identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2016-0126” by either of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2016-0126, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit all written comments to Peter Hood, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.

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

          Electronic copies of Amendment 43, which includes an environmental assessment, a fishery impact statement, a Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis, and a regulatory impact review, may be obtained from www.regulations.gov or the Southeast Regional Office Web site at http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sustainable_fisheries/gulf_fisheries/reef_fish/2016/am43/index.html.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Peter Hood, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, email: peter.hood@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires each regional fishery management council to submit any FMP or amendment to NMFS for review and approval, partial approval, or disapproval. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving an FMP or amendment, publish an announcement in the Federal Register notifying the public that the FMP or amendment is available for review and comment.

        The FMP being revised by Amendment 43 was prepared by the Gulf Council and, if approved, would be implemented by NMFS through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
        Background
        Currently, hogfish in the Gulf exclusive economic zone (EEZ) are managed as a single stock with a stock ACL and no allocation between the commercial and recreational sectors. Although hogfish occur throughout the Gulf, they are caught primarily off the Florida west coast. Generally, the fishing season for both sectors is open year-round, January 1 through December 31. However, accountability measures (AMs) for hogfish specify that if commercial and recreational landings exceed the stock ACL in a fishing year, then during the following fishing year if the stock ACL is reached or is projected to be reached, the commercial and recreational sectors will be closed for the remainder of the fishing year. The hogfish ACL and AMs were implemented in 2012 (76 FR 82044, December 29, 2011). The AMs were triggered when the hogfish ACL was exceeded in 2012, and the 2013 season was closed on December 2 because NMFS determined that the 2013 hogfish stock ACL had been harvested (78 FR 72583, December 3, 2013). The stock ACL was exceeded again in 2013. However, there was no closure in 2014, and the stock ACL was not exceeded in the 2014 or 2015 fishing years.
        In 2014, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) completed the most recent stock assessment for hogfish through the Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review process (SEDAR 37). SEDAR 37 divided the hogfish stock into three stocks based upon genetic analysis as follows: The West Florida stock, Florida Keys/East Florida stock, and the Georgia through North Carolina stock. The West Florida stock is completely within the jurisdiction of the Gulf Council and the Georgia through North Carolina stock is completely within the jurisdiction of the South Atlantic Council. The Florida Keys/East Florida stock crosses the Councils' jurisdictional boundary, with a small portion of the stock extending into the Gulf Council's jurisdiction off the west coast of Florida. Based on SEDAR 37 and the Gulf and South Atlantic Councils' Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) recommendations, NMFS determined the West Florida stock is not overfished or undergoing overfishing, the Florida Keys/East Florida stock is overfished and undergoing overfishing, and the status of the Georgia-North Carolina stock status is unknown.
        Actions Contained in Amendment 43
        Amendment 43 includes actions to revise the FMU for hogfish to be the West Florida stock and define the geographic range of this stock consistent with the South Atlantic Council's proposed boundary between the Florida Keys/East Florida and West Florida stocks, and set the SDC and ACL for the West Florida stock. In addition, actions in Amendment 43 increase the minimum size limit for the West Florida stock, and remove the powerhead exception for harvest of hogfish in the Gulf reef fish stressed area.
        Fishery Management Unit
        The South Atlantic Council developed and submitted for review by the Secretary of Commerce a rebuilding plan for the Florida Keys/East Florida hogfish stock through Amendment 37 to the FMP for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region. Because SEDAR 37 indicated only a small portion of the Florida Keys/East Florida stock extends into the Gulf Council's jurisdiction off south Florida, the Gulf Council through Amendment 43 proposes to revise the hogfish FMU to be the West Florida stock and define the geographic range of this stock consistent with the South Atlantic Council's proposed boundary between the Florida Keys/East Florida and West Florida hogfish stocks near Cape Sable, Florida. This boundary would be a line extending west along 25°09′ N. lat. to the outer boundary of the EEZ. The Gulf Council would manage hogfish (the West Florida stock) in the Gulf EEZ except south of 25°09′ N. lat. off the west coast of Florida. The South Atlantic Council would manage hogfish (the Florida Keys/East Florida stock) in the Gulf EEZ south of 25°09′ N. lat. off the west coast of Florida, and in the South Atlantic EEZ to the state border of Florida and Georgia. The boundary line near Cape Sable is south of the line used in SEDAR 37, which defined the West Florida stock as north of the Monroe and Collier County, Florida, boundary line. Therefore, it is possible that some fish from the Florida Keys/East Florida stock will be harvested under the regulations by the Gulf Council. However, the majority of hogfish landings in Monroe County occur in the Florida Keys, and the proposed boundary is far enough north of the Florida Keys that fishing trips originating in the Florida Keys rarely travel north of the boundary, and far enough south of Naples and Marco Island, Florida, that fishing trips originating from these locations rarely travel south of the boundary. In addition, the boundary line proposed by the Gulf and South Atlantic Councils is currently used by the FWC as a regulatory boundary for certain state-managed species. Using a pre-existing management boundary will increase enforceability and help fishermen by simplifying regulations across adjacent management jurisdictions.

        In accordance with section 304(f) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Gulf Council requested that the Secretary designate the South Atlantic Council as the responsible Council for management of the Florida Keys/East Florida hogfish stock in Gulf Federal waters south of 25°09′ N. lat. near Cape Sable on the west coast of Florida. If the Gulf Council's request is approved, the Gulf Council would continue to manage hogfish in Federal waters in the Gulf, except in Federal waters south of this boundary. Therefore, the South Atlantic Council, and not the Gulf Council, would establish the management measures for the entire range of the Florida Keys/East Florida hogfish stock, including in Federal waters south of 25°09′ N. lat. near Cape Sable in the Gulf. Commercial and recreational for-hire vessels fishing for hogfish in Gulf Federal waters, i.e., north and west of the jurisdictional boundary between the Gulf and South Atlantic Councils (approximately the Florida Keys), as defined at 50 CFR 600.105(c), would still be required to have the appropriate Federal Gulf reef fish permits, and vessels fishing for hogfish in South Atlantic Federal waters, i.e., south and east of the jurisdictional boundary, would still be required to have the appropriate Federal South Atlantic snapper-grouper permits. Those permit holders would still be required to follow the sale and reporting requirements associated with the respective permits.
        NMFS specifically seeks public comment regarding the revised stock boundaries and the manner in which the Councils would have jurisdiction over these stocks if both Amendment 37 for the South Atlantic and Amendment 43 for the Gulf of Mexico are approved and implemented.
        Status Determination Criteria

        Currently, the only SDC implemented for Gulf hogfish is the overfishing threshold, or maximum fishing mortality rate (MFMT). The overfished threshold, or minimum stock size threshold (MSST), and maximum sustainable yield (MSY) actions were disapproved when the Gulf Council's Sustainable Fisheries Act Generic Amendment was approved by NMFS on November 17, 1999. Amendment 43 would maintain the current MFMT value at the fishing mortality corresponding to 30 percent of the stock's spawning potential ratio (SPR) (F30
          %
          SPR). Amendment 43 would also specify the MSST and MSY values. The MSY proxy would equal the equilibrium yield at F30
          %
          SPR and the MSST value would be equal to 75 percent of the spawning stock biomass capable of producing an equilibrium yield of the MSY proxy.
        Annual Catch Limit
        The current ACL and annual catch target (ACT) for Gulf hogfish were established based on 1999 through 2008 landings. The ACL and ACT were set using the Gulf Council's acceptable biological catch (ABC) control rule for stocks that have not been assessed but are stable over time. Amendment 43 would set the ACL for the West Florida hogfish stock at 219,000 lb (99,337 kg), round weight, for the 2017 and 2018 fishing years based on recommendations from the Gulf Council's SSC after its review of SEDAR 37. In 2019, and subsequent fishing years, the ACL would be set at the equilibrium ABC of 159,300 lb (72,257 kg), round weight. The Gulf Council decided to discontinue the designation of an ACT, because it is not used in the current AMs or for other management purposes.
        Minimum Size Limit
        Although the West Florida hogfish stock is not overfished or undergoing overfishing, the stock could be subject to seasonal closures should landings exceed the stock ACL and AMs are triggered. In 2012 and 2013, the stock ACL was exceeded, thus causing landings to be closely monitored in 2013 and 2014. This resulted in an in-season closure in 2013 but not in 2014. To reduce the likelihood of AMs being triggered, the Gulf Council determined that increasing the minimum size limit in Federal waters from 12 inches (30.5 cm), fork length (FL), to 14 inches (35.6 cm), FL, could reduce the directed harvest rate and, consequently, reduce the probability of exceeding the stock ACL and triggering AMs. This action has an additional benefit of allowing the hogfish to grow larger and have an additional spawning opportunity before being susceptible to harvest.
        Powerhead Exemption
        Currently, as described at 50 CFR 622.35(a), a regulatory exemption allows for the harvest of hogfish using powerheads in the reef fish stressed area. Amendment 43 would remove this exemption. The powerhead exemption provision is a regulatory holdover from when hogfish were listed as a species in the fishery but not in the reef fish FMU. Harvesting species in the FMU with powerheads in the stressed area was prohibited. By removing the powerhead exemption for hogfish, hogfish would be subject to the same regulations for Gulf reef fish in the stressed area as other species in the reef fish FMU. The coordinates for the reef fish stressed area are provided in 50 CFR part 622, Table 2 in Appendix B.
        Proposed Rule for Amendment 43

        A proposed rule that would implement Amendment 43 has been drafted. In accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS is evaluating Amendment 43 to determine whether it is consistent with the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law. If the determination is affirmative, NMFS will publish the proposed rule in the Federal Register for public review and comment.
        Consideration of Public Comments
        The Gulf Council has submitted Amendment 43 for Secretarial review, approval, and implementation. Comments on Amendment 43 must be received by January 3, 2017. Comments received during the respective comment periods, whether specifically directed to Amendment 43 or the proposed rule, will be considered by NMFS in its decision to approve, partially approve, or disapprove Amendment 43. Comments received after the comment periods will not be considered by NMFS in this decision. All comments received by NMFS on Amendment 43 or the proposed rule during their respective comment periods will be addressed in the final rule.

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

          Dated: October 31, 2016.
          Emily H. Menashes,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2016-26616 Filed 11-3-16; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        [FWS-R3-ES-2009-0017; 92210-1117-0000-FY09-B4]
        RIN 1018-AW47
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Critical Habitat for the Hine's Emerald Dragonfly

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Revised proposed rule; reopening of public comment period, proposal to designate additional critical habitat unit.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the reopening of the public comment period on our July 26, 2006, proposed rule on the designation of critical habitat for the Hine's emerald dragonfly (Somatochlora hineana) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). At this time the Service is reconsidering designating critical habitat on the Hiawatha National Forest in Michigan and the Mark Twain National Forest in Missouri as identified in the July 26, 2006, proposal. During the process of reconsidering the exclusion of these Federal lands, critical habitat designated by the September 5, 2007, final rule remains in place, while the Federal lands as described in the July 2006 proposed rule are considered as proposed critical habitat. Through this notice, the Service is also taking the opportunity pursuant to section 4(a)(3)(B) of the Act to propose a new unit on the Mark Twain National Forest that was not known to be occupied by the Hine's emerald dragonfly at the time of the September 5, 2007, final rule but has since been discovered. The reopened comment period will provide all interested parties with an additional opportunity to submit written comments on the proposed rule, specifically regarding the new proposed unit and the exclusion of U.S. Forest Service lands from the 2007 final designation. Comments previously submitted on the proposed critical habitat designation need not be resubmitted; they have already been incorporated into the public record and will be fully considered in the final decision.

          DATES:
          We will consider comments received on or before June 22, 2009.

          ADDRESSES:

          You may submit comments by one of the following methods:

          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, Attn: RIN 1018-AW47, Division of Policy and Directives Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222, Arlington, VA 22203.

          We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see the Public Comments section below for more information).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          John Rogner, Field Supervisor, Chicago Illinois Ecological Services Field Office, 1250 S. Grove, Suite 103, Barrington, IL 60010, (telephone (847) 381-2253 extension 11; facsimile (847) 381-2285). If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Public Comments

        We intend that any final action resulting from the proposed rule will be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request comments or suggestions on the proposed designation of critical habitat for the Hine's emerald dragonfly (Somatochlora hineana).

        We particularly seek comments concerning:
        (1) The reasons why we should or should not revise currently designated critical habitat for the Hine's emerald dragonfly by including 13,295 acres (ac) (5,380 hectares (ha)) on the Hiawatha National Forest in Michigan and the Mark Twain National Forest in Missouri in the final designation;
        (2) Specific information on the amount and distribution of Hine's emerald dragonfly habitat on the Hiawatha National Forest in Michigan or the Mark Twain National Forest in Missouri;
        (3) Any foreseeable economic, national security, or other potential impacts resulting from the proposed critical habitat revision, and in particular, any impacts on small entities; and
        (4) Information on the degree to which species-specific management plans have been implemented on U.S. Forest Service lands, and the effectiveness of any management actions implemented in reducing threats facing the Hine's emerald dragonfly and its habitat or in improving its population status.

        You may submit your comments and materials concerning the proposed revised designation of critical habitat for the Hine's emerald dragonfly by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will not accept comments sent by e-mail or fax or to an address not listed in the ADDRESSES section.
        If you submit a comment via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire comment—including any personal identifying information—will be posted on the Web site. If you provide personal identifying information in addition to the required items specified in the previous paragraph, such as your street address, phone number, or e-mail address, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

        Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing the revised proposed designation of critical habitat for the Hine's emerald dragonfly, will be available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by appointment, during normal business hours, at the Service's Chicago Illinois Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
        Background

        On September 5, 2007, the Service published a final rule in the Federal Register (72 FR 51102) designating 13,221 ac (5,350 ha) as critical habitat for the Hine's emerald dragonfly in Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, and Wisconsin. In that 2007 final rule, the Service excluded U.S. Forest Service land in Michigan and Missouri from the designation, under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. The 14 units that make up the U.S. Forest Service lands were fully described in the July 26, 2006, proposed rule to designate critical habitat for the Hine's emerald dragonfly (71 FR 42442). The U.S. Forest Service lands make up all or portions of Michigan units 1 and 2 and Missouri units 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 21, and 23 through 26. In the 2006 proposed rule, we explained that we were considering those areas for exclusion from the final designation, and subsequently excluded them from the 2007 final rule. We are now reconsidering those exclusions.

        On March 10, 2008, six parties (Northwoods Wilderness Recovery, The Michigan Nature Association, Door County Environmental Council, The Habitat Education Center, Natural Resources Defense Council, and The Center for Biological Diversity) filed a complaint against the Department of the Interior and the Service (Northwoods Wilderness Recovery et al. v. Dirk Kempthorne 1:08-CV-01407) challenging the exclusion of U.S. Forest Service lands from the 2007 final designation of critical habitat for the dragonfly. On February 12, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois approved a settlement agreement in which the Service agreed to a remand without vacatur of the critical habitat designation in order to reconsider the Federal exclusions from the designation of critical habitat for the Hine's emerald dragonfly. Per that settlement, we agreed to publish this notice reopening the comment period on the July 26, 2006, proposed critical habitat and that, upon publication of this notice, the July 26, 2006, proposed critical habitat designation of the U.S. Forest Service lands in Michigan and Missouri would be reinstated as proposed. Furthermore, until the effective date of the revised final critical habitat determination, the existing designation of critical habitat for the Hine's emerald dragonfly will remain in place and effective. The Service will submit a revised final critical habitat designation for the Hine's emerald dragonfly to the Federal Register by April 15, 2010.
        We are reopening the comment period to allow all interested parties to submit comments and materials on the potential inclusion of land on the Hiawatha National Forest in Michigan and the Mark Twain National Forest in Missouri in the final designation of critical habitat for the Hine's emerald dragonfly. Through this notice, we are also taking the opportunity to revise our 2006 proposed rule pursuant to section 4(a)(3)(B) of the Act by proposing an additional unit, Missouri Unit 27, on the Mark Twain National Forest in Missouri that was not known to be occupied by the Hine's emerald dragonfly at the time of the 2007 final rule, but has since been discovered through survey efforts. Previously submitted comments for this proposed rule need not be resubmitted. Those comments have been incorporated into the public record and will be fully considered in our final determination.
        Critical Habitat Units on U.S. Forest Service Lands as Described in the July 26, 2006, Proposal (71 FR 42442)

        The units described below are areas that were not documented to be occupied at the time of listing but are currently occupied and are considered essential to the conservation of the species due to the limited numbers and small sizes of extant Hine's emerald dragonfly populations. Recovery criteria established in the recovery plan for the species (Service 2001, pp. 31-32) call for a minimum of three populations, each containing at least three subpopulations, in each of two recovery units. Within each subpopulation there should be at least two breeding areas, each fed by separate seeps and springs. Management and protection of all known occupied areas are necessary to meet these goals.
        Michigan Unit 1—Mackinac County, Michigan

        Michigan Unit 1 contains 9,452 ac (3,825 ha) in Mackinac County in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. This area was not known to be occupied at the time of listing. All primary constituent elements (PCEs) for the Hine's emerald dragonfly are present in this unit. The unit contains at least four breeding areas for Hine's emerald dragonfly, with female oviposition or male territorial patrols observed at all breeding sites. Adults have also been observed foraging at multiple locations within this unit. The unit contains a mixture of fen, forested wetland, forested dune and swale, and upland communities that are important for Hine's emerald dragonfly breeding and foraging. The habitat is mainly spring-fed rich cedar swamp or northern fen. The breeding areas are open with little woody vegetation or are sparsely vegetated with northern white cedar (Thuja occidentalis). Small shallow pools and seeps are common. Crayfish burrows are found in breeding areas. Corridors between the breeding areas make it likely that adult dragonflies could travel or forage between the breeding sites. The majority of this unit is owned by the Hiawatha National Forest. Threats, including nonnative species invasion, woody encroachment, off-road vehicle use, logging, and utility and road right-of-way maintenance, have the potential to impact the habitat. Small portions of the unit are owned by the State of Michigan and private individuals. This unit is essential to the conservation of the species because it provides for the redundancy and resilience of populations in this portion of the species' range, where habitat is under threat from multiple factors. The exclusion of this entire unit from the 2007 final designation is being reconsidered.
        Michigan Unit 2—Mackinac County, Michigan
        Michigan Unit 2 consists of 3,511 ac (1,421 ha) in Mackinac County in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. This area was not known to be occupied at the time of listing. All PCEs for the Hine's emerald dragonfly are present in this unit. The unit contains at least four breeding areas for Hine's emerald dragonfly, with female oviposition or male territorial patrols observed at all breeding sites. The unit contains a mixture of fen, forested wetland, forested dune and swale, and upland communities that are important for Hine's emerald dragonfly breeding and foraging. The breeding habitat varies in the unit. Most breeding areas are northern fen communities with sparse, woody vegetation (northern white cedar) that are probably spring-fed with seeps and marl pools present. One site is a spring-fed marl fen with sedge-dominated seeps and marl pools. Crayfish burrows are found in breeding areas. Corridors between the breeding areas, including a large forested dune and swale complex, make it likely that adult dragonflies could travel or forage between the breeding sites. The majority of this unit is owned by the Hiawatha National Forest and is designated as a Wilderness Area. Threats, including nonnative species invasion, woody encroachment, and off-road vehicle use, have the potential to impact the habitat. About one percent of the unit is owned by private individuals. This unit is essential to the conservation of the species because it provides for the redundancy and resilience of populations in this portion of the species' range, where habitat is under threat from multiple factors. The exclusion of this entire unit from the 2007 final designation is being reconsidered.
        Missouri Unit 1—Crawford County, Missouri
        Missouri Unit 1 consists of 90 ac (36 ha) in Crawford County, Missouri, and is under U.S. Forest Service ownership. This fen is in close proximity to the village of Billard and is associated with James Creek, west of Billard. This area was not known to be occupied at the time of listing. All PCEs for Hine's emerald dragonfly are present in this unit. The fen provides surface flow, and includes larval habitat and adjacent cover for resting and predator avoidance. The fen and an adjacent open pasture provide foraging habitat that is surrounded by contiguous, closed-canopy forest. To date, only larvae have been documented from this locality. Threats identified for this unit include feral hogs and habitat fragmentation. This unit is essential to the conservation of the species because it provides for the redundancy and resilience of populations in this portion of the species' range, where habitat is under threat from multiple factors. The exclusion of this entire unit from the 2007 final designation is being reconsidered.
        Missouri Unit 2—Dent County, Missouri
        Missouri Unit 2 is comprised of 34 ac (14 ha) in Dent County, Missouri, and is under U.S. Forest Service and private ownership. The U.S. Forest Service portion of this unit comprises 15 ac (6 ha), and is the only portion of the unit we are reconsidering for inclusion. It is located north of the village of Howes Mill and in proximity to County Road (CR) 438. This area was not known to be occupied at the time of listing. All PCEs for Hine's emerald dragonfly are present in this unit—the U.S. Forest Service portion of the unit provides foraging areas for the species. The fen provides surface flow, and includes larval habitat and adjacent cover for resting and predator avoidance. The fen and an adjacent open old field provide foraging habitat and are surrounded by contiguous, closed-canopy forest. Adults have been documented from the U.S. Forest Service portion of this locality. Threats identified for this unit include all-terrain vehicles, feral hogs, and habitat fragmentation. This unit is essential to the conservation of the species because it provides for the redundancy and resilience of populations in this portion of the species' range, where habitat is under threat from multiple factors. Only the exclusion of the Forest Service portion of this unit from the 2007 final designation is being reconsidered.
        Missouri Unit 4—Dent County, Missouri

        Missouri Unit 4 is owned and managed by the U.S. Forest Service, and consists of 14 ac (6 ha) in Dent County, Missouri. This fen is associated with a tributary of Watery Fork Creek in Fortune Hollow and is located east of the juncture of Highway 72 and Route MM. This area was not known to be occupied at the time of listing. The fen provides surface flow, and includes larval habitat and adjacent cover for resting and predator avoidance. All PCEs for Hine's emerald dragonfly are provided in this unit. The fen and adjacent old fields provide habitat for foraging and are surrounded by contiguous, closed-canopy forest. To date, only larvae have been documented from this locality. Threats identified for this unit include feral hogs and habitat fragmentation. This unit is essential to the conservation of the species because it provides for the redundancy and resilience of populations in this portion of the species' range, where habitat is under threat from multiple factors. The exclusion of this entire unit from the 2007 final designation is being reconsidered.

        Missouri Unit 5—Iron County, Missouri
        Missouri Unit 5 is comprised of 50 ac (20 ha) in Iron County, Missouri, and is under U.S. Forest Service ownership. This fen is adjacent to Neals Creek and Neals Creek Road, southeast of Bixby. This area was not known to be occupied at the time of listing. All PCEs for Hine's emerald dragonfly are provided in this unit. The fen consists of surface flow and is fed, in part, by a wooded slope north of Neals Creek Road. This small but high-quality fen provides larval habitat and adjacent cover for resting and predator avoidance. The fen, adjacent fields, and open road provide habitat for foraging and are surrounded by contiguous, closed-canopy forest. Both adults and larvae have been documented from this unit. Threats identified for this unit include all-terrain vehicles, feral hogs, road construction and maintenance, beaver dams, and habitat fragmentation. This unit is essential to the conservation of the species because it provides for the redundancy and resilience of populations in this portion of the species' range, where habitat is under threat from multiple factors. The exclusion of this entire unit from the 2007 final designation is being reconsidered.
        Missouri Unit 7—Phelps County, Missouri
        Missouri Unit 7 consists of 33 ac (13 ha) in Phelps County, Missouri, and is owned and managed by the U.S. Forest Service. This area was not known to be occupied at the time of listing. All PCEs for Hine's emerald dragonfly are provided in this unit. This fen is associated with Kaintuck Hollow and a tributary of Mill Creek, and is located south-southwest of the town of Newburg. This high-quality fen provides larval habitat and adjacent cover for resting and predator avoidance. The fen, adjacent fields, and open road provide habitat for foraging and are surrounded by contiguous, closed-canopy forest. Despite repeated sampling for adults and larvae, only one exuviae (shed larval exterior) has been documented from this unit. Threats identified for this unit include all-terrain vehicles, feral hogs, and habitat fragmentation. This unit is essential to the conservation of the species because it provides for the redundancy and resilience of populations in this portion of the species' range, where habitat is under threat from multiple factors. The exclusion of this entire unit from the 2007 final designation is being reconsidered.
        Missouri Unit 8—Reynolds County, Missouri
        Missouri Unit 8 is part of the Bee Fork complex. Bee Fork West, the U.S. Forest Service portion of the complex, consists of 4 ac (2 ha) in Reynolds County, Missouri. This locality is part of a series of three fens adjacent to Bee Fork Creek, extending from east-southeast of Bunker east to near the bridge on Route TT over Bee Fork Creek. This area was not known to be occupied at the time of listing. All PCEs for Hine's emerald dragonfly are provided within the unit. The fen provides surface flow and is fed, in part, by a small spring that originates from a wooded ravine just north of the county road bordering the northernmost fen in the complex. The unit, in conjunction with the rest of the complex, is one of the highest quality representative examples of an Ozark fen in the State. The fen provides larval habitat and adjacent cover for resting and predator avoidance. The fen, adjacent fields, and open road provide habitat for foraging and are surrounded by contiguous, closed-canopy forest. Both adults and larvae have been documented from this unit. The entire complex is an extremely important focal area for conservation actions that benefit Hine's emerald dragonfly. It is likely that the species uses Bee Fork Creek as a connective corridor between adjacent components of the complex. Threats identified for this unit include feral hogs, ecological succession, utility maintenance, application of herbicides, and habitat fragmentation. This unit is essential to the conservation of the species because it provides for the redundancy and resilience of populations in this portion of the species' range, where habitat is under threat from multiple factors. The exclusion of this entire unit (unit 8) from the 2007 final designation is being reconsidered—however the exclusion of the rest of the Bee Fork complex (units 9 and 10 from the 2006 proposal) is not being reconsidered.
        Missouri Unit 11—Reynolds County, Missouri
        Missouri Unit 11 is under private and U.S. Forest Service ownership and consists of 113 ac (46 ha) in Reynolds County, Missouri. The U.S. Forest Service portion of this unit comprises 22 ac (9 ha), and is the only portion of the unit we are reconsidering for inclusion. The unit is a series of small fen openings adjacent to a tributary of Bee Fork Creek, and is located east of the intersection of Route TT and Highway 72, extending north to the Bee Fork Church on County Road 854. This area was not known to be occupied at the time of listing. This unit in its entirety is one of the highest quality representative examples of an Ozark fen in the State and incorporates much of the valley within Grasshopper Hollow. All PCEs for Hine's emerald dragonfly are provided in this unit—the U.S. Forest Service portion of the unit provides foraging areas for the species. The fen provides surface flow and includes larval habitat and adjacent cover for resting and predator avoidance. The fen, adjacent fields, and open path provide habitat for foraging and are surrounded by contiguous, closed-canopy forest. Adults have been documented from the U.S. Forest Service portion of this unit. Threats identified for this unit include feral hogs, beaver dams, and habitat fragmentation. This unit is essential to the conservation of the species because it provides for the redundancy and resilience of populations in this portion of the species' range, where habitat is under threat from multiple factors. Only the exclusion of the Forest Service portion of this unit from the 2007 final designation is being reconsidered.
        Missouri Unit 21—Ripley County, Missouri
        Missouri Unit 21 is a very small fen and consists of 6 ac (2 ha) in Ripley County, Missouri. It is under U.S. Forest Service ownership and is located west of Doniphan. This area was not known to be occupied at the time of listing. All PCEs for Hine's emerald dragonfly are provided in this unit. The fen provides surface flow and includes larval habitat and adjacent cover for resting and predator avoidance. The fen and adjacent open, maintained county road provide habitat for foraging and are surrounded by contiguous, closed-canopy forest. To date, only larvae have been documented from this locality. Threats identified for this unit include feral hogs, all-terrain vehicles, equestrian use, and habitat fragmentation. This unit is essential to the conservation of the species because it provides for the redundancy and resilience of populations in this portion of the species' range, where habitat is under threat from multiple factors. The exclusion of this entire unit from the 2007 final designation is being reconsidered.
        Missouri Units 23 and 24—Washington County, Missouri

        Missouri Units 23 and 24 comprise the Towns Branch and Welker Fen complex and consist of 75 ac (31 ha) near the town of Palmer in Washington County, Missouri. The complex consists of two fens that are under U.S. Forest Service ownership. This area was not known to be occupied at the time of listing. All PCEs for Hine's emerald dragonfly are provided in this unit. These fens provide surface flow and include larval habitat and adjacent cover for resting and predator avoidance. The fens and adjacent open, maintained county roads provide habitat for foraging and are surrounded by contiguous, closed-canopy forest. To date, only larvae have been documented from this complex. Threats identified for this unit include feral hogs, all-terrain vehicles, road construction and maintenance, and habitat fragmentation. This unit is essential to the conservation of the species because it provides for the redundancy and resilience of populations in this portion of the species' range, where habitat is under threat from multiple factors. The exclusion of this entire unit from the 2007 final designation is being reconsidered.
        Missouri Unit 25—Washington County, Missouri
        Missouri Unit 25 consists of 33 ac (13 ha) and is located northwest of the town of Palmer in Washington County, Missouri. The fen is associated with Snapps Branch, a tributary of Hazel Creek, and is owned and managed by the U.S. Forest Service. This area was not known to be occupied at the time of listing. All PCEs for Hine's emerald dragonfly are provided in this unit. The fen provides surface flow, and includes larval habitat and adjacent cover for resting and predator avoidance. The fen and adjacent old logging road with open canopy provide habitat for foraging and are surrounded by contiguous, closed-canopy forest. To date, only larvae have been documented from this locality. Threats identified for this unit include feral hogs, all-terrain vehicles, and habitat fragmentation. This unit is essential to the conservation of the species because it provides for the redundancy and resilience of populations in this portion of the species' range, where habitat is under threat from multiple factors. The exclusion of this entire unit from the 2007 final designation is being reconsidered.
        Missouri Unit 26—Wayne County, Missouri
        Missouri Unit 26 is owned and managed by the U.S. Forest Service and consists of 5 ac (2 ha). This extremely small fen is located near Williamsville and is associated with Brushy Creek in Wayne County, Missouri. This area was not known to be occupied at the time of listing. All PCEs for Hine's emerald dragonfly are provided in this unit. The fen provides surface flow and includes larval habitat and adjacent cover for resting and predator avoidance. The fen and adjacent logging road with open canopy provide habitat for foraging and are surrounded by contiguous, closed-canopy forest. To date, only larvae have been documented from this unit. Threats identified for this unit include feral hogs, all-terrain vehicles, and habitat fragmentation. This unit is essential to the conservation of the species because it provides for the redundancy and resilience of populations in this portion of the species' range, where habitat is under threat from multiple factors. The exclusion of this entire unit from the 2007 final designation is being reconsidered.
        Additional Proposed Critical Habitat Unit
        Through this notice the Service is also taking the opportunity pursuant to section 4(a)(3)(B) of the Act to propose a new unit on the Mark Twain National Forest that was not known to be occupied by the Hine's emerald dragonfly at the time of the September 5, 2007, final rule, but has since been discovered to be occupied. Based on our evaluation of research results from recent fieldwork, we have determined that a newly discovered site in Washington County, Missouri, is essential to the conservation of Hine's emerald dragonfly. The collection of a final instar male larva from this site provides evidence of breeding at this locality. The additional proposed critical habitat unit, Missouri Unit 27, is described below.
        Missouri Unit 27—Crawford County, Missouri

        Missouri Unit 27 is owned and managed by the U.S. Forest Service and is approximately 3.25 miles (5.23 kilometers) west and southwest of Brazil, Missouri, or about 0.25 mile (0.40 kilometer) southeast of Center Post Church in Crawford County, Missouri. The unit consists of approximately 3 ac (1.21 ha). This unit was not known to be occupied at the time of listing. All PCEs for the Hine's emerald dragonfly identified in the July 26, 2006, proposed rule (71 FR 42442) are present in this unit. Adult Hine's emerald dragonflies have been observed at the site and successful breeding was confirmed (Vogt 2008, p. 10). Surface water consists primarily of seepage pools and small rivulets. Parts of the fen include an open field with scattered shrubs and eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana) that is likely used as a foraging area by adults. This unit is essential to the conservation of the species because it provides for the redundancy and resilience of populations in this portion of the species' range, where habitat is under threat from multiple factors. Known threats to the PCEs that may require special management or protections include invasion of undesirable plant species, feral hogs, all-terrain vehicles, and equestrian use.
        Required Determinations

        In this notice, we are affirming the information contained in our July 26, 2006, proposed rule (71 FR 42442), concerning Executive Order (E.O.) 13132 (Federalism), and E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform); the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), and the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951). We also affirm the determinations made in our March 20, 2007, revised proposed rule and announcement of the availability of the draft economic analysis (72 FR 13061), regarding E.O. 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); E.O. 13211 (Energy, Supply, Distribution, and Use); E.O. 12630 (Takings); and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.). Please refer to the proposed rule and draft economic analysis of the proposed critical habitat designation for detailed discussions of required determinations and potential economic impacts. The economic analysis prepared for the original rulemaking included an analysis for Forest Service lands (the Mark Twain National Forest) in Missouri. The newly proposed additional unit also occurs on these lands. It is a relatively small unit and would be subject to the same issues previously analyzed. We will discuss the economics related to this additional unit in our final decision document on this action. If we adopt a final rule for this action, we will confirm our required determinations in that final rule to designate critical habitat for the Hine's emerald dragonfly.
        References

          Vogt, T. 2008. Larval Sampling, Monitoring, and Status Survey for the Hine's Emerald Dragonfly (Somatochlora hineana) in Missouri, 2007-2008. Report to the U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 10p.

        Authors
        The primary authors of this document are Laura Ragan and Kristopher Lah of the Division of Ecological Services, Midwest Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

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

        Proposed Regulation Promulgation
        Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

          PART 17—[AMENDED]
          1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
             16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.

          2. Critical habitat for the Hine's emerald dragonfly (Somatochlora hineana) in § 17.95(i), which was first proposed to be added on July 26, 2006, at 71 FR 42442 and then amended on March 20, 2007, at 72 FR 13061, is proposed to be further amended as follows:
          a. By redesignating paragraphs (i)(24) through (i)(30) as paragraphs (i)(25) through (i)(31); and
          b. Adding a new paragraph (i)(24) to read as set forth below:

            § 17.95
            Critical habitat—fish and wildlife.

            (i) Insects.

            Hine's emerald dragonfly (Somatochlora hineana)

            (24) Missouri Unit 27, Washington County, Missouri.
            (i) Missouri Unit 27: Washington County. Located on the Courtois quadrangle in Township 36 north, Range 2 west, section 14, northeast 1/4, southwest 1/4, northwest 1/4.
            (ii) Note: Map of Missouri proposed critical habitat Unit 27 follows:
            BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

              EP22AP09.000

            Dated: April 15, 2009.
            Will Shafroth,
            Acting Assistant Secretary, Department of the Interior.

      [FR Doc. E9-9164 Filed 4-21-09; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-C