        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 73
        [MB Docket No. 14-56; RM-11718; DA 14-599]
        Radio Broadcasting Services; Centerville, Texas

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          This document requests comments on a Petition for Rule Making filed by Bryan Broadcasting License Corporation, permittee of new FM station, Channel 274A, Centerville, Texas, proposing to amend the FM Table of Allotment, § 73.202(b) of the Commission's rules by substituting Channel 274A for vacant Channel 267A at Centerville, Texas. A staff engineering analysis indicates that Channel 274A can be allotted to Centerville, Texas consistent with the minimum distance separation requirements of the Commission's rules with a site restriction located 4.3 kilometers (2.7 miles) east of Centerville. The reference coordinates are 31-15-00 NL and 95-56-00 WL.

          DATES:
          Comments must be filed on or before June 23, 2014, and reply comments on or before July 8, 2014.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by MB Docket No. 14-56 and/or RM-11718 by any of the following methods:
          • Federal Communications Commission's Web site: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • Mail: Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve the petitioner as follows: David D. Oxenford, Esq., Wilkinson Barker Knauer, LLP, Suite 700, Washington, DC 20037-1128.
          • People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov or phone: 202-418-0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.

          For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Rolanda F. Smith, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2700.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No. 14-56, adopted May 1, 2014, and released May 2, 2014. 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 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. This document may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractors, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1-800-378-3160 or via email www.BCPIWEB.com.

        This document does not contain proposed information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed information collection burden “for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
        Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 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.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Nazifa Sawez,
          Assistant Chief, Audio Division Media Bureau.

        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, 336 and 339.

          § 73.202
          [Amended].

        2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Texas, is amended by removing Channel 267A at Centerville.

      [FR Doc. 2014-11125 Filed 5-14-14; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD
        49 CFR Part 830
        Notification and Reporting of Aircraft Accidents or Incidents and Overdue Aircraft, and Preservation of Aircraft Wreckage, Mail, Cargo, and Records

          AGENCY:
          National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB).

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          The NTSB is proposing to amend its regulations concerning notification and reporting requirements with regard to aircraft accidents or incidents, found at paragraph (a)(10) of section 830.5, entitled, “Immediate notification.” Currently, 49 CFR 830.5(a)(10) requires reports of Airborne Collision and Avoidance System (ACAS) advisories issued under certain specific circumstances. The NTSB now proposes to narrow the ACAS reporting requirement in section 830.5(a)(10).

          DATES:
          Submit comments on or before February 6, 2012.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may send comments using any of the following methods:
          1. Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically.
          2. Mail: Mail comments concerning this proposed rule to Scott Dunham, AS-30, National Transportation Safety Board, 490 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20594-2000.
          3. Fax: (202) 314-6308, Attention: Scott Dunham.
          4. Hand Delivery: 6th Floor, 490 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Scott Dunham, National Resource Specialist—ATC, Office of Aviation Safety, (202) 314-6387.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Regulatory History

        On January 7, 2010, the NTSB published a final rule entitled, “Notification and Reporting of Aircraft Accidents or Incidents and Overdue Aircraft, and Preservation of Aircraft Wreckage, Mail, Cargo, and Records,” in the Federal Register (75 FR 922). The final rule implemented several changes to section 830.5, requiring immediate notification of a variety of specific incidents, one of which was certain ACAS advisories. In accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, prior to issuing the final rule, the NTSB published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register to invite comments concerning the proposed changes. (73 FR 58520; October 7, 2008). Several commenters stated they believed the language of section 830.5(a)(10), concerning ACAS advisories, would require reports of all ACAS advisories. In issuing the final rule, the NTSB attempted to clarify section 830.5(a)(10) by assuring commenters—in the preamble published in the Federal Register—that the NTSB only sought ACAS advisories in the following circumstances: “(1) When an aircraft is being operated on an instrument flight rules flight plan and compliance with the advisory is necessary to avert a substantial risk of collision between two or more aircraft; or (2) to an aircraft operating in class A airspace.” 75 FR at 923.
        Although the NTSB believed the language of the final rule adequately conveyed the limited circumstances in which the NTSB would require notification of ACAS advisories, the NTSB has since determined it would achieve the same safety objective by receiving reports under a more specific set of circumstances. Therefore, the NTSB now proposes to amend the language of the rule to eliminate notifications of events where the only resolution advisory received by the flight crew is “monitor vertical speed.” Review of numerous TCAS events by Safety Board investigators has shown “monitor vertical speed” advisories typically occur in situations where there is no collision risk, and in encounters where separation between aircraft deteriorates TCAS will generate additional resolution advisories containing instructions to climb or descend. As notification of those advisories will continue to be required under the modified rule, the effect of this change will be to eliminate the need for operators to notify the NTSB of events which present no actual or potential hazard. The intent of the notification requirement is to allow the NTSB to review potentially hazardous encounters. We conclude this change will not significantly reduce our ability to do so.
        Statutory and Regulatory Evaluation
        This proposed rule would amend the requirements for providing immediate notification to the NTSB of certain ACAS advisories, reducing the number of required notifications by aircraft operators.
        This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of the potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. As such, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not reviewed this proposed rule under Executive Order 12866. In addition, on July 11, 2011, the President issued Executive Order 13579, “Regulation and Independent Regulatory Agencies,” 76 FR 41587, July 14, 2011). Section 2(a) of the Executive Order states:

          independent regulatory agencies “should consider how best to promote retrospective analysis of rules that may be outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance with what has been learned.”

        76 FR at 41587.
        Consistent with Executive Order 13579, the NTSB's proposed amendments to section 830(a)(10) reflect its judgment that certain types of ACAS notifications are unnecessary and, therefore, the notification and reporting requirements should be streamlined. This proposed rule does not require an analysis under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 United States Code (U.S.C.) 1501-1571, or the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347.
        In addition, the NTSB has considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612). The NTSB certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the NTSB will submit this certification to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy at the Small Business Administration.
        This proposed rule would not require collection of new information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Operators have the option of notifying the NTSB of an ACAS advisory that fulfills the requirements of this rule via telephone, email, or web-based form. The NTSB is working with the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, to obtain an OMB control number under the Paperwork Reduction Act to display on the web-based form.
        The NTSB does not anticipate that this proposed rule will have a substantial, direct effect on state or local governments or will preempt state law; as such, this proposed rule does not have implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This proposed rule also complies with all applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. In addition, the NTSB has evaluated this proposed rule under: Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights; Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks; Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments; Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use; and the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act, 15 U.S.C. 272 note. The NTSB has concluded that this proposed rule does not contravene any of the requirements set forth in these Executive Orders or statutes, nor does this proposal prompt further consideration with regard to such requirements. The NTSB invites comments relating to any of the foregoing determinations and notes that the most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
        Discussion of Proposed Revision
        As noted above, the NTSB proposes to amend section 830.5(a)(10) to require the reporting of:
        Airborne Collision and Avoidance System (ACAS) advisories issued either:
        i. When an aircraft is being operated on an instrument flight rules flight plan and compliance with the advisory is necessary to avert a substantial risk of collision between two or more aircraft; or
        ii. To an aircraft operating in class A airspace, unless the advisory received only instructs the pilot to “monitor vertical speed.”
        The NTSB believes such an update will sufficiently clarify the types of reports of ACAS advisories the NTSB seeks, and adequately narrow the reporting requirement.
        In addition, as the NTSB pointed out in the October 2008 NPRM proposing this requirement, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) had noted the NTSB's regulations did not previously require the notification of any air proximity events. The amendment the NTSB now proposes to section 830.5(a)(10) continues to require reports of ACAS advisories, but narrows the requirement to exclude advisories that merely instruct pilots to monitor their vertical speed.

        The NTSB believes the proposed change to section 830.5(a)(10) will continue to assist in achieving the NTSB's purpose of improving aviation safety, while ensuring the language of the rule only requires notifications regarding specific ACAS advisories that the NTSB may seek to investigate.

          List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 830
          Aircraft accidents, Aircraft incidents, Aviation safety, Overdue aircraft notification and reporting, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

        For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the NTSB proposes to amend 49 CFR part 830 as follows:

          PART 830—[AMENDED]
          1. The authority citation for 49 CFR part 830 should continue to read as follows:

            Authority:
             Independent Safety Board Act of 1974, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1101—1155); Federal Aviation Act of 1958, Pub. L. 85-726, 72 Stat. 731 (codified as amended at 49 U.S.C. 40101).

          2. Section 830.5 is amended as follows:

            § 830.5
            Immediate notification.
            The operator of any civil aircraft, or any public aircraft not operated by the Armed Forces or an intelligence agency of the United States, or any foreign aircraft shall immediately, and by the most expeditious means available, notify the nearest National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) office,1
               when:

                1 NTSB regional offices are located in the following cities: Anchorage, Alaska; Atlanta, Georgia; West Chicago, Illinois; Denver, Colorado; Arlington, Texas; Gardena (Los Angeles), California; Miami, Florida; Parsippany, New Jersey (metropolitan New York City); Seattle, Washington; and Ashburn, Virginia. In addition, NTSB headquarters is located at 490 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20594. Contact information for these offices is available at http://www.ntsb.gov.

            (a) An aircraft accident or any of the following listed serious incidents occur:

            (10) Airborne Collision and Avoidance System (ACAS) resolution advisories issued either:
            (i) When an aircraft is being operated on an instrument flight rules flight plan and compliance with the advisory is necessary to avert a substantial risk of collision between two or more aircraft; or
            (ii) To an aircraft operating in class A airspace, unless the only advisory received is to “monitor vertical speed”;

            Dated: December 1, 2011.
            Deborah A.P. Hersman,
            Chairman.

      [FR Doc. 2011-31423 Filed 12-7-11; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 7533-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 660
        [I.D. 082806B]
        RIN 0648-AU57
        Fisheries Off West Coast States; Notice of Availability for Amendment 16-4 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan

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

          ACTION:
          Availability of an amendment to a fishery management plan; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS announces that the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) has submitted Amendment 16-4 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for Secretarial review. Amendment 16-4 would modify the FMP to implement revised rebuilding plans for seven overfished species: bocaccio, canary rockfish, cowcod, darkblotched rockfish, Pacific ocean perch, widow rockfish, and yelloweye rockfish. Amendment 16-4 is intended to respond to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals orders to establish rebuilding plans that rebuild overfished stocks as soon as possible, taking into account the status and biology of the stocks, the needs of fishing communities, and the interaction of the overfished stocks within the marine environment.

          DATES:
          Comments on Amendment 16-4 must be received on or before October 31, 2006.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by [insert I.D number] by any of the following methods:
          • E-mail: Amendment16-4.nwr@noaa.gov. Include the I.D. number in the subject line of the message.
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • Fax: 206-526-6736, Attn: Yvonne deReynier.
          • Mail: D. Robert Lohn, Administrator, Northwest Region,
          NMFS, Attn: Yvonne deReynier, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115-0070.

          Amendment 16-4 and its associated draft environmental impact statement (DEIS), regulatory impact review, and initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) are available for public review during business hours at the office of the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council), at 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Portland, OR 97220, phone: 503-820-2280. Copies of additional reports referred to in this document may also be obtained from the Council. These documents are also available online at: http://www.pcouncil.org.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Yvonne deReynier (Northwest Region, NMFS), phone: 206-526-6129; fax: 206-526-6736; and e-mail: yvonne.dereynier@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Electronic Access
        This Federal Register document is also accessible via the internet at the Web site of the Office of the Federal Register: http://www.access.gpo.gov/su-docs/aces/aces140.html.
        The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires that each regional fishery management council submit any FMP or plan amendment it prepares to NMFS for review and approval, disapproval, or partial approval. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving an FMP or amendment, immediately publish a notice that the FMP or amendment is available for public review and comment. NMFS will consider public comments received during the comment period described above in determining whether to approve Amendment 16-4 to the FMP.

        Amendment 16-4 would modify the FMP to implement revised rebuilding plans for the FMP's seven overfished species: bocaccio, canary rockfish, cowcod, darkblotched rockfish, Pacific ocean perch, widow rockfish, and yelloweye rockfish. The Council developed Amendment 16-4 in concert with the 2007-2008 biennial groundfish harvest specifications and management measures, with the intent that management measures for all groundfish species would constrain the fisheries to within optimum yield levels. Amendment 16-4 is intended to respond to court orders in Natural Resources Defense Council v. NMFS, 421 F.3d 872 (9th Cir. 2005) to rebuild overfished species as quickly as possible, taking into account the status and biology of the stocks, the needs of fishing communities, and the interaction of overfished stocks with the marine environment. Regulations to implement Amendment 16-4, as separate from those to implement the 2007-2008 groundfish harvest specifications and management measures, would revise 50 CFR 660.365 to provide new target rebuilding years and harvest control rules for the seven species managed under rebuilding plans.
        NMFS welcomes comments on the proposed FMP amendment through the end of the comment period. A proposed rule to implement Amendment 16-4 has been submitted for Secretarial review and approval. NMFS expects to publish and request public review and comment on proposed regulations to implement Amendment 16-4 in the near future. Public comments on the proposed rule must be received by the end of the comment period on the amendment to be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the amendment. All comments received by the end of the comment period for the amendment, whether specifically directed to the amendment or the proposed rule, will be considered in the approval/disapproval decision.

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

          Dated: August 28, 2006.
          Alan D. Risenhoover,
          Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. E6-14558 Filed 8-31-06; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No. 020508113-2113-01; I.D. 090501D]
        RIN 0648-AP12
        Fisheries  of  the  Northeastern United States; Atlantic Mackerel, Squid and Butterfish Fisheries; Framework Adjustment 2

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule, request for comments.

          SUMMARY:

          NMFS proposes measures contained in Framework Adjustment 2 (Framework 2) to  the  Atlantic  Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management  Plan (FMP).  This action  would  extend  the  limited  entry  program for the Illex squid  fishery  for  an  additional year; modify  the Loligo squid overfishing definition  and control rule; allow for the roll-over of the annual specifications for these  fisheries  (with  the exception  of  total  allowable landings of foreign fishing (TALFF)) in the event annual specifications  are  not  published  prior to the start of the fishing year; and allow Loligo squid  specifications  to  be set  for up to 3 years, subject to annual review.  NMFS has disapproved the proposed  framework  measure  to allow Illex squid vessels an exemption from the Loligo squid  trip limit during an August or  September closure of the directed Loligo squid  fishery. This action is necessary to address issues and problems that have developed relative  to  the  management of these fisheries and is intended to further the objectives of the FMP and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).

          DATES:
          Public comments must  be received no later than 5 p.m., eastern standard time, on June 10, 2002.

          ADDRESSES:

          Copies of Framework 2, including the  Environmental  Assessment (EA) and Regulatory  Impact  Review  (RIR)/Initial  Regulatory Flexibility  Analysis (IRFA),  are  available  on  request  from  Daniel  T.  Furlong,  Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council,  300  South  New Street, Dover,  DE   19904-6790.   The  EA/RIR/IRFA  is  accessible  via  the Internet at http:/www.nero.gov/ro/doc/nr.htm.
          Comments  on Framework 2 should be sent to: Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator,  Northeast  Regional  Office,  NMFS,  One  Blackburn  Drive, Gloucester,    MA     01930-2298.     Please   mark   the   envelope, “Comments-SMB Framework Adjustment 2.”   Comments  also  may be sent via facsimile (fax) to 978-281-9135.  Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or Internet.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Paul  H.  Jones,  Fishery  Policy Analyst, 978-281-9273, fax 978-281-9135, e-mail Paul.H.Jones@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        In 1997, Amendment 5 to the  FMP established a limited entry program for the Illex squid fishery in response to a concern that fishing capacity could otherwise expand to over exploit the stock.  At the time the program was established, there were  concerns  that  the  capacity  of  the limited  entry  vessels might prove, over time, to be insufficient to fully exploit the annual  quota.   In  response  to  this concern, a 5-year sunset provision was placed on the Illex squid limited entry program,  and it is currently scheduled to end July 1, 2002.   However,  in recent  years  the  limited  entry  fleet  has  demonstrated  that  it  has sufficient  capacity  to  harvest  the  long-term potential yield from this fishery.   The  Mid-Atlantic  Fishery  Management  Council  (Council)  must prepare an amendment to the FMP to evaluate  whether  or  not  the  limited entry program should be extended permanently.  In the meantime, this action would  extend  the  Illex squid moratorium through July 1, 2003, to prevent overcapitalization while  the amendment is being prepared and considered by the  Council.   This  extension  complies  with  the  criteria  in  section 303(b)(6) of the Magnuson-Stevens  Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The extension will allow the Council  additional time to consider long-term management  for  the  Illex  squid fishery,  including  the  limited  entry program.  Vessels that took small quantities of Illex squid in the past may continue to do so under the incidental catch provision of the FMP.

        This  action  would  also  authorize   the   roll-over   of  the  annual specifications for the Atlantic mackerel, squid, and butterfish  fisheries. In  recent  years,  publication  of  the  annual  specifications  for those fisheries  has  occurred after the start of the fishing year on January  1, resulting  in  inefficient   management   and   industry  uncertainty.   In particular, late publication has affected business  entities  interested in conducting Joint Venture Processing (JVP) operations for Atlantic mackerel, because  such  operations cannot be authorized until there is a final  rule that includes a  JVP  allocation.   This  action  would  allow  the  annual Atlantic  mackerel,  squid, and butterfish specifications from the previous fishing year to roll-over  into the next fishing year (excluding TALFF), in the event that annual specifications for that year have not been published. The rolled-over specifications  would  be  superceded by the publication of the current year’s annual specifications.

        While  the  primary  components  of the overfishing  definition  for Loligo squid (the maximum  fishing  mortality rate threshold and the minimum biomass threshold) remain unchanged, this proposed action would modify  the  control  rules  that  guide  the  Council  in  making  harvest recommendations based upon those definitions.  The  fishing  mortality rate (F) control rule adopted for Loligo squid in Amendment  8  to the   FMP   specified   that   the   target  fishing  mortality  rate  (Fmsy) must be reduced to zero  if  biomass falls below 50 percent of the biomass target (Bmsy).  The  target  fishing mortality rate  increases  linearly  to 75 percent of Fmsy as  biomass increases  to  Bmsy.    However,   the  29th Stock Assessment  Workshop  (SAW  29)  indicated that the control  rule  was  not appropriate for the stock, and that  the  target F of zero at 50 percent of the biomass target could be overly conservative.  SAW 29 concluded that the apparent resilience of the stock is high, suggesting  that  it  can rebuild quickly  from  low stock sizes at low to moderate F’s.  Estimates  of biomass based on  NMFS'  Northeast  Fisheries  Science  Center (NEFSC) fall 1999,  spring  2000,  and fall 2000 survey indices for Loligosquid indicate that the  stock  is currently at or near Bmsy. The  stock  is also no longer listed  as  overfished  in  NMFS'  Report  to Congress:  Status  of  the  Fisheries  of the United States (January 2001). However, projections of the 29th SAW  indicated  that  if  the Loligo quid stock were overfished, the biomass could be rebuilt from the minimum biomass  threshold  (½  Bmsy) to levels approximating Bmsy in as little as 3 years, if F were reduced to 75 percent of Fmsy. Based on the  above  information,  the Council  concluded  that the control rule adopted in Amendment 8, requiring an F of zero at 1/2Bmsy was too conservative.

        This proposed action  would  allow  specification  of  an  annual  quota associated with a target F of up to 90 percent of Fmsy to  be specified if stock biomass is greater than one-half Bmsy.  If stock  biomass  falls  below,  or  is  expected to fall below, one-half Bmsy, measures to control fishing  mortality would be implemented to insure that the stock is rebuilt to Bmsyin  a  time period consistent  with  the  requirements  of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.  NMFS  is publishing the proposed definition and  also  reviewing  it in light of the updated Loligo stock assessment conducted in January 2002.
        This  action  also  proposes  to allow maximum optimum yield  (Max  OY), allowable biological catch (ABC),  optimum  yield  (OY) and domestic annual harvest (DAH) for Loligo squid to be specified for up  to  3 years.  If the annual  review  conducted  by the Council through its Monitoring  Committee indicates that it is necessary,  such  a  multi-year specification would be revised in the annual specification process.

        This action also proposes an outline for  a timeframe to be followed for in-season adjustments to the annual specifications for Loligosquid.  The Council’s Monitoring Committee  will  meet in late spring each   year   to   review  available  NEFSC  survey  data  and  to  develop recommendations  for  the  annual  harvest  for  the  following  year.   In addition,  at  that   meeting,   the   Monitoring   Committee   will   make recommendations   regarding   inseason   adjustments   to   the  annual Loligo squid  specifications for consideration by the  Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish  Committee  and  the  Council.  Based on an evaluation of the most recent NEFSC spring and fall trawl  survey data, the OY, DAH, and ABC specifications may be adjusted to be consistent  with  the control  rule.   Upon  review  of the recommendations from the Council, the Administrator, Northeast Region,  NMFS  (Regional  Administrator)  may make inseason   adjustments  through  publication  of  notification  in  the Federal  Register,  to  be  followed  by  a 30-day comment period,  as  specified  in  the  current regulations.  Inseason  adjustment actions  may  include  increases  or decreases  in  the  OY,  DAH  and  ABC specifications and may result in opening  or  closing  the directed fishery for Loligo squid.
        Disapproved Measure
        NMFS  has disapproved the proposed measure to allow Illexsquid vessels  an  exemption from the Loligo squid trip limit during an August or  September closure of the directed Loligosquid fishery.  The proposed  measure would have allowed vessels fishing in the directed Illex squid  fishery during a closure of the Loligo fishery to land Loligo  squid  harvested seaward of the 50-fathom (91-m) curve in an amount not to exceed 10 percent of the  total  weight  of Illex squid  on board  the  vessel. Currently,  all  vessels  are limited to an incidental catch  allowance  of 2,500 lb (1,134 kg) of Loligo squid per trip during a closure of the directed Loligo fishery.

        This provision is being  disapproved  at the proposed rule stage because it has been found to be inconsistent with  national standards 2 and 7 under the Magnuson-Stevens Act.  Because this action  would limit vessels to a Loligo squid  bycatch  of  10  percent  of  the  amount  of Illex squid on board the vessel, and because  of the high-volume nature  of  the  Illex  fishery,  NMFS  believes it would be impossible  to enforce the proposed provision.  In addition, under this provision, vessels would   only   be  permitted  to  retain  an  increased   bycatch   of Loligo squid  while  directing  on Illex squid seaward  of  the  50-fathom (91-m) curve.  However, it would be difficult for enforcement  agents  to  determine if a vessel's Loligo squid bycatch  was  legally taken, or occurred landward  of  the  50-fathom (9- m) curve.   Such a provision would create significant enforcement costs and, therefore, would be inconsistent with national standard 7.

        Additionally, the Council  did  not  consider  the  best scientific data available to it when it defined the exemption measure; thus the measure has been found to be inconsistent with national standard 2.   The data examined by   NMFS  indicates  that  there  are  factors  contributing  to  the Loligo squid  bycatch  that were not considered by the Council. NMFS is also concerned that the analysis  of  the  proposed measure did not use a sufficiently long time-series of data to account  for  the  fact that the  overlap  of  the Illex and Loligo squid stocks  is  quite variable  from  year  to  year.   Preliminary  review  of available  data   also   shows   that   the   Council   analysis  may  have under-estimated  the  amount of Loligo squid  that  could  be landed as incidental catch by vessels other than those fishing under the Illex squid exemption.  As a result, the analysis of the measure appears not to properly assess the impact on the Loligo squid quota management program.

        Classification
        This  proposed rule has  been  determined  to  be  not  significant  for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

        The Council  prepared  an  IRFA that describes the economic impacts 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 in the SUPPLEMENTARY  INFORMATION section of the preamble.  This proposed rule does not duplicate,  overlap, or conflict with  other  Federal  rules.   There are no new reporting or  recordkeeping requirements  contained  in  the  Preferred  Alternatives  or  any  of  the alternatives considered for this action.   A  copy of the complete IRFA can be  obtained  from  the  Northeast  Regional  Office   of   NMFS   (see ADDRESSES)      or      via      the      Internet     at http:/www.nero.nmfs.gov.  A summary of the analysis follows.

        In  addition  to  the  measures described above, the Council  considered several   alternatives.   The   non-preferred Illexpermit alternatives considered were:  (1) To extend the moratorium on entry to the Illex fishery  for  an  additional 5 years (through June 30, 2007); and (2) to allow the moratorium on  entry to the Illexfishery to expire in 2002 (no action).
        The   alternative   specification   measures  were:    (1)   If   annual specifications are not published prior to  the  start  of the fishing year, the fisheries would operate without specifications and Joint Ventures could not  be  conducted  until  specifications were published (no  action/status quo); (2) if annual specifications  are not published prior to the start of the fishing year, a set of default specifications  would  apply  until  the specifications   are  published;  (3)  if  annual  specifications  are  not published prior to  the  start  of the fishing year, the fisheries would be closed  until  the  final  specifications  are  published;  (4)  if  annual specifications for Atlantic  mackerel  are not published prior to the start of  the  fishing  year,  the previous year's  specifications  for  Atlantic mackerel (excluding TALFF)  would  apply,  until  final  specifications are published; and (5) if annual specifications for Atlantic mackerel  are  not published  prior  to  the  start  of  the  fishing  year,  a set of default specifications  (excluding TALFF) would apply until the specifications  are published.
        The alternative Loligo overfishing definitions were:  (1) An annual quota specified  consistent  with  a target F of up to 90 percent Fmsyif stock biomass is greater  than  the  minimum  biomass threshold  (½  Bmsy).  If stock biomass was expected to fall below the minimum biomass  threshold  (½ Bmsy), measures would be implemented to rebuild the stock to Bmsy in  3  to  5  years; (2) an annual quota  specified  consistent  with a target F of up to 90 percent  Fmsy  if stock biomass is greater than the  minimum  biomass  threshold  (½ Bmsy).  If stock biomass was below the minimum biomass threshold (½  Bmsy), measures would be implemented to rebuild the stock to Bmsy in 3 to 10 years, but no longer than 10 years; (3)  maintain current control  rule  and  quota  setting  procedure  for Loligo (no action/status quo).

          Illex Moratorium Extension

        The  proposed action would extend the moratorium on entry of new vessels into the  Illex  fishery  for  one year; therefore no impact is expected on vessels in the fishery in 2002 (and  the  first  half of 2003), compared to individual vessel revenues in 2001.  The Council assumed  that  the  market and prices are expected to remain stable.  Any changes in individual vessel revenues would be the result of factors outside the scope of the moratorium (e.g.,  change  in fishing practices for individual vessels, or changes  in abundance and distribution of Illex squid).

        New vessels entering  the fishery would limit per vessel share of the Illex squid  quota   and   reduce  revenues  for  the  existing moratorium  vessels  proportionally.  Computing  the  negative  impacts  of revenue losses for the existing moratorium vessels is impossible due to the redirection  of  effort   into   the Illex squid  fishery. Therefore, the Council decided to  assume  three  scenarios  that  presumed revenues  derived  from  landings  of Illex squid would be reduced  by  75,  50, and 25 percent due to an assumed increase in  vessels that have not participated in the Illex squid fishery.

        Under alternative  2,  the  IRFA  review of revenue impacts examined the landings of vessels in the existing moratorium  fishery  and  presumed that revenues  derived from landing Illex for these vessels  would be reduced  by  75  percent  due  to  an  assumed  increase in effort of 75 percent.  A total of 109 vessels were projected to be  impacted  by revenue losses that ranged from less than 5 percent for 79 vessels, to a maximum of 40-49  percent  for  2  vessels.   There  were  no  impacted  vessels home-ported  in  Maryland, New Hampshire, or Virginia; a high of 15 vessels had home ports in  New  Jersey.  Other impacted vessels were home ported in Massachusetts, Rhode Island,  New  York,  and  North Carolina.  Presumably, other vessels entering the fishery would experience gains in revenues.

        Under alternative 3, the IRFA review of revenue  impacts  presumed  that vessel  revenues  derived from landing Illex would be reduced by 50 percent due to  an assumed increase in effort of 50 percent.  A total of 109 vessels were projected  to be impacted by revenue losses that ranged from  less than 5 percent for 84  vessels,  to  a  maximum  of  30-39 percent  for  one  vessel.   There  were no impacted vessels home-ported in Maryland, New Hampshire, or Virginia;  a  high of 11 vessels had home ports in  New Jersey.  Others were in Massachusetts,  Maine,  Rhode  Island,  and North  Carolina.   Presumably,  other  vessels  entering  the fishery would experience gains in revenues.

        Under  alternative 4, the IRFA review of revenue impacts  presumed  that vessel revenues  derived  from landing Illex would be reduced by 25 percent due to an assumed  increase in effort of 25 percent.  A total of 109 vessels were projected to be  impacted by revenue losses that ranged from less than 5 percent, for 88 vessels, to a maximum of 10-19 percent for 8 vessels.  The number of impacted vessels  by  home state ranged from none in Maryland, New Hampshire, New York, and Virginia,  to a high of 11 in New Jersey.   Other impacted vessels were home ported in Massachusetts,  Maine, Rhode Island,  and  North Carolina.  Presumably, other vessels entering the fishery would experience gains in revenues.
        Specifications Process

        The only alternative  considered  concerning  quota  specifications that would be expected to change gross vessel revenues would be  the option that would close the fisheries if the final specifications are not  published by the  start  of  the  fishing  year.   This  measure  would have significant negative  economic  consequences  for  vessels  operating in  the  Atlantic mackerel, Loligo and butterfish fisheries because landings of these three species would be prohibited until NMFS publishes the final rule for new specifications and significant landings occur  early in the fishing year.  The IRFA analysis assumed that these fisheries would  most likely be closed  during  the  months of January and February under this alternative. The total value of the  landings  of these three species during the first 2 months of 1999 represented about 20 percent of the annual revenue generated for all three species in 1999.  For  Atlantic  mackerel, 291 vessels landed 12.1 million lb of mackerel valued at $1.7 million.   A  closure in January and  February  would  result  in a loss of mackerel revenue of  $5,842  per vessel  under this alternative.   For Loligo,  281  vessels landed 6.5  million  lb  of Loligo valued at $5.1 million.  A closure  in  January  and  February   would   result   in   a  loss  of Loligo revenue  of  $18,361  per vessel under this alternative. For butterfish, 228 vessels landed 1.4 million  lb  of butterfish valued at $0.9 million.  A closure in January and February would  result in a loss of butterfish  revenue  of  $4,067  per  vessel under this alternative.   This measure would be expected to have little  or  no  economic impact on the Illex fishery  since  the directed fishery  occurs  during  the summer.

          Loligo Overfishing Definition
        None of the alternatives considered  concerning the Loligocontrol  rule  and  in-season  adjustment  are  expected  to  change  gross revenues.  Therefore, the IRFA concluded that neither the preferred nor the non-preferred alternative represents catch constraints  on vessels in these fisheries  in  aggregate or individually.  Without such catch  constraints, there is no impact on revenues.

        However,  the   no   action   alternative  could  have  severe  economic consequences if the stock biomass  falls  below  ½ Bmsy. If the Council had followed the control rule implemented in Amendment 8 for the 2000 fishery, the Loligo fishery  would  have been closed for the entire year.  Thus failure to replace the control rule  could  have unwarranted negative economic and social consequences.  The best example is for  fishing  year 2000.  If the Council had followed the control rule, the fishery would have  been  closed,  with  significant impacts in participant vessels.  Preliminary NMFS data show that  525  vessels landed 34.9 million lb of Loligo in 2000, valued at $27.3  million.   A  complete closure  of the fishery in 2000 would have resulted in an economic loss  of $52,000 per vessel due to loss of Loligo revenue.
        It has been determined that this proposed rule does not contain policies with federalism  implications  as  that  term is defined in Executive Order 13132.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648

        Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated: May 22, 2002.
          Rebecca Lent,
          Deputy  Assistant Administrator for  Regulatory  Programs,  National Marine Fisheries Service.

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

          PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES

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

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

          2.   In  § 648.4,  paragraph  (a)(5)(i),  the introductory text is revised to read as follows:

            § 648.4
            Vessel permits.
            (a) * * *
            (5) * * *
            (i) Loligo squid/butterfish and Illex squid moratorium permits. (Illex squid  moratorium  is applicable from July 1, 1997, until  July  1, 2003).* * *

          3.  In § 648.20,  paragraph  (b)  is  revised to read as follows:

            § 648.20
            Maximum optimum yields (OYs).

            (b) Loligo—the  catch  associated with  a  fishing mortality rate of Fmsy, or the best  available  proxy for Fmsy.

          4.   In  § 648.21,  paragraphs  (a)(1)  and  (d)(1)  are revised   and   paragraphs   (a)(4)   and  (a)(5)  are  added  to  read  as follows:

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

            (1) Initial OY (IOY), including research  quota  (RQ),  domestic  annual harvest (DAH), and domestic annual processing (DAP) for Illexsquid;

            (4)  Initial  OY  (IOY),  including research quota (RQ), domestic annual harvest   (DAH),   and   domestic   annual    processing   (DAP)   for Loligo squid, which, subject to annual  review, may be specified for a period of up to 3 years;

            (5) Inseason adjustment, upward or downward, to the  specifications  for Loligo squid  as  specified  in  paragraph  (e)  of  this section.

            (d) * * *

            (1)  The Squid, Mackerel,  and  Butterfish  Committee  will  review  the recommendations    of   the   Monitoring   Committee.    Based   on   these recommendations  and  any  public  comment  received  thereon,  the  Squid, Mackerel, and Butterfish  Committee must recommend to the MAFMC appropriate specifications and any measures necessary to assure that the specifications will not be exceeded.  The  MAFMC  will  review  these recommendations and, based on the recommendations and any public comment  received thereon, must recommend to the Regional Administrator appropriate specifications  and any measures  necessary to assure that the specifications will not be exceeded. The MAFMC's  recommendations  must  include  supporting  documentation,  as appropriate,  concerning the environmental, economic, and social impacts of the  recommendations.    The   Regional   Administrator   will  review  the recommendations  and,  on  or  about November 1 of each year, will  publish notification in the Federal Register proposing specifications and any measures necessary to assure  that  the  specifications will not be exceeded  and  providing  a  30-day public comment  period.   If  the proposed specifications differ  from  those  recommended  by the MAFMC, the reasons  for  any  differences  must  be  clearly  stated  and the  revised specifications  must  satisfy the criteria set forth in this section.   The MAFMC's recommendations  will  be available for inspection at the office of the Regional Administrator during the public comment period.  If the annual specifications for squid, mackerel, and butterfish are not published in the Federal Register prior  to the start of the fishing year, the previous year’s annual specifications,  excluding  specifications  of TALFF,  will  remain  in  effect.  The previous year’s specifications will be superceded as of the  effective date of the final rule implementing the current year’s annual specifications.

      [FR Doc. 02-13240 Filed 5-22-02; 2:44 pm]
      BILLING CODE  3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        RIN 1018-AH10
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designations of Critical Habitat for Plant Species From the Island of Lanai, HI

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

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

          SUMMARY:
          The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) gives notice of a public hearing on the proposed critical habitat designations for 32 plants from the island of Lanai, Hawaii. In addition, the comment period which originally closed on May 3, 2002, will be reopened. The new comment period and hearing will allow all interested parties to submit oral or written comments on the proposal. We are seeking comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested parties concerning the proposed rule. Comments already submitted on the proposed rule need not be resubmitted as they will be fully considered in the final determination.

          DATES:
          The comment period for this proposal now closes on August 30, 2002. Any comments received by the closing date will be considered in the final decision on this proposal. The public hearing will be held from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. on Thursday, August 1, 2002, on the island of Lanai, Hawaii. Prior to the public hearing, the Service will be available from 3:30 to 4:30 p.m. to provide information and to answer questions. We will also be available for questions after the hearing.

          ADDRESSES:
          The public hearing will be held at the Lanai Public Library Meeting Room, Fraser Avenue, Lanai City, Hawaii. Comments and materials concerning this proposal should be sent to the Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Office, 300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 3-122, P.O. Box 50088, Honolulu, HI 96850. Comments and materials received will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above address.

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

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        On March 4, 2002, we published a revised proposed critical habitat rule for 32 of the 37 plant species listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), known historically from the island of Lanai (67 FR 9806). The original comment period closed on May 3, 2002. The comment period now closes on August 30, 2002. Written comments should be submitted to us (see ADDRESSES section).

        A total of 37 species historically found on Lanai were listed as endangered or threatened species under the Act between 1991 and 1999. Some of these species may also occur on other Hawaiian islands. Previously, we proposed that designation of critical habitat was prudent for 32 (Abutilon eremitopetalum, Adenophorus periens, Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha, Bonamia menziesii, Brighamia rockii, Cenchrus agrimonioides, Centaurium sebaeoides, Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis, Ctenitis squamigera, Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana, Cyanea lobata, Cyanea macrostegia ssp. gibsonii, Cyperus trachysanthos, Cyrtandra munroi, Diellia erecta, Diplazium molokaiense, Gahnia lanaiensis, Hedyotis mannii, Hesperomannia arborescens, Hibiscus brackenridgei, Isodendrion pyrifolium, Mariscus fauriei, Neraudia sericea, Portulaca sclerocarpa, Sesbania tomentosa, Silene lanceolata, Solanum incompletum, Spermolepis hawaiiensis, Tetramolopium remyi, Vigna o-wahuensis, Viola lanaiensis, and Zanthoxylum hawaiiense) of the 37 species reported from the island of Lanai. No change is made to the 32 proposed prudency determinations in the March 4, 2002, revised proposed critical habitat rule for plants from Lanai. We previously proposed that designation of critical habitat was not prudent for Phyllostegia glabra var. lanaiensis because it had not been seen recently in the wild, and no viable genetic material of this species is known to exist (65 FR 82086). No change is made to this proposed prudency determination in the March 4, 2002, revised proposed critical habitat rule (67 FR 9806). In the March 4, 2002, revised proposed critical habitat rule, we proposed that designation of critical habitat is prudent for Tetramolopium lepidotum ssp. lepidotum, a species for which a prudency determination has not been made previously. We determined that designation of critical habitat was prudent for Hedyotis schlechtendahliana var. remyi, Labordia tinifolia var. lanaiensis, and Melicope munroi at the time of their listing in 1999.
        We also propose designation of critical habitat for 32 (Abutilon eremitopetalum, Adenophorus periens, Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha, Bonamia menziesii, Brighamia rockii, Cenchrus agrimonioides, Centaurium sebaeoides, Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis, Ctenitis squamigera, Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana, Cyanea lobata, Cyanea macrostegia ssp. gibsonii, Cyperus trachysanthos, Cyrtandra munroi, Diellia erecta, Diplazium molokaiense, Gahnia lanaiensis, Hedyotis mannii, Hedyotis schlechtendahliana var. remyi, Hesperomannia arborescens, Hibiscus brackenridgei, Isodendrion pyrifolium, Labordia tinifolia var. lanaiensis, Melicope munroi, Neraudia sericea, Portulaca sclerocarpa, Sesbania tomentosa, Solanum incompletum, Spermolepis hawaiiensis, Tetramolopium remyi, Vigna o-wahuensis, and Viola lanaiensis) plant species. Critical habitat is not proposed for four (Mariscus fauriei, Silene lanceolata, Tetramolopium lepidotum ssp. lepidotum, and Zanthoxylum hawaiiense) of the 37 species which no longer occur on the island of Lanai, and for which we are unable to identify any habitat that is essential to their conservation on the island of Lanai. Critical habitat is not proposed for Phyllostegia glabra var. lanaiensis for the reasons given above. Eight critical habitat units, totaling approximately 7,853 hectares (19,405 acres), are proposed for designation on the island of Lanai. For locations of these proposed units, please consult the proposed rule (67 FR 9806).

        Section 4(b)(5)(E) of the Act requires that a public hearing be held if it is requested within 45 days of the publication of a proposed rule. In response to a request from a government agency of the State of Hawaii, we will hold a public hearing on the date and at the address described in the DATES and ADDRESSES sections above.

        Anyone wishing to make an oral statement for the record is encouraged to provide a written copy of their statement and present it to us at the hearing. In the event there is a large attendance, the time allotted for oral statements may be limited. Oral and written statements receive equal consideration. There are no limits to the length of written comments presented at the hearing or mailed to us. Legal notices announcing the date, time, and location of the public hearing will be published in newspapers concurrently with the Federal Register notice.
        Persons needing reasonable accommodations in order to attend and participate in the public hearing should contact Patti Carroll at 503/231-2080 as soon as possible. In order to allow sufficient time to process requests, please call no later than 1 week before the hearing date.
        Information regarding this proposal is available in alternative formats upon request.
        Comments from the public regarding this proposed rule are sought, especially regarding:
        (1) The reasons why critical habitat for any of these species is prudent or not prudent as provided by section 4 of the Act and 50 CFR 424.12(a)(1);
        (2) The reasons why any particular area should or should not be designated as critical habitat for any of these species, as critical habitat is defined by section 3 of the Act;
        (3) Specific information on the amount, distribution, and quality of habitat for the 32 species, and what habitat is essential to the conservation of the species and why;
        (4) Land use practices and current or planned activities in the subject areas, and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat;
        (5) Any economic or other impacts resulting from the proposed designations of critical habitat, including any impacts on small entities, energy development, low income households, and local governments;

        (6) Economic and other potential values associated with designating critical habitat for the above plant species such as those derived from non-consumptive uses (e.g., hiking, camping, birding, enhanced watershed protection, increased soil retention, “existence values”, and reductions in administrative costs); and
        (7) Information for use, under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, in determining if the benefits of excluding an area from critical habitat outweigh the benefits of specifying the area as critical habitat.

        Reopening of the comment period will enable us to respond to the request for a public hearing on the proposed action. The comment period on this proposal now closes on August 30, 2002. Written comments should be submitted to the Service office listed in the ADDRESSES section.
        Author
        The primary author of this notice is 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: July 8, 2002.
          Craig Manson,
          Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

      [FR Doc. 02-17745 Filed 7-12-02; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P