        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 680
        RIN 0648-AW73
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Allocating Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crab Fishery Resources

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

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

          SUMMARY:
          The Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands (BSAI) Crab Rationalization Program (Program) allocates BSAI crab resources among harvesters, processors, and coastal communities. Amendment 27 would amend the Fishery Management Plan for Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crabs (FMP) and the Program to include the statutory requirements of section 122(e) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006 and modify the methods used to determine individual processor quota share (IPQ) use caps when crab are processed under custom processing arrangements. Amendment 27 also would modify limits on the amount of Aleutian Islands golden and red king crab IPQ that could be processed at a facility. This action is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the FMP, and other applicable laws.

          DATES:
          Comments on the amendment must be submitted on or before November 10, 2008.

          ADDRESSES:
          Send comments to Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. You may submit comments, identified by “RIN 0648-AW73”, by any one of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal Web site at http://www.regulations.gov.
          • Mail: P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802.
          • Fax: (907) 586-7557.
          • Hand delivery to the Federal Building: 709 West 9th Street, Room 420A, Juneau, AK.

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

          Copies of Amendment 27, the Regulatory Impact Review (RIR)/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), the categorical exclusion prepared for this action, and the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared for the Crab Rationalization Program may be obtained from the NMFS Alaska Region at the address above or from the Alaska Region Web site at http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/sustainablefisheries.htm.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Glenn Merrill, 907-586-7228.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

        The king and Tanner crab fisheries in the exclusive economic zone of the BSAI are managed under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) under the Magnuson-Stevens Act as amended by the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-199, section 801). Amendments 18 and 19 to the FMP amended the FMP to include the Program. Regulations implementing these amendments were published on March 2, 2005 (70 FR 10174), and are located at 50 CFR part 680.
        Under the Program, NMFS issued quota share (QS) to holders of License Limitation Program (LLP) licenses and crew onboard vessels. One type of QS, catcher vessel owner (CVO) QS is assigned to holders of LLP licenses who delivered their catch onshore. Each year QS yields an exclusive harvest privilege for a portion of the total allowable catch called individual fishing quota (IFQ).
        NMFS also issued processor quota share (PQS) under the Program. Each year PQS yields an exclusive privilege to process a portion of the IFQ. This annual exclusive processing privilege is called individual processor quota (IPQ). CVO QS yields Class A and Class B IFQ. Class A IFQ is required to be delivered to a processor with matching IPQ within specific geographic regions. Class B IFQ can be delivered to any processor in any geographic region. Ninety percent of the IFQ derived from CVO QS is Class A IFQ, and the remaining 10 percent is Class B IFQ. These requirements ensure that catch continues to be delivered to processors and communities with historic investment in the fisheries.

        Currently, the Program establishes limits, or caps, on the amount of PQS and IPQ that a person can hold, and caps on the amount of IPQ that can be used at a processing facility. In each of the nine BSAI crab fisheries under the Program, a person is limited to holding no more than 30 percent of the PQS initially issued in the fishery and using no more than the amount of IPQ resulting from 30 percent of the initially issued PQS in a given fishery. In addition, no person is permitted to use more than 60 percent of the IPQ crab in the Bering Sea C. opilio fishery designated for exclusive use in the north region. Finally, no processing facility can be used to process more than 30 percent of the IPQ in a crab fishery.
        The Program is designed to minimize the potential that PQS and IPQ use caps could be evaded through the use of corporate affiliations or other legal relationships. To accomplish this, the Program calculates a person's IPQ use cap by summing the total amount of IPQ that (1) is held by that person; (2) is held by other persons who are affiliated with that person through common ownership or control; and (3) is custom processed at a facility at which an IPQ holder has at least a 10 percent direct or indirect ownership interest. Under existing practices, a custom processing arrangement exists when one IPQ holder (1) has a contract with the owners of a processing facility to have his crab processed at that facility; (2) that IPQ holder does not have an ownership interest in the processing facility; and (3) that IPQ holder is not otherwise affiliated with the owners of that crab processing facility. In custom processing arrangements, the IPQ holder contracts with a facility operator to have the IPQ crab processed according to his specifications. Custom processing arrangements typically occur when an IPQ holder does not own an onshore processing facility or cannot economically operate a stationary floating crab processor in a specific region. NMFS applies IPQ crab that is custom processed at a facility at which an IPQ holder has at least a 10-percent direct or indirect ownership interest against both the IPQ holder owning the facility, and the IPQ holder who is having his crab custom processed at that facility. This method for applying the IPQ use cap effectively counts custom processed IPQ crab against two separate persons. Industry participants asserted that this IPQ use cap calculation method discouraged the use of custom processing arrangements

        The Council was prompted to reexamine IPQ use cap calculations in light of a statutory exemption to the existing method of IPQ use cap calculation for custom processed crab that was created by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act (MSRA) of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-479). Section 122(e) of the MSRA specifically directs NMFS to modify the means for calculating IPQ use caps that apply to a person who is custom processing C. opilio crab in the north region. To fully implement Section 122(e), the Council and NMFS would need to adopt conforming regulations, and define several of the terms used in Section 122(e).

        In response, the Council initiated an analysis and received comments from the public on implementation of section 122(e) of the MSRA. During this process, participants in other crab fisheries indicated that their processing operations could become more efficient if IPQ use cap exemptions for custom processing arrangements congressionally mandated for the north region Bering Sea C. opilio fishery could also be extend to other crab fisheries. Specifically, participants in crab fisheries with historically low TAC allocations or active in crab fisheries in more remote geographic regions argued that exempting IPQ crab processed under custom processing arrangements from the IPQ use caps of the owners of facilities could improve their operational efficiency.
        Based on the analysis and public input, the Council adopted Amendment 27 in December 2007, and submitted Amendment 27 to NMFS for review by the Secretary of Commerce. Amendment 27 would modify the FMP to exempt individual processor quota share (IPQ) that is subject to a custom processing arrangement in specific fisheries, at specific facilities, or in specific crab-dependent communities from the IPQ use cap of the processing facility owners. Amendment 27 also would establish limits on the amount of Aleutian Islands golden and red king crab IPQ that could be processed at a facility. Specifically, IPQ holders who own processing facilities would not be considered as using IPQ when IPQ crab is (1) received by an IPQ holder at their facility under a custom processing arrangement; (2) received and processed at specific types of processing facilities; or (3) derived from PQS earned from processing in specific communities where crab has been historically delivered. This change in IPQ use cap calculation would only apply to specific crab fisheries. In addition, Amendment 27 would limit the amount of Eastern Aleutian Islands golden king crab and Western Aleutian Islands red king crab that could be processed at a facility. Finally, Amendment 27 would contain the clarifications necessary to implement section 122(e) of the MSRA.

        Public comments are being solicited on proposed Amendment 27 through the end of the comment period (see DATES). NMFS intends to publish a proposed rule in the Federal Register for public comment that would implement Amendment 27, following NMFS' evaluation under the Magnuson-Stevens Act procedures. Public comments on the proposed rule must be received by the close of the comment period on Amendment 27 to be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on Amendment 27. All comments received by the end of the comment period on Amendment 27, whether specifically directed to the FMP amendment or the proposed rule, will be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on Amendment 27. Comments received after the end of the public comment period for Amendment 27, even if received within the comment period for the proposed rule, will not be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the amendment. To be considered, comments must be received—not just postmarked or otherwise transmitted—by the close of business on the last day of the comment period.

          Dated: September 8, 2008.
          James P. Burgess,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. E8-21146 Filed 9-10-08; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
        49 CFR Part 571
        [DOT Docket No. NHTSA-01-9765]
        RIN 2127-AE59
        Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard; Radiator and Coolant Reservoir Caps, Venting of Motor Vehicle Coolant System

          AGENCY:
          National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

          ACTION:
          Withdrawal of rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          The purpose of this document is to announce the withdrawal of a rulemaking in which the agency had considered establishing a new Federal motor vehicle safety standard for radiator and coolant reservoir caps. After reviewing the available information and given the possible limited and uncertain safety benefits associated with the proposed requirement, the agency has decided to withdraw this rulemaking.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          For non-legal issues:  Mr. Kenneth O. Hardie, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, Telephone No. (202) 366-6987. His FAX number is (202) 493-2739. For legal issues: Ms. Dorothy Nakama, Office of Chief Counsel (202) 366-2992. Her FAX number is (202) 366-3820.  You may send mail to both of these officials at National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        I. Background
        In April 1992, NHTSA received a petition for rulemaking submitted by Mr. John Giordano, recommending the establishment of a new safety standard that would require the use of thermal locking safety radiator caps. Mr. Giordano brought to our attention the RadLock thermal locking radiator cap. He contended that his suggested new safety standard would prevent the accidental scalding of persons who hastily open the cap of a hot motor vehicle radiator.

        During operation, a motor vehicle engine becomes very hot. Motor vehicle engine cooling fluid (also known as coolant) can reach temperatures as high as 118 to 129 degrees Celsius (245 to 265 degrees Fahrenheit) and pressure levels as high as 110 to 117 kilopascals (kPa) (16 to 17 pounds of pressure per square inch). Under such high temperature and pressure conditions, a person's removal of a standard radiator cap will allow hot fluid and steam to rush out of the neck of the radiator. When the system is under pressure, especially high pressure, removing a radiator cap can cause it to “explode,” i.e., the cap can be forcibly ejected or dislodged from the neck of the radiator in some way. A person close to the radiator may be sprayed with the hot fluid or steam that is ejected, and be scalded, possibly severely.
        In support of his petition, Mr. Giordano asserted that over 100,000 radiator cap scald incidents occur annually in the U.S. resulting in over 20,000 victims requiring treatment at hospital emergency rooms and burn care facilities each year. [DOT Docket NHTSA 2001-9765-07 and (June 1, 2001 66 FR 29749)]. Mr. Giordano submitted four medical journal articles, and a letter from the Burn Special Projects Coordinator at the Washington Hospital Center, DC. The most relevant and informative article was authored by Dr. C.G. Ward and Dr. J.S. Hammond of the University of Miami School of Medicine. The article stated that during a three-year period from January 1979 through December 1981, a total of 86 patients (an average of 29 a year) with radiator-associated injuries required hospital admission to the University of Miami/Jackson Memorial Burn Center. The article stated that twice that number of patients (an average of 58 per year) were treated, but not hospitalized, during that three-year period for radiator-associated injuries. The article suggested a considerable number of the involved vehicles were manufactured between 1970 and 1975.
        Mr. Giordano also provided a May 20, 1992 letter from Mr. Mark S. Lewis, MS, RRT, Burn Special Projects Coordinator at the Washington Hospital Center Burn Center, in Washington, DC. Mr. Lewis provided information that approximately 10 percent of scald injuries in the District of Columbia can be attributed to removing radiator caps.
        None of the articles included extrapolation of these data to national estimates of the number of injuries associated with radiator cap removal. No similar attempt to extrapolate the data was made by the petitioner.

        In order to obtain information to assess the validity of the assertions in Mr. Giordano's petition, we published a “Request for Comments” document in the Federal Register, requesting comments on the necessity and feasibility of rulemaking to prevent scald injuries by requiring thermal locking radiator caps or other devices on motor vehicles with water-cooled engines. (June 10, 1993; 58 FR 32504.) NHTSA received 18 comments. The data in the public comments did not provide useful information on the total annual number of radiator cap-related scald incidents. In 1993, we changed the status of action on this petition from the “rulemaking phase” to the “research phase.”
        To gather more information on the extent of scalds resulting from radiator cap incidents, NHTSA entered into an interagency agreement with the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) in July 1993 to collect radiator cap-related injury data by using the CPSC's National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS). The NEISS data are collected from a sample of 91 hospitals of the 6,127 hospitals in the United States and its territories with at least six beds that provide emergency care on a 24-hour/day basis. These data are used to estimate the number of persons non-fatally injured and treated in hospital emergency rooms nationwide.
        Injury data were collected by the CPSC from October 1, 1993 to September 30, 1994. The CPSC's data collection effort was completed and the resulting data were delivered to the NHTSA's National Center for Statistics and Analysis (NCSA). In November 1997, NCSA published a technical report, DOT HS 808 598, titled “Injuries Associated with Specific Motor Vehicle Hazards: Radiators, Batteries, Power Windows, and Power Roofs'' that compiled the data from the CPSC's injury data collection effort. The technical report includes estimates of the number of persons injured as a result of incidents involving motor vehicle radiators.
        The technical report estimated that during the period of study (October 1, 1993 through September 30, 1994), 19,638 persons received scald injuries nationwide in incidents involving motor vehicle radiators. Of the 19,638 persons, approximately 77 percent (15,118 out of 19,638) were injured during activities associated with the radiator cap.

        Regarding the types of vehicles in which the radiator cap injuries were incurred, passenger cars represented 91 percent of the cases, pickup trucks approximately 7 percent of the cases and trucks and vans comprised the remaining cases. As for the model years of the vehicles involved, 65 percent of the motor vehicles were 1980-89 model years, with 52 percent of these being model years 1980-84. About 26 percent of the incidents involved 1975-79 models, about 8 percent involved models older than 1975, and less than 1 percent involved newer vehicles, i.e., model years 1990-1994. The report did not compare the absolute numbers of injuries for a given model year of vehicles to the number of those vehicles on the road to determine if there was any trend in the rate of occurrence of those injuries.
        The small number of injuries (1 percent) for model years 1990-1994 vehicles appeared to be anomalous. NHTSA is not sure how to account for the small number for MY 1990-1994. One possible explanation is that these newer vehicles experienced fewer mechanical failures overall. Also, not all MY 1994 vehicles were taken into account because the CPSC data collection period ended in September 1994, by which time not all MY 1994 vehicles were sold and on the road.
        During the 1993/1994 data collection effort, NHTSA and CPSC implemented a telephone callback questionnaire system that permitted NHTSA to authenticate cases for which information in the NEISS record of the case, particularly in the text field allowed for describing the incident involved, was not clear as to exactly what happened. The total number of radiator cap cases reflected in the 1993/1994 data includes a number of cases that are based on information gathered by telephone callback. Information on the model year of the involved vehicles was also obtained through telephone callback.
        Based upon these estimates, NHTSA decided to further investigate the cost and feasibility of developing and implementing a new Federal motor vehicle safety standard to regulate radiator and coolant reservoir cap performance. Accordingly, NHTSA contracted with Ludtke & Associates in early 1997 to determine the variable manufacturing costs, weights, lead time, and capital investment associated with incorporating the use of temperature or pressure-locking radiator and coolant recovery tank caps as standard equipment in motor vehicles. Since no pressure-locking caps were found to exist, NHTSA requested that Ludtke & Associates design a prototype pressure-locking cap and provide an estimate of the expected increase in cost associated with requiring a pressure-locking cap for all motor vehicles under 10,000 lbs. Ludtke & Associates estimated the additional cost to consumers to be $0.65 for a radiator cap and $0.43 for a coolant reservoir cap.
        On June 1, 2001, NHTSA published a NPRM (66 FR 29747) [DOT Docket No. NHTSA-2001-9765] proposing to regulate radiator and coolant reservoir caps on new passenger cars, multi-purpose passenger vehicles and light trucks with such caps. To accompany this proposal, NHTSA also published a Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation titled “FMVSS No. 402 Radiator and Coolant Reservoir Caps Venting of Motor Vehicle Coolant Systems”. The purpose of the proposed rulemaking was to reduce the number of scald injuries that occur when people remove radiator caps or coolant reservoir caps from motor vehicle engines, and to reduce the likelihood that the discharge of hot fluids from a manually operated pressure venting system will scald persons removing the radiator cap. The proposed rulemaking contained three significant proposals:
        (1) The cap removal must be accomplished with a combination of motions, including a downward force coupled with rotary movement,
        (2) The radiator cap or pressurized reservoir cap must not be removable when the system pressures is at or exceeds 14 kPa (2 psi) and
        (3) The venting path for hot fluids must be downward and toward the center of the vehicle.
        NHTSA proposed a radiator cap safety standard based upon pressure, not temperature as suggested by Mr. Giordano. The agency tentatively concluded that the locking requirements for caps should be based upon pressure, instead of temperature. We took this approach because, although the temperature of the fluid in the radiator is related to the safety problems addressed by the proposal, we believed the most important safety consideration in providing a solution to radiator-related scalds was the pressure in the coolant system. If there were little pressure to force liquid or steam up when the cap is removed, the risk of hot scalding fluid or steam being ejected from the radiator filler neck or coolant system reservoir would be essentially eliminated. Also, ambient temperature under the hood of a vehicle without the engine running could approach 125 degrees Fahrenheit (51.6 degrees Celsius) during the hot part of a summer day in many States in the southern tier of the United States. Thus, Mr. Giordano's suggestion might result in persons' not being able to add radiator fluid (because of a locked cap) in circumstances in which there is no danger of hot liquid or steam being ejected from the coolant system during cap removal.
        II. Comments on the NPRM
        We received comments both supporting and opposing the proposed radiator safety cap standard. Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety stated that it supports the main features of NHTSA's proposed rule, and argued that substantial redesign of current radiator and coolant reservoir caps must be ensured by establishing performance requirements for preventing removal of the caps while the potential for effluent ejection is still high. Other commenters supporting the proposal included the Burn Foundation and Angela Rabbitts and Nicole E. Alden of the New York Presbyterian Hospital Burn Center.
        While the auto industry, including members of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, supported the intent of the proposal—to reduce the incidence and severity of burn and scald injuries associated with engine cooling systems—they argued that a radiator cap and coolant system reservoir standard is not necessary at this time for the following reasons:
        (1) The data used to support the NPRM is based on vehicles that utilized older designs of engine coolant systems. Over the last ten years, there have been a large number of significant design changes and improvements in reliability that reduce the risk of vehicles overheating, and thus, the need to remove the radiator cap has been reduced. The Alliance stated these changes included:
        a. Incorporation of a reservoir cap (the screw type) that requires more than one hand motion (turns) to allow pressure bleed down before complete removal.
        b. Incorporation of caps that have brims, baffles, or other conveyances that direct escaping coolant/steam away from the hand of a person removing the cap.
        c. Incorporation of de-gas reservoir (without separate radiator caps) that vent air first—not liquid and reduce entrained air in coolant, maintaining cooling capability.
        d. Incorporation of a “limp-home” cooling function in engine electronics to keep customers from getting “stranded” by overheating or coolant loss (reduces need for customers to have to remove any pressurized caps).
        e. Reduction in some vehicles of maximum cooling system operating temperatures under extreme conditions such as trailer towing, extended idling, and when traversing significant grades.

        f. Changes in cooling system design and materials to reduce incidence of overheating (e.g., long life coolants, long life hoses, corrosion resistant aluminum engine components and radiators, and translucent reservoirs to allow visual checking without opening system).

        (2) NHTSA cost estimate in the NPRM is too low: The Ludtke & Associates design of a prototype pressure-locking radiator cap (used as the basis for NHTSA's cost estimate) is deficient because its design does not contain all the required functions necessary to operate with current coolant systems.
        (3) NHTSA is unable to demonstrate in the field that the technology proposed in the NPRM will work in a real world environment since there are no commercially available pressure-locking caps.
        (4) The proposal incorrectly assumes that a pressure-locking system is the only technology that will address this issue and, as such, is too design restrictive and will preclude other suitable technologies.
        III. Decision To Withdraw Rulemaking
        After carefully considering the comments, we have decided to withdraw this rulemaking. After reviewing the available information, we believe the potential safety benefits associated with the proposed requirement are limited and uncertain.
        In July 2000, the CPSC began routinely to collect data on injuries involving motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment and made this information available through its website. NHTSA was able to search the CPSC NEISS database for scald injuries associated with the removal of a radiator cap. NHTSA used the word “radiator” and other key words to search the text fields in NEISS for radiator cap related scald injuries that occurred between January 1, 2001 and December 31, 2001. This search produced a national projection for the year 2001 of 4,949 persons injured in scalding incidents involving motor vehicle radiator caps. The vast majority of patients were treated and released.
        The data were acquired from a representative sampling of scald injuries reported in emergency rooms monitored by NEISS. When the injury data were compared to the radiator cap related scald injuries estimated through the NHTSA/CPSC 1993/1994 data collection effort (15,118 injuries), the year 2001 injury data (4,949 injuries) suggest that the scald injury rate for a 12 month-period decreased by approximately 66% since September 1994.
        The CPSC 2001 injury data do not include information on the make, year of manufacture, or model year of the motor vehicles involved or information on the type of cap involved. NHTSA is thus unable to analyze in detail whether this reduction in documented injuries resulted from changes made to motor vehicle cooling systems as suggested by the automobile manufacturers in their comments on this rulemaking. However, the agency would expect that the various changes cited by the manufacturers to provide benefits in this area.
        NHTSA notes that the CPSC year 2001 data contained cases that were listed as a scald or burn injury, but the text field of the NEISS file does not contain enough information to determine whether the injury is associated with a radiator cap. It is possible that our year 2001 data underestimates the number of scald injuries related to radiator caps. It is clear, however, that vehicle manufacturers have made improvements in the design and reliability of motor vehicle cooling systems and, at the same time, the documented injuries associated with radiator caps have declined.

        We also believe, based on our review of the comments, that the proposed rule may be unnecessarily design-restrictive, i.e., there may be alternatives to pressure-locking caps that would meet the agency's safety objectives in this area but could not be used to comply with the proposed requirement. If we were planning to proceed further with this rulemaking, this is an issue that we would need to evaluate carefully.
        Accordingly, in light of the substantial reduction in the number of cases of radiator cap related scald injuries, the resources that would be needed to further refine the requirements proposed in the NPRM, and limited and uncertain benefits, the agency has decided to withdraw this rulemaking. NHTSA can revisit the issue of radiator cap scalding, if sufficient grounds exist in the future.

          Authority:
          49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 49 CFR 501.8(f).

          Issued on: June 16, 2004.
          Stephen R. Kratzke,
          Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.

      [FR Doc. 04-14074 Filed 6-21-04; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        [FWS-R3-ES-2008-0030; 1111 FY07 MO-B2]
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the U.S. Population of Coaster Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) as Endangered

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Correction and reopening of comment period for 90-day petition finding.

          SUMMARY:
          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), correct and reopen the comment period for the March 20, 2008, 90-day finding on a petition to list the U.S. population of coaster brook trout.

          DATES:
          We will consider information received or postmarked on or before September 8, 2008.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit information by one of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, Attn: [FWS-R3-ES-2008-0030]; 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 information received at http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see the Information Solicited section below for more details).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Ms. Jessica Hogrefe, East Lansing Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2651 Coolidge Road—Suite 101, East Lansing, MI 48823-6316; telephone 517-351-5467; facsimile 517-351-1443. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at (800) 877-8339.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        On March 20, 2008, the Service published in the Federal Register a notice of 90-day petition finding and initiation of status review concerning the petition to list as endangered a population of brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) known as coaster brook trout throughout its known historical range in the conterminous United States (73 FR 14950). In the DATES section of that document, we solicited requests for public hearings and established a date by which we would receive such requests.

        This part of the notice was printed in error and we will not hold public hearings for this 90-day finding. Section 4(b)(5) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), states, “With respect to any regulation proposed by the Secretary to implement a determination, designation, or revision referred to in subsection (a)(1) or (3) [proposed or final rule to list a species as endangered or threatened, or proposed or final rule to designate any habitat of such species to be critical habitat], the Secretary shall * * * promptly hold one public hearing on the proposed regulation if any person files a request for such a hearing within 45 days after the date of publication of general notice.” Notices of 90-day findings on petitions to list species are not proposed regulations. The Service does not generally hold public hearings for nonrulemaking findings, and will not hold any public hearings regarding the coaster brook trout 90-day finding. For a 90-day finding, we request information from the public that improves our understanding of the status of the species. This information typically includes agency reports and other collections of empirical data that is best gathered in the form of written comments. If, in the future, we publish a proposed rule for this species (e.g., a proposed listing), we will allow the public an opportunity to request a public hearing at that time.
        Information Solicited
        We are, however, providing a new comment period with respect to the 90-day finding to afford the public an additional opportunity to provide us information for our status review or submit any remarks that would otherwise have been presented at a public hearing. We have also contacted directly the persons who requested a hearing to advise them of this additional opportunity to submit information.

        Please note that submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the action under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in making a determination, because section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) directs that determinations as to whether any species is a threatened or endangered species shall be made “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.” At the conclusion of the status review, we will determine whether listing is warranted, not warranted, or warranted but precluded.

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

        Information and materials we receive will be available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, East Lansing Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

          Authority:

          This action is authorized by the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

          Dated: July 31, 2008.
           H. Dale Hall,
          Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

      [FR Doc. E8-18206 Filed 8-6-08; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P