        LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION
        45 CFR Part 1628
        Recipient Fund Balances

          AGENCY:
          Legal Services Corporation.

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          This proposed rule would revise the Legal Services Corporation (LSC or Corporation) regulation on recipient fund balances to provide the Corporation with more discretion to grant a recipient's request for a waiver to retain a fund balance in excess of 25% of its annual LSC support. This proposed rule would also provide that recipients that face extraordinary and compelling circumstances may submit a waiver request to retain a fund balance in excess of 25% of their annual LSC support prior to the submission of their annual audited financial statements.

          DATE:
           Comments must be submitted by May 20, 2015.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • Email: 1628rulemaking@lsc.gov. Include “Comments on Revisions to Part 1628” in the subject line of the message.
          • Fax: (202) 337-6519, ATTN: Part 1628 Rulemaking.
          • Mail: Stefanie K. Davis, Assistant General Counsel, Legal Services Corporation, 3333 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20007, ATTN: Part 1628 Rulemaking.
          • Hand Delivery/Courier: Stefanie K. Davis, Assistant General Counsel, Legal Services Corporation, 3333 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20007, ATTN: Part 1628 Rulemaking.

            Instructions: Electronic submissions are preferred via email with attachments in Acrobat PDF format. Written comments sent to any other address or received after the end of the comment period may not be considered by LSC.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Stefanie K. Davis, Assistant General Counsel, Legal Services Corporation, 3333 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20007; (202) 295-1563 (phone), (202) 337-6519 (fax), or sdavis@lsc.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        I. Regulatory Background

        LSC issued its first instruction on recipient fund balances in 1983 to implement what is now the Corporation's longstanding objective of ensuring the timely expenditure of LSC funds for the effective and economical provision of high quality legal assistance to eligible clients. 48 FR 560, 561, Jan. 5, 1983. Later that year, LSC published a redrafted version titled Instruction 83-4, Recipient Fund Balances (“Instruction”). 48 FR 49710, 49711, Oct. 27, 1983. The Instruction limited the ability of recipients to carry over LSC funds that remained unused at the end of the fiscal year. Id. Specifically, the Instruction provided that, in the absence of a waiver granted by the Corporation, a recipient's end-of-year fund balance in excess of 10% of its total annual LSC support must be repaid to LSC. Id. The Instruction also prohibited a recipient from ever retaining a fund balance in excess of 25% of its annual support, thereby limiting the Corporation's waiver granting authority to fund balance amounts of 25% or less of a recipient's annual support. Id.

        In 1984, LSC substantially adopted the Instruction in a regulation published at 45 CFR part 1628. 49 FR 21331, May 21, 1984. Part 1628 remained unchanged until 2000, when LSC promulgated revisions in response to public comments and staff advice indicating that the rule was “more strict” than the fund balance requirements of most federal agencies. 65 FR 66637, 66638, Nov. 7, 2000. The revisions provided the Corporation with more discretion to grant a recipient's request for a waiver to retain a fund balance of up to 25% of its annual support. Id. at 66637. In addition, for the first time, the rule authorized the Corporation to exercise its discretion to grant a recipient's request for a waiver to retain a fund balance in excess of 25% of its annual support. Id. The Corporation reasoned that, by allowing for waivers to retain that amount, “[t]he recipient can better plan and find the best use for the funds, rather than being forced into a hasty expenditure simply to avoid the limitation on the carryover of fund balances.” Id. at 66640. The rule, however, limited the situations justifying a recipient's request to retain more than 25% of its annual support to “three specific circumstances when extraordinary and compelling reasons exist for such a waiver,” currently listed in § 1628.3(c). Id. at 66638. These extraordinary and compelling circumstances were restricted to the following situations when a recipient received income derived from its use of LSC funds: “(1) An insurance reimbursement; (2) the sale of real property; and (3) the receipt of monies from a lawsuit in which the recipient was a party.” Id. at 66639. Although the Operations and Regulations Committee (Committee) “considered using a standard of `extraordinary and compelling' for these waivers with the three specific circumstances discussed as examples,” it ultimately decided “that more guidance was required to avoid erosion of the standard,” and the three circumstances became exclusive limitations, not mere examples. Id. at 66640. The LSC Board of Directors (Board) adopted the revisions to part 1628 on November 20, 1999, and the revised rule has been in effect since December 7, 2000. Id. at 66637-38.

        On April 12, 2015, the Committee voted to recommend that the Board publish this NPRM in the Federal Register for notice and comment. On April 14, 2015, the Board accepted the Committee's recommendation and voted to approve publication of this NPRM.
        II. LSC Consideration of Potential Revisions to Part 1628
        During the nearly 15-year period since part 1628 was last revised, LSC grantees have experienced various unexpected occurrences outside of those listed in § 1628.3(c) that caused them to accrue fund balances in excess of 25% of their annual support. These occurrences have included an end-of-year transfer of assets from a former grantee to a current grantee, a natural disaster that resulted in a significant infusion of use-or-lose disaster relief funds from non-LSC sources, and receipt of a large attorneys' fees award in an LSC-funded case near the end of the fiscal year. In each of these situations, LSC determined that part 1628 currently prevents some recipients with legitimate reasons for having fund balances exceeding 25% of their annual LSC support from seeking and obtaining needed waivers.
        On January 22, 2015, LSC staff presented the Committee with a proposal to consider revising part 1628 to address the difficulties faced by recipients that encounter these types of occurrences, yet are unable to justify a waiver request to retain a balance in excess of 25% of their annual support under the current standards. The Committee authorized LSC management to add the matter to the Committee's rulemaking agenda so that it may address this issue. In addition, the Committee requested that LSC consider whether the rule's 10% and 25% caps on fund balance carryovers are still appropriate in light of the most recently available data on recipient waiver requests.
        LSC first considered revising part 1628 to allow recipients to request, and the Corporation to grant, waivers to retain fund balances in excess of 25% of annual support in extraordinary and compelling circumstances not covered by the current rule. Current § 1628.3(c) is limited to three circumstances where a recipient receives an infusion of derivative income, or income derived from the recipient's use of LSC funds. As discussed above, however, recent situations have included the sudden infusion of non-derivative, use-or-lose income under other circumstances that significantly disrupted grantee expenditure plans. As a result, LSC staff determined that the list of extraordinary and compelling circumstances in § 1628.3(c) should be illustrative, rather than limited, so that recipients that encounter truly unforeseeable scenarios can avoid having to make the difficult choice between returning large portions of unused balances and hurriedly spending funds before the end of the fiscal year. LSC staff similarly determined that such circumstances should include situations where a grantee is incapable of expending its existing LSC funds as originally planned due to a natural disaster or other catastrophic event, as opposed to only situations where new income is received. Therefore, the Corporation proposes providing an illustrative list of extraordinary and compelling circumstances justifying waivers to retain a fund balance in excess of 25% of a recipient's annual support. LSC believes that this proposed revision will allow grantees to devise more organized and efficient spending plans when faced with unexpected events that are not listed in current § 1628.3(c). Providing recipients with sufficient time to plan for the expenditure of unused funds in excess of 25% of their annual support would also advance the Corporation's policy of ensuring effective and economical provision of high quality legal assistance to eligible clients.
        LSC next considered revising part 1628 to provide that a recipient may submit a waiver request prior to submitting its annual audited financial statements. Section 1628.4(a) currently provides that a recipient may request a waiver within 30 days of the submission of its annual audited financial statements. The preamble to the 2000 rule, however, states that “[t]his rule does not preclude the recipient's request for a Corporation action on a waiver prior to the close of the fiscal year, it simply does not require the Corporation to provide for advance approval.” 65 FR 66637, 66640, Nov. 7, 2000. LSC staff determined that incorporating the current preamble language on permitting waiver requests prior to the close of the fiscal year into the regulatory text of part 1628 would benefit grantees by allowing them to seek assurance that they will not have to return or spend a large portion of excess LSC funds by the end of the fiscal year, thereby enabling them to plan for the following fiscal year with greater certainty.

        LSC staff also found that limiting early approvals to requests for waivers to retain balances in excess of 25% of annual support would be proper in light of the unique and significant burdens on financial planning faced by recipients that experience extraordinary and compelling circumstances. In addition, because a recipient's estimate of the fund balance it anticipates accruing by the end of the fiscal year may end up being higher or lower than the recipient's actual fund balance at the time it submits its audited financial statements, LSC staff determined that recipients that receive approval of a waiver request prior to submitting their audited financial statements must submit updated information consistent with the requirements of § 1628.4(a) after the submission of their audited financial statements. Accordingly, an advance approval would be, in effect, an approval of the reasons for a waiver and of the proposed amount to be retained, but the recipient must later provide confirmation of the actual amount of excess funds it has accrued. LSC therefore proposes revising the rule to provide that recipients that face extraordinary and compelling circumstances may submit a waiver request to retain a fund balance in excess of 25% of their annual support prior to the submission of their annual audited financial statements, and that the Corporation may, in its discretion, grant approval of such requests pending confirmation of the actual amount to be retained once the audited financial statements are finalized.
        The Corporation also considered revising part 1628 to require LSC management to provide notice to the Board of any decision to grant a waiver in excess of 25% of a recipient's annual support. LSC is retaining the “extraordinary and compelling circumstances” standard for granting such waivers, and anticipates that recipients will continue to seek such waivers only in circumstances where they experience extreme events that prevent them from expending more than 25% of their annual LSC support. Furthermore, the granting of LSC funding and exercising discretion with regard to carryover, suspension or termination of such funding has been and should remain a management, not a Board, function. The Corporation will continue to exercise its discretion with the same good faith and fidelity to the objective of ensuring the timely expenditure of LSC funds as it has done since part 1628 was last revised in 2000. Therefore, LSC proposes to retain its current policy of leaving discretion to grant waivers to retain excess recipient fund balances with LSC management.
        Finally, pursuant to the Committee's request, LSC considered whether the rule's 10% and 25% caps on fund balance carryover amounts should be adjusted in accordance with recent trends in waiver requests. LSC's Office of Compliance and Enforcement (OCE) provided LSC staff with statistics on all waiver requests that have been submitted to the Corporation over the last six years. After analyzing the data, LSC decided as a policy matter that the respective percentage caps are set at the appropriate levels. According to the statistics, the average annual number of waiver requests to retain a fund balance that exceeds 10% of a recipient's LSC support is easily manageable by OCE. Furthermore, waiver requests to retain a balance in excess of 25% of LSC support are exceedingly rare, and the Corporation does not expect a significantly greater number of such requests if the proposed revisions to part 1628 are adopted. LSC believes that the current percentage caps on carryover amounts are necessary to ensure that recipients are spending their grants on providing legal services, while offering an appropriate amount of flexibility to retain unused fund balances. The Corporation therefore proposes retaining the current percentage cap amounts, but requests comments on whether to change them.
        III. Discussion of the Proposed Changes
        § 1628.3 Policy
        LSC proposes to revise § 1628.3(c) to eliminate the language limiting the extraordinary and compelling circumstances in which LSC may grant a recipient's request for a waiver to retain a fund balance that exceeds 25% of its annual LSC support. Whereas existing § 1628.3(c) is limited to three circumstances where a recipient receives a sudden infusion of income, the proposed section expands the types of situations that the Corporation, in its discretion, may consider to be extraordinary and compelling circumstances. The proposed section adds the example of a natural disaster to illustrate a situation where a recipient would be unable to expend its current LSC grant for reasons other than the receipt of new funds. The proposed section also adds the example of “a payment from an LSC-funded lawsuit, regardless of whether the recipient was a party to the lawsuit.” This revision makes clear that a recipient may request a waiver to retain a fund balance in excess of 25% of its annual support when it receives an award as the result of a court decision in an LSC-funded case, even if the recipient was not named as a party to the action.
        LSC also proposes to make a minor revision to § 1628.3(d) to reflect the proposed redesignation of certain paragraphs in § 1628.4.
        § 1628.4 Procedures
        LSC proposes to add a new § 1628.4(d) to expressly allow recipients that face extraordinary and compelling circumstances to submit a waiver request to retain a fund balance in excess of 25% of their annual support prior to the submission of their annual audited financial statements. This addition will require existing § 1628.4(d), (e), (f), and (g) to be redesignated to § 1628.4(e), (f), (g), and (h).
        The proposed new § 1628.4(d) will list the written requirements for a waiver request to retain a fund balance in excess of 25% of annual support. These requirements vary from the ones listed in § 1628.4(a), which apply only to requests made within 30 days after the submission of a recipient's annual audited financial statements. There are two reasons for the variation. First, because the annual audited financial statement of a recipient requesting an early waiver approval would not yet be available to the Corporation, recipients can provide only an estimate of the fund balance they anticipate to accrue by the time their statements are submitted. Second, because a recipient may submit a waiver request either before or after the close of the fiscal year, the proposed section will require recipients to provide a “plan for disposing of the excess fund balance,” as opposed to a plan for the “current fiscal year” as required by § 1628.4(a). Additionally, proposed § 1628.4(d) requires recipients receiving approval to later submit updated information consistent with the requirements of paragraph (a) to confirm the actual fund balance amount to be retained by the recipient, as determined by reference to its annual audited financial statements.
        Finally, LSC proposes to revise the introductory text of paragraph (a), as well as paragraphs (a)(2) and (3), for clarity and readability.

          List of Subjects in 45 CFR Part 1628
          Administrative practice and procedure, Grant programs—law, Legal services.

        For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Legal Services Corporation proposes to revise 45 CFR part 1628 as follows:

          PART 1628—RECIPIENT FUND BALANCES

        1. The authority citation for part 1628 is revised to read as follows:

          Authority:
           42 U.S.C. 2996g(e).

        2. Revise paragraphs (c) and (d) of § 1628.3 to read as follows:

          § 1628.3
          Policy

          (c) Recipients may request a waiver to retain a fund balance in excess of 25% of a recipient's LSC support only for extraordinary and compelling circumstances, such as when a natural disaster or other catastrophic event prevents the timely expenditure of LSC funds, or when the recipient receives an insurance reimbursement, the proceeds from the sale of real property, a payment from a lawsuit in which the recipient was a party, or a payment from an LSC-funded lawsuit, regardless of whether the recipient was a party to the lawsuit.
          (d) A waiver pursuant to paragraph (b) or (c) of this section may be granted at the discretion of the Corporation pursuant to the criteria set out in § 1628.4(e).

        3. Amend § 1628.4 as follows:
        a. Revise paragraph (a) introductory text and paragraphs (a)(2) and (3);
        b. Redesignate paragraphs (d) through (g) as paragraphs (e) through (h); and
        c. Add new paragraph (d).
        The revisions and additions read as follows:

          § 1628.4
          Procedures
          (a) A recipient may request a waiver of the 10% ceiling on LSC fund balances within 30 days after the submission to LSC of its annual audited financial statements. The request shall specify:

          (2) The reason(s) for the excess fund balance;
          (3) The recipient's plan for disposing of the excess fund balance during the current fiscal year;\

          (d) A recipient may submit a waiver request to retain a fund balance in excess of 25% of its LSC support prior to the submission of its audited financial statements. The Corporation may, at its discretion, provide approval in writing. The request shall specify the extraordinary and compelling circumstances justifying the fund balance in excess of 25%; the estimated fund balance that the recipient anticipates it will accrue by the time of the submission of its audited financial statements; and the recipient's plan for disposing of the excess fund balance. Upon the submission of its annual audited financial statements, the recipient must submit updated information consistent with the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section to confirm the actual fund balance to be retained.

          Dated: April 14, 2015.
          Stefanie K. Davis,
          Assistant General Counsel.

      [FR Doc. 2015-08948 Filed 4-17-15; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 7050-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        [Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2011-0074; 4500030114]
        RIN 1018-AX76
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Cumberland Darter, Rush Darter, Yellowcheek Darter, Chucky Madtom, and Laurel Dace

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

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

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce the reopening of the public comment period on our October 12, 2011, proposed designation of critical habitat for the Cumberland darter (Etheostoma susanae), rush darter (Etheostoma phytophilum), yellowcheek darter (Etheostoma moorei), chucky madtom (Noturus crypticus), and laurel dace (Chrosomus saylori) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We also announce the availability of a draft economic analysis (DEA) of the proposed designation of critical habitat for these five fishes and an amended required determinations section of the proposal. We are reopening the comment period to allow all interested parties an opportunity to comment simultaneously on the revised proposed rule, the associated DEA, and the amended required determinations section. Comments previously submitted need not be resubmitted, as they will be fully considered in preparation of the final rule. We will also hold a public hearing (see DATES and ADDRESSES).

          DATES:

            Comment submission: We will consider all comments received or postmarked on or before June 25, 2012. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date.

            Public hearing: We will hold a public hearing from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., on June 7, 2012, in Clinton, Arkansas.

          ADDRESSES:

            Document availability: You may obtain copies of the proposed rule and the draft economic analysis on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R4-ES-2011-0074, or by mail from the Tennessee Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

            Comment submission: You may submit written comments by one of the following methods:
          (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Search for Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2011-0074, which is the docket number for this rulemaking.
          (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R4-ES-2011-0074; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.

          We request that you send comments only by the methods described above. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see the Public Comments section below for more information).

            Public hearing: The public hearing will be held at the Clinton High School Auditorium, 115 Joe Bowling Road, Clinton, Arkansas 72031. People needing reasonable accommodations in order to attend and participate in the public hearing should contact Jim Boggs, Arkansas Ecological Services Field Office, at 501-513-4470 no later than 1 week before the hearing date (see DATES) to allow sufficient time to accommodate requests.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Mary Jennings, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Tennessee Ecological Services Field Office, 446 Neal Street, Cookeville, TN 38501; by telephone 931-525-4973; or by facsimile 931-528-7075. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Changes From the Proposed Rule
        We are making the following changes to the proposed rule of October 12, 2011 (76 FR 63360). A change in mapping methodology resulted in a revision to the total number of river kilometers (km) for the proposed designation of yellowcheek darter critical habitat. The beginning and ending points of critical habitat, as well as the unit descriptions (as described in the proposed critical habitat rule) will remain the same. The change in mapping results from an oversight in methods used for estimating the unit lengths in the other units proposed for designation as critical habitat. This methodology uses a better technique for following the curve and meander of the river channel and results in an additional 6.6 river kilometers (rkm) (4.1 river miles (rm)) for the yellowcheek darter. In addition, a revision to the ownership of one property resulted in a change of the total number of river kilometers (miles) in private ownership, from 148 rkm (92 rm) to 162.7 rkm (101.1 rm), as well as a corresponding downward revision to other ownership types.
        The following table shows the revised totals. The data in this table replaces the data provided in table 3 of the proposed rule at 76 FR 63385 (October 12, 2011).

            Unit
            Location
            Occupied
            Privateownership
              km (mi)

            State, county, city ownershipkm (mi)

            Total lengthkm (mi)

            1
            Middle Fork Little  Red River
            Yes
            73.2 (45.5)
            0
            73.2 (45.5)

            2
            South Fork Little Red River
            Yes
            33.3 (20.7)
            0.5 (0.3)
            33.8 (21.0)

            3
            Archey Fork Little Red River
            Yes
            28.2 (17.5)
            0.3 (0.2)
            28.5 (17.7)

            4
            Devil's Fork Little Red River
            Yes
            28.0 (17.4)
            0
            28.0 (17.4)

            Total

            162.7 (101.1)
            0.8 (0.5)
            163.5 (101.6)

        Public Comments

        We will accept written comments and information during this reopened comment period on our proposed designation of critical habitat for the Cumberland darter (Etheostoma susanae), rush darter (Etheostoma phytophilum), yellowcheek darter (Etheostoma moorei), chucky madtom (Noturus crypticus), and laurel dace (Chrosomus saylori) that was published in the Federal Register on October 12, 2011 (76 FR 63360), our draft economic analysis (DEA) of the proposed designation, and the amended required determinations provided in this document. Verbal testimony or written comments may also be presented during the public hearing. We will consider information and recommendations from all interested parties. We are particularly interested in comments concerning:

        (1) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as “critical habitat” under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), including whether there are threats to the species from human activity, the degree of which can be expected to increase due to the designation, and whether that increase in threat outweighs the benefit of designation such that the designation of critical habitat is not prudent.
        (2) Specific information on:
        (a) The amount and distribution of each species' habitat;
        (b) What areas occupied by the species at the time of listing that contain features essential for the conservation of the species we should include in the designation and why; and
        (c) What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential to the conservation of the species and why.
        (3) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.
        (4) Any foreseeable economic, national security, or other relevant impacts that may result from designating any area that may be included in the final designation. We are particularly interested in any impacts on small entities, and the benefits of including or excluding areas from the proposed designation that are subject to these impacts.
        (5) The projected and reasonably likely impacts of climate change on the critical habitat we are proposing.

        (6) Whether our approach to designating critical habitat could be improved or modified in any way to provide for greater public participation and understanding, or to assist us in accommodating public concerns and comments.
        (7) Information on the extent to which the description of economic impacts in the DEA is complete and accurate.
        (8) The likelihood of adverse social reactions to the designation of critical habitat, as discussed in the DEA, and how the consequences of such reactions, if likely to occur, would relate to the conservation and regulatory benefits of the proposed critical habitat designation.
        If you submitted comments or information on the proposed rule (76 FR 63360) during the initial comment period from October 12, 2011, to December 12, 2011, please do not resubmit them. We have incorporated them into the public record as part of the original comment period, and we will fully consider them in the preparation of our final determination. Our final determination concerning revised critical habitat will take into consideration all written comments and any additional information we receive during both comment periods, including public testimony from the public hearing mentioned above. On the basis of public comments, we may, during the development of our final determination, find that areas proposed are not essential, are appropriate for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, or are not appropriate for exclusion.

        You may submit your comments and materials concerning the proposed rule or DEA by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.
        If you submit a comment via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire comment—including any personal identifying information—will be posted on the Web site. We will post all hardcopy comments on http://www.regulations.gov as well. If you submit a hardcopy comment that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

        Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing the proposed rule and DEA, will be available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2011-0074, or by appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Tennessee Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
        Background

        It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to the designation of critical habitat for the Cumberland darter, rush darter, yellowcheek darter, chucky madtom, and laurel dace in this document. For more information on previous Federal actions concerning the five fishes, refer to the proposed designation of critical habitat published in the Federal Register on October 12, 2011 (76 FR 63360). For more information on the five fishes or their habitats, refer to the final listing rule published in the Federal Register on August 9, 2011 (FR 48722), which is available online at http://www.regulations.gov (at Docket Number FWS-R4-ES-2011-0027) or from the Tennessee Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
        Previous Federal Actions

        On October 12, 2011, we published a proposed rule to designate critical habitat for these five fishes (76 FR 63360). We proposed to designate approximately 85 river kilometers (rkm) (53 river miles (rmi)) of critical habitat for the Cumberland darter in McCreary and Whitley Counties, Kentucky, and Campbell and Scott Counties, Tennessee; 42 rkm (27 rmi) and 19 hectares (ha) (22 acres (ac)) of critical habitat for the rush darter in Etowah, Jefferson, and Winston Counties, Alabama; 157 rkm (98 rmi) of critical habitat for the yellowcheek darter in Cleburne, Searcy, Stone, and Van Buren Counties, Arkansas; 32 rkm (20 rmi) of critical habitat for the chucky madtom in Greene County, Tennessee; and 42 rkm (26 rmi) of critical habitat for the laurel dace in Bledsoe, Rhea, and Sequatchie Counties, Tennessee. That proposal had a 60-day comment period, ending December 12, 2011. We will submit for publication in the Federal Register a final critical habitat designation for these five fishes on or before October 12, 2012.
        Critical Habitat
        Section 3 of the Act defines critical habitat as the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species and that may require special management considerations or protection, and specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. If the proposed rule is made final, section 7 of the Act will prohibit destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat by any activity funded, authorized, or carried out by any Federal agency. Federal agencies proposing actions affecting critical habitat must consult with us on the effects of their proposed actions, under section 7(a)(2) of the Act.
        Consideration of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
        Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate or revise critical habitat based upon the best scientific data available, after taking into consideration the economic impact, impact on national security, or any other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. We may exclude an area from critical habitat if we determine that the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the benefits of including the area as critical habitat, provided such exclusion will not result in the extinction of the species.
        When considering the benefits of inclusion for an area, we consider the additional regulatory benefits that area would receive from the protection from adverse modification or destruction as a result of actions with a Federal nexus (activities conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies), the educational benefits of mapping areas containing essential features that aid in the recovery of the listed species, and any benefits that may result from designation due to State or Federal laws that may apply to critical habitat.
        When considering the benefits of exclusion, we consider, among other things, whether exclusion of a specific area is likely to result in conservation; the continuation, strengthening, or encouragement of partnerships; or implementation of a management plan. In the case of these five fishes, the benefits of critical habitat include public awareness of the presence of the fishes and the importance of habitat protection, and, where a Federal nexus exists, increased habitat protection for the five fishes due to protection from adverse modification or destruction of critical habitat. In practice, situations with a Federal nexus exist primarily on Federal lands or for projects undertaken by Federal agencies.

        We have not proposed to exclude any areas from critical habitat. However, the final decision on whether to exclude any areas will be based on the best scientific data available at the time of the final designation, including information obtained during the comment period and information about the economic impact of designation. Accordingly, our DEA concerning the proposed critical habitat designation is available for review and comment (see ADDRESSES).
        Draft Economic Analysis
        The purpose of the DEA is to identify and analyze the potential economic impacts associated with the proposed critical habitat designation for the Cumberland darter, rush darter, yellowcheek darter, chucky madtom, and laurel dace. The DEA separates conservation measures into two distinct categories according to “without critical habitat” and “with critical habitat” scenarios. The “without critical habitat” scenario represents the baseline for the analysis, considering protections otherwise afforded to the five fishes (e.g., under the Federal listing and other Federal, State, and local regulations). The “with critical habitat” scenario describes the incremental impacts specifically due to designation of critical habitat for these species. In other words, these incremental conservation measures and associated economic impacts would not occur but for the designation. Conservation measures implemented under the baseline (without critical habitat) scenario are described qualitatively within the DEA, but economic impacts associated with these measures are not quantified. Economic impacts are only quantified for conservation measures implemented specifically due to the designation of critical habitat (i.e., incremental impacts). For a further description of the methodology of the analysis, see Chapter 2, “Framework for the analysis,” of the DEA.
        The DEA provides estimated costs of the foreseeable potential economic impacts of the proposed critical habitat designation for the five fishes over the next 20 years, which was determined to be the appropriate period for analysis because limited planning information is available for most activities to forecast activity levels for projects beyond a 20-year timeframe. It identifies potential incremental costs as a result of the proposed critical habitat designation; these are those costs attributed to critical habitat over and above those baseline costs attributed to listing. The DEA quantifies economic impacts of the five fishes conservation efforts associated with the following categories of activity: (1) Coal mining; (2) oil and natural gas development; (3) agriculture, ranching, and silviculture; (4) recreational uses; (5) dredging, channelization, impoundments, dams, and diversions; (6) transportation; and (7) residential and commercial development.

        The DEA concluded that the types of conservation efforts requested by the Service during section 7 consultation regarding the five fishes were not expected to change due to critical habitat designations. The Service believes that results of consultation under the adverse modification and jeopardy standards are likely to be similar because (1) the primary constituent elements that define critical habitat are also essential for the survival of the five fishes, (2) the five fishes are limited or severely limited in the respective ranges, and (3) numbers of individuals in the surviving populations are small or very small. In addition, although two of the proposed critical habitat units for the Cumberland darter are unoccupied, incremental impacts of the critical habitat designations will be limited for the following reasons: (1) Both units are currently occupied by the federally threatened blackside dace, Chrosomus cumberlandensis; (2) both units are situated at least partially within the Daniel Boone National Forest, which is managed according to a land and resource management plan that includes specific measures to protect sensitive species; and (3) both units are located within the same hydrologic unit as other occupied critical habitat units.
        The DEA concludes that incremental impacts of critical habitat designation are limited to additional administrative costs of consultations and that indirect incremental impacts are unlikely to result from the designation of critical habitat for the five fishes. The present value of the total direct (administrative) incremental cost of critical habitat designation is $644,000 over the next 20 years assuming a seven percent discount rate, or $56,800 on an annualized basis. Water quality management activities are likely to be subject to the greatest incremental impacts at $273,000 over the next 20 years, followed by transportation at $161,000; coal mining at $79,000; oil and natural gas development at $73,700; agriculture, ranching, and silviculture at $36,100; dredging, channelization, impoundments, dams, and diversions at $10,700; and recreation at $10,000.
        As we stated earlier, we are soliciting data and comments from the public on the DEA, as well as all aspects of the proposed rule and our amended required determinations. We may revise the proposed rule or supporting documents to incorporate or address information we receive during the public comment period. In particular, we may exclude an area from critical habitat if we determine that the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the benefits of including the area, provided the exclusion will not result in the extinction of this species.
        Required Determinations—Amended

        In our October 12, 2011, proposed rule (76 FR 63360), we indicated that we would defer our determination of compliance with several statutes and executive orders until the information concerning potential economic impacts of the designation and potential effects on landowners and stakeholders became available in the DEA. We have now made use of the DEA data to make these determinations. In this document, we affirm the information in our proposed rule concerning Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), E.O. 12630 (Takings), E.O. 13132 (Federalism), E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), E.O. 13211 (Energy, Supply, Distribution, and Use), the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), and the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951). However, based on the DEA data, we are amending our required determination concerning the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
        Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
        Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effects of the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of the agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA amended the RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a certification statement of the factual basis for certifying that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Based on our DEA of the proposed designation, we provide our analysis for determining whether the proposed rule would result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Based on comments we receive, we may revise this determination as part of our final rule.
        According to the Small Business Administration, small entities include small organizations such as independent nonprofit organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than $11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this designation as well as types of project modifications that may result. In general, the term “significant economic impact” is meant to apply to a typical small business firm's business operations.
        To determine if the proposed designation of critical habitat for the five fishes would affect a substantial number of small entities, we considered the number of small entities affected within particular types of economic activities, such as coal mining; oil and natural gas development; dredging, channelization, impoundments, dams, and diversions; and transportation. In order to determine whether it is appropriate for our agency to certify that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, we considered each industry or category individually. In estimating the numbers of small entities potentially affected, we also considered whether their activities have any Federal involvement. Critical habitat designation will not affect activities that do not have any Federal involvement; designation of critical habitat only affects activities conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies. In areas where the five fishes are present, Federal agencies already are required to consult with us under section 7 of the Act on activities they fund, permit, or implement that may affect the species. If we finalize this proposed critical habitat designation, consultations to avoid the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat would be incorporated into the existing consultation process.
        In the DEA, we evaluated the potential economic effects on small entities resulting from implementation of conservation actions related to the proposed designation of critical habitat for the five fishes. We anticipate that ten small entities could be affected by coal mining in a single year at a cost of $875 each, representing less than three percent of annual revenues. Two small entities could be affected by oil and natural gas development within a single year at a cost of $875 each, representing less than three percent of annual revenues. One small entity could be affected by dredging, channelization, impoundments, dams, and diversions within a single year, at a cost of $2,630, representing less than one percent of annual revenues. One small entity could be affected by transportation within a single year, at a cost of $1,750, representing less than one percent of annual revenues. Please refer to the DEA of the proposed critical habitat designation for a more detailed discussion of potential economic impacts.
        In summary, we have considered whether the proposed designation would result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Information for this analysis was gathered from the Small Business Administration, stakeholders, and the Service. We have identified 14 small entities that may be impacted by the proposed critical habitat designation. For the above reasons and based on currently available information, we certify that, if promulgated, the proposed critical habitat designation would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small business entities. Therefore, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
        Authors

        The primary authors of this notice are the staff members of the Tennessee Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES section).
        Authority

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

          Dated: May 17, 2012.
          Rachel Jacobson,
          Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

      [FR Doc. 2012-12572 Filed 5-23-12; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        RIN 1018-AF67
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reopening of the Comment Period on the Proposed Rule To Remove the Northern Populations of the Tidewater Goby From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; Notice of reopening of comment period.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), provide notice of the reopening of the comment period for the proposed delisting of the northern populations of the tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi) from the list of endangered and threatened wildlife. The comment period has been reopened in response to new information regarding tidewater goby marine dispersal. This proposal would remove the northern populations of the Tidewater goby from protection under the Act.

          DATES:
          Comments from all interested parties must be received by March 31, 2000.

          ADDRESSES:
          Send written comments and other materials concerning this proposal to Ms. Diane Noda, Field Supervisor, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, 2493 Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, California 93003. You may inspect comments and materials received, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above address.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Carl Benz at the above address; telephone 805/644-1766; facsimile 805/644-3958.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        The tidewater goby was first described in 1857 by Girard as Gobius newberryi. Gill (1862) erected the genus Eucyclogobius for this distinctive species. The majority of scientists have accepted this classification (Bailey et al. 1970; Miller and Lea 1972; Hubbs et al. 1979; Robins et al. 1991; Eschmeyer et al. 1983). No other species have been described in this genus. A few older works and Ginsburg (1945) placed the tidewater goby and the eight related eastern Pacific species into the genus Lepidogobius. This classification includes the currently recognized genera Lepidogobius, Clevelandia, Ilypnus, Quietula, and Eucyclogobius. Birdsong et al. (1988) coined the informal Chasmichthys species group, recognizing the phyletic relationship of the eastern Pacific group with species in the northwestern Pacific.

        Crabtree's (1985) allozyme work on tidewater gobies from 12 localities throughout the range showed fixed allelic differences at the extreme northern (Lake Earl, Humboldt Bay) and southern (Canada de Agua Caliente, Winchester Canyon, and San Onofre Lagoon) ends of the range. The northern and southern populations are genetically distinct from each other and from the central populations sampled. The more centrally distributed populations are relatively similar to each other (Brush Creek, Estero Americano, Corcoran Lagoon, Arroyo de Corral, Morro Bay, Santa Ynez River, and Jalama Creek). Crabtree's results indicated that there is a low level of gene flow (movement of individuals) between the populations sampled in the northern, central, and southern parts of the range. However, Lafferty et al. (in prep.) point out that Crabtree's sites were widely distributed geographically, and may not be indicative of gene flow on more local levels.

        Recently, David Jacobs (University of California, Los Angeles, Department of Organismic Biology, Ecology and Evolution, in litt. 1998) initiated an analysis of mitochondrial genetic material from tidewater goby populations ranging from Humboldt to San Diego counties. Preliminary results indicate the southern goby population separated from other goby populations along the coast long ago. This southernmost population probably began diverging from the remainder of the gobies in excess of 100,000 years ago. Furthermore, gobies from the Point Conception area are more closely related to gobies from Humboldt County than they are to the gobies analyzed in San Diego and Orange counties.
        The tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi) is a small, elongate, grey-brown fish with dusky fins not exceeding 50 millimeters (mm) (2 inches (in.)) standard length (SL). The tidewater goby is a short-lived species, apparently having an annual life cycle (Irwin and Soltz 1984; Swift et al. 1997). At the time of the listing, the species was believed to have more stringent habitat requirements and to be less likely to disperse successfully than recent research indicates (see below). These factors, coupled with the short life span of the tidewater goby, were believed to make most tidewater goby populations vulnerable to extirpation by human activities. At the time of the listing, we believed that approximately 50 percent of the documented populations had been extirpated. However, in spite of the many factors affecting coastal wetlands, recent survey data have demonstrated a less than 25 percent permanent loss of the known tidewater goby populations (Ambrose et al. 1993; Swift et al. 1994; Lafferty et al. 1996; C. Chamberlain, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arcata, California, in litt. 1997; Lafferty 1997; Swift et al. 1997).

        The tidewater goby inhabits coastal brackish water habitats entirely within California. Within the range of the tidewater goby, these conditions occur in two relatively distinct situations: (1) The upper edge of tidal bays, such as Humboldt, Tomales, and San Francisco bays near the entrance of freshwater tributaries, and (2) the coastal lagoons formed at the mouths of small to large coastal rivers, streams, or seasonally wet canyons, along most of the length of California. Few well-authenticated records of this species are known from marine environments outside of enclosed coastal lagoons and estuaries (Swift et al. 1989). This may be due to the lack of collection efforts at appropriate times (i.e., following storm events or breachings when gobies are flushed from the estuaries and lagoons). Historically, the species ranged from Tillas Slough (mouth of the Smith River, Del Norte County) near the Oregon border south to Agua Hedionda Lagoon (northern San Diego County). The tidewater goby is often found in waters of relatively low salinities (around 10 parts per thousand (ppt)) in the uppermost brackish zone of larger estuaries and coastal lagoons. However, the fish can tolerate a wide range of salinities (Swift et al. 1989, 1997; Worcester 1992; K. R. Worcester, California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), in litt. 1996; Worcester and Lea 1996), and is frequently found throughout lagoons. Tidewater gobies regularly range upstream into fresh water, and downstream into water of up to 28 ppt salinity (Worcester 1992; Swenson 1995), although specimens have been collected at salinities as high as 42 ppt (Swift et al. 1989). The species' tolerance of high salinities (up to 60 ppt for varying time periods) likely enables it to withstand the marine environment, allowing it to colonize or reestablish in lagoons and estuaries following flood events (Swift et al. 1989; K. R. Worcester, in litt. 1996; Worcester and Lea 1996; Lafferty et al. in prep.)

        The life history of tidewater gobies is linked to the annual cycles of the coastal lagoons and estuaries (Swift et al. 1989, 1994; Swenson 1994, 1995). Water in estuaries, lagoons and bays is at its lowest salinity during the winter and spring as a result of precipitation and runoff. During this time, high runoffs cause the sandbars at the mouths of the lagoons to breach, allowing mixing of the relatively fresh estuarine and lagoon waters with seawater. This annual building and breaching of the sandbars is part of the normal dynamics of the systems in which the tidewater goby has evolved (Zedler 1982; Lafferty and Alstatt 1995; Heasly et al. 1997). The time of sandbar closure varies greatly between systems and years, and typically occurs from spring to late summer. Later in the year, occasional waves washing over the sandbars can introduce some sea water, but good mixing often keeps the lagoon water at a few parts per thousand salinity or less. Summer salinity in the lagoon depends upon the amount of freshwater inflow at the time of sandbar formation (Zedler 1982, Heasly et al. 1997).

        Males begin digging breeding burrows 75 to 100 mm (3 to 4 in.) deep, usually in relatively unconsolidated, clean, coarse sand averaging 0.5 mm (0.02 in.) in diameter, in April or May (Swift et al. 1989; Swenson 1994, 1995). Swenson (1995) has shown that tidewater gobies prefer this substrate in the laboratory, but also found tidewater gobies digging breeding burrows in mud in the wild (Swenson 1994). Inter-burrow distances range from about 5 to 275 centimeters (cm) (2 to 110 in.) (Swenson 1995). Females lay 100 to 1000 eggs per clutch, averaging 400 eggs/clutch, with clutch size depending on the size of both the female and the male. Females can lay more than one clutch of eggs over their lifespan, with captive females spawning 6 to 12 times (Swenson 1995). Wild females may spawn less frequently due to fluctuations in food supply and other environmental conditions, but the species clearly has a high reproductive potential, enabling populations to recover quickly under suitable conditions. Male gobies remain in the burrow to guard the eggs that are attached to sand grains in the walls of the burrow. Males also spawn more than once per season (Swenson 1995), and although they can have more than one clutch in their burrow, presumably from different females (Swift et al. 1989), Swenson (1995) found that males accepted only one female per brood period. Males frequently go for at least a few weeks without feeding, and this probably contributes to a mid-summer mortality often noted in populations (Swift et al. 1989; Swenson 1994, 1995). Reproduction peaks during spring to mid-summer, late April or May to July, and can continue into November or December depending on the seasonal temperature and rainfall. Reproduction sometimes increases slightly in the fall (Swift et al. 1989; Camm Swift, Department of Biology, Loyola Marymount University, pers. comm. 1995). Reproduction takes place when temperatures are between 15 to 20 degrees Celsius (60 to 65 degrees Fahrenheit) and at salinities of 0 to 25 ppt (Swift et al. 1989; Swenson 1994, 1995). Typically, winter rains and cold weather interrupt spawning, but in some warm years reproduction may occur all year (Goldberg 1977; Wang 1984). Goldberg (1977) showed by histological analysis that females have the potential to lay eggs all year in southern California, but this rarely has been documented. Length-frequency data from southern and central California (Swift et al. 1989; Swenson 1994, 1995) and analysis of otoliths from central California populations (Swift et al. 1997) indicate that tidewater gobies are an annual species and typically live 1 year or less.
        We published a proposed rule, with additional background information, to remove the northern populations of the tidewater goby from the list of endangered and threatened wildlife on June 24, 1999 (64 FR 33816). The original comment period closed on August 23, 1999. Significant new information regarding marine dispersal of tidewater gobies was brought to our attention late in the comment period, with additional information provided since the closing of that comment period. We require time to fully evaluate the information and to solicit further peer review of this proposal. We will solicit the opinions of appropriate and independent specialists regarding the data, assumptions, and supportive information presented for the proposed delisting of the tidewater goby per our Interagency Cooperative Policy for Peer Review in Endangered Species Act Activities (59 FR 34270).
        Public Comments Solicited
        It is our intent that any final action resulting from this proposal will be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we solicit comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested party concerning this proposed rule. Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home address from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which we would withhold from the rulemaking record a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety. All comments, including written and e-mail, must be received in our Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office by March 31, 2000. We particularly seek comments concerning:

          (1) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning any threat (or lack thereof) to this species;
          (2) Additional information concerning the range, distribution, and population size of this species; and
          (3) Current or planned activities in the range of this species and their possible impacts on this species.

        The final decision on this proposal to delist the northern population of the tidewater goby will take into consideration the comments and any additional information we receive, and such communications may lead to a final regulation that differs from this proposal.
        This rule does not include any collections of information that require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
        National Environmental Policy Act

        We have determined that an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement, as defined under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be prepared in connection with regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
        References Cited

        A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon request from the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).
        Authors: The primary authors of this proposed rule are Grace McLaughlin and Carl Benz, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office (805/644-1766).

            Authority:

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

          Elizabeth H. Stevens,
          Manager, California/Nevada Operations Office, Fish and Wildlife Service.

      [FR Doc. 00-3524 Filed 2-14-00; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-U


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 300
        [FRL-7238-3]
        National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency.

          ACTION:
          Notice of intent to delete the Hopkins Farm Superfund Site from the National Priorities List.

          SUMMARY:
          The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 2, is issuing a Notice of Intent to Delete the Hopkins Farm Superfund Site (Site), located in Plumsted Township, Ocean County, New Jersey, from the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comment on this Notice of Intent.

          The NPL is appendix B of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR part 300, which EPA promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. The EPA and the State of New Jersey, through the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, have determined that all responsible parties or other parties have implemented appropriate response actions and no further actions are required.
          In the “Rules and Regulations” Section of today's Federal Register, EPA is publishing a Direct Final Notice of Deletion of the Hopkins Farm Superfund Site without prior notice because EPA views this as a noncontroversial revision and anticipates no significant adverse comment. EPA has explained our reasons for this deletion in the preamble to the Direct Final Deletion. If EPA receives no significant adverse comment(s) on the Direct Final Notice of Deletion, EPA will not take further action on this Notice of Intent to Delete. If EPA receives significant adverse comment(s), EPA will withdraw the Direct Final Notice of Deletion and it will not take effect. EPA will, as appropriate, address all public comments. If, after evaluating public comments, EPA decides to proceed with deletion, EPA will do so in a subsequent Final Deletion Notice based on this Notice of Intent to Delete. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this Notice of Intent to Delete. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. For additional information, see the Direct Final Notice of Deletion which is located in the Rules section of this Federal Register.

          DATES:
          Comments concerning this Site must be received by July 29, 2002.

          ADDRESSES:
          Written comments should be addressed to: Trevor Anderson, Remedial Project Manager, Emergency and Remedial Response Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, 290 Broadway, 19th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Mr. Trevor Anderson at the address provided above, or by telephone at (212) 637-4425, by Fax at (212) 637-4429 or via e-mail at Anderson.Trevor@EPA.GOV.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        For additional information, see the Direct Final Notice of Deletion which is located in the Rules section of this Federal Register.

          Authority:
          33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp.; p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp.; p. 193.

          Dated: June 14, 2002.
          Jane M. Kenny,
          Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA, Region 2.

      [FR Doc. 02-16269 Filed 6-27-02; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P