        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
        30 CFR Part 924
        [MS-021-FOR]
        Mississippi Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Plan

          AGENCY:
          Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; public comment period and opportunity for public hearing.

          SUMMARY:
          We, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM), are announcing receipt of a proposed Mississippi abandoned mine land reclamation plan (Mississippi plan) under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the Act). The purpose of the Mississippi plan is to establish policies and procedures to be followed in conducting reclamation of abandoned coal mine lands in Mississippi. Mississippi will use Federal monies to carry out the reclamation activities. We are seeking public comments on the adequacy of the proposed Mississippi plan. This document gives the times and locations that the proposed plan is available for your inspection, the comment period during which you may submit written comments on the plan, and the procedures that will be followed for the public hearing, if one is requested.

          DATES:

          We will accept written comments on this proposed plan until August 23, 2007. If requested, we will hold a public hearing on the plan on August 20, 2007. We will accept requests to speak at a hearing until 4 p.m., c.t. on August 8, 2007.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by MS-021-FOR, by any of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. OSM is listed as Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • Mail/Hand Delivery: Sherry Wilson, Director, Birmingham Field Office, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 135 Gemini Circle, Suite 215, Homewood, Alabama 35209; Telephone: (205) 290-7282.

            Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the “Public Comment Procedures” heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

          For access to the record for this rulemaking to review copies of the Mississippi program, the proposed Mississippi plan, a listing of any scheduled public hearings, and all written comments received in response to this document, you may go to the address of our Birmingham Field Office listed above during normal business hours, Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. You may receive one free copy of the proposed Mississippi plan by contacting Sherry Wilson, Director, Birmingham Field Office, by E-mail or mail/in person at the addresses listed above or by telephone at (205) 290-7282. Copies of comments are also available at http://www.regulations.gov.
          In addition, you may review a copy of the proposed Mississippi plan during regular business hours at the following location: Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, Office of Geology, 2380 Highway 80 West, Jackson, Mississippi 39289-1307, Telephone: (601) 961-5500.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Sherry Wilson, Director, Birmingham Field Office. Telephone: (205) 290-7282. E-mail: swilson@osmre.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

          I. Background on the Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Program
          II. Description of the Proposed Mississippi Plan
          III. Public Comment Procedures
          IV. Procedural Determinations

        I. Background on the Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation (AML) Program

        The AML Program was established by Title IV of the Act (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.) in response to concerns over extensive environmental damage caused by past coal mining activities. The program is funded by a reclamation fee collected on each ton of coal that is produced. The money collected is used to finance the reclamation of abandoned coal mines and for other authorized activities. Section 405 of the Act allows States and Indian Tribes to assume exclusive responsibility for reclamation activity within the State or on Indian lands if they develop and submit to the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) for approval, a program (often referred to as a plan) for the reclamation of abandoned coal mines. If the Secretary determines that a State has developed and submitted a program for the reclamation of abandoned mine lands and has the ability and necessary State legislation to implement the provisions of Title IV, the Secretary may approve the State program and grant to the State exclusive authority to implement the provisions of the approved program. The Mississippi plan can be approved if:
        1. The public has been given adequate notice and opportunity to comment and the record does not reflect major unresolved controversies.
        2. The views of other Federal agencies have been solicited and considered.
        3. The State has the legal authority, policies, and administrative structure to carry out the plan.
        4. The plan meets all the requirements of our AML program provisions.
        5. The State has an approved regulatory program.
        6. The plan is in compliance with all applicable State and Federal laws and regulations.
        II. Description of the Proposed Mississippi Plan

        By letter dated June 11, 2007, (Administrative Record Number MS-0417-01 and MS-0417-02), Mississippi submitted a proposed AML plan under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). The purpose of this submission is to demonstrate the intent and capability of the State to assume responsibility for administering and conducting the provisions of SMCRA and our AML program (30 CFR Chapter VII, Subchapter R) as published in the Federal Register on October 25, 1978 (43 FR 49932-44952). The receipt of Mississippi's submission is the first step in the process which will result in the establishment of a comprehensive program for the reclamation of abandoned mine lands in Mississippi. By submitting a proposed plan, Mississippi has indicated that it wishes to be primarily responsible for this program. If the submission is approved, the State will have primary responsibility for the reclamation of abandoned mine lands in Mississippi. Below is a summary of the proposed Mississippi plan. The full text of the plan is available for your inspection at the locations listed above under ADDRESSES.
        The Mississippi plan submission includes the following:
        1. A designation of the State agency authorized to administer the plan.
        2. A legal opinion from the State's Attorney General of the designated Agency's authority to administer the plan.
        3. A description of the policies and procedures to be followed in conducting the plan including:
        (a) Goals and objectives.
        (b) Project ranking and selection procedures.
        (c) Coordination with other reclamation programs.
        (d) Land acquisition, management, and disposal.
        (e) Reclamation on private land.
        (f) Rights of entry.
        (g) Public participation in the plan.
        4. A description of the administrative and management structure to be used in the plan including:
        (a) A description of the organization of the designated agency and its relationship to other organizations that will participate in the plan.
        (b) A personnel staffing policy.
        (c) Purchasing and procurement systems and policies.
        (d) A description of the accounting system including specific procedures for operation of the reclamation fund.
        5. A general description of the activities to be conducted under the reclamation plan including:
        (a) Known or suspected eligible lands and water requiring reclamation, including a map.
        (b) General description of the problems identified and how the plan proposes to address them.
        (c) General description of how the lands will be reclaimed.
        6. General description of the conditions in the different geographic areas where reclamation is planned, including:
        (a) The economic base.
        (b) Significant esthetic, historic, or cultural, and recreational values.
        (c) Endangered and threatened plant, fish, and wildlife and their habitat.
        III. Public Comment Procedures

        We are requesting comments on whether the proposed plan satisfies the applicable State reclamation plan approval criteria of 30 CFR 884.14. If we approve the plan, Mississippi will have primary responsibility for the reclamation of abandoned mine lands in Mississippi.

        Written Comments

        Send your written or electronic comments to us at the addresses given above. Your written comments should be specific, pertain only to the issues proposed in this rulemaking, and include explanations in support of your recommendations. We will not consider or respond to your comments when developing the final rule if they are received after the close of the comment period (see DATES). We will make every attempt to log all comments into the record for this rulemaking, but comments delivered to an address other than the those listed above may not be logged in.
        Public Availability of Comments
        Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
        Public Hearing

        If you wish to speak at the public hearing, contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by 4 p.m., c. t. on August 8, 2007. If you are disabled and need special accommodations to attend a public hearing, contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will arrange the location and time of the hearing with those persons requesting the hearing. If no one requests an opportunity to speak, we will not hold a hearing.
        To assist the transcriber and ensure an accurate record, we request, if possible, that each person who speaks at the public hearing provide us with a written copy of his or her comments. The public hearing will continue on the specified date until everyone scheduled to speak has been given an opportunity to be heard. If you are in the audience and have not been scheduled to speak and wish to do so, you will be allowed to speak after those who have been scheduled. We will end the hearing after everyone scheduled to speak and others present in the audience who wish to speak, have been heard.
        Public Meeting

        If only one person requests an opportunity to speak, we may hold a public meeting rather than a public hearing. If you wish to meet with us to discuss the amendment, please request a meeting by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. All such meetings are open to the public and, if possible, we will post notices of meetings at the locations listed under ADDRESSES. We will make a written summary of each meeting a part of the administrative record.
        IV. Procedural Determinations
        Executive Order 12630—Takings
        This rule does not have takings implications. This determination is based on the analysis performed for the counterpart Federal regulation.
        Executive Order 12866—Regulatory Planning and Review
        This rule is exempted from review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866.
        Executive Order 12988—Civil Justice Reform
        The Department of the Interior has conducted the reviews required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 and has determined that this rule meets the applicable standards of subsections (a) and (b) of that section. However, these standards are not applicable to the actual language of State and Tribal abandoned mine land reclamation plans and plan amendments because each program is drafted and promulgated by a specific State or Tribe, not by OSM. Decisions on proposed abandoned mine land reclamation plans and plan amendments submitted by a State or Tribe are based solely on a determination of whether the submittal meets the requirements of Title IV of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1231-1243) and 30 CFR part 884 of the Federal regulations.
        Executive Order 13132—Federalism
        This rule does not have Federalism implications. SMCRA delineates the roles of the Federal and State governments with regard to the regulation of abandoned mine land reclamation programs. One of the purposes of SMCRA is to “establish a nationwide program to protect society and the environment from the adverse effects of surface coal mining operations.” Section 405(d) of SMCRA requires State abandoned mine land reclamation programs to be in compliance with the procedures, guidelines, and requirements established under SMCRA.
        Executive Order 13175—Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
        In accordance with Executive Order 13175, we have evaluated the potential effects of this rule on Federally-recognized Indian tribes and have determined that the rule does not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. This determination is based on the fact that the Mississippi plan does not provide for reclamation and restoration of land and water resources adversely affected by past coal mining on Indian lands. Therefore, the Mississippi plan has no effect on Federally-recognized Indian tribes.
        Executive Order 13211—Regulations That Significantly Affect the Supply, Distribution, or Use of Energy
        On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 which requires agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for a rule that is (1) Considered significant under Executive Order 12866, and (2) likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Because this rule is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866 and is not expected to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.
        National Environmental Policy Act
        This rule does not require an environmental impact statement because agency decisions on proposed State and Tribal abandoned mine land reclamation plans and plan amendments are categorically excluded from compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332) by the Manual of the Department of the Interior (516 DM 6, appendix 8, paragraph 8.4B(29)).
        Paperwork Reduction Act

        This rule does not contain information collection requirements that require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3507 et seq.).
        Regulatory Flexibility Act

        The Department of the Interior certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The State submittal, which is the subject of this rule, is based upon counterpart Federal regulations for which an economic analysis was prepared and certification made that such regulations would not have a significant economic effect upon a substantial number of small entities. In making the determination as to whether this rule would have a significant economic impact, the Department relied upon the data and assumptions for the counterpart Federal regulations.
        Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
        This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule: (a) Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million; (b) Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; and (c) Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. This determination is based upon the fact that the State submittal, which is the subject of this rule, is based upon counterpart Federal regulations for which an analysis was prepared and a determination made that the Federal regulation was not considered a major rule.
        Unfunded Mandates
        This rule will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of $100 million or more in any given year. This determination is based upon the fact that the State submittal, which is the subject of this rule, is based upon counterpart Federal regulations for which an analysis was prepared and a determination made that the Federal regulation did not impose an unfunded mandate.

          List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 924
          Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.

          Dated: July 13, 2007.
          Brent Wahlquist,
          Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement.

      [FR Doc. E7-14117 Filed 7-23-07; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-05-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 660
        [Docket No. 010710171-1171-01; I.D. 051401B]
        RIN 0648-AL41
        Fisheries off West Coast States and in the Western Pacific; Pelagic Fisheries; Prohibition on Fishing for Pelagic Management Unit Species; Nearshore Area Closures Around American Samoa by Vessels More Than 50 Feet in Length

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes a rule which would prohibit certain vessels from fishing for Pacific pelagic management unit species (PMUS) within nearshore areas approximately 50 nautical miles (nm) around the islands of American Samoa.  This prohibition would apply to vessels that measure more than 50 ft (15.2 m) in overall length and that did not land PMUS prior to November 13, 1997.  This action is being proposed and is intended to address concerns that the entry of vessels greater than 50 ft (15.2 m) in length into the pelagic fishery around American Samoa could lead to gear conflicts and catch competition with locally based small fishing vessels.  Such conflicts and competition could lead to reduced opportunities for sustained participation by residents of American Samoa in the small-scale pelagic fishery.

          DATES:
          Comments on this proposed rule will be accepted through September 14, 2001.

          ADDRESSES:
          Written comments on this proposed rule must be mailed to Dr. Charles Karnella, Administrator Pacific Islands Area Office (PIAO), NMFS, 1601 Kapiolani Blvd. Suite 1101, Honolulu, HI  96822 or sent via facsimile (fax) to 808-973-2941.  Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or the Internet.  Copies of the Council’s background document on the proposed action and accompanying environmental assessment/initial regulatory flexibility analysis (EA/IRFA) are available from Kitty Simonds, Executive Director, Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council (Council), 1164 Bishop St, Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI  96813.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Contact Alvin Katekaru, PIAO, 808-973-2937.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Fishery participants have expressed concerns that current regulations allow unrestricted fishing in the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ) around American Samoa by U.S. fishing vessels.  There are large differences in impacts on fishery resources between the American Samoa small-vessel fishing fleet and large fishing vessels (greater than 50 ft (15.2 m) in overall length) that would be prohibited from fishing for PMUS in the closed areas that would be established by the proposed rule.  Large pelagic longline fishing vessels have much greater fishing power, as they use two to three times the number of hooks, have longer longlines, have longer soak times (length of time that the longline is left in the water for fishing purposes), and possess greater hold capacity.  There are approximately 60 small vessels (less than 50 ft (15.2 m) in length) in American Samoa that use relatively simple troll and longline fishing gear to target PMUS.  The majority of pelagic troll fishing activity occurs within 20 nm of shore; the local small vessel longline fleet ranges out to about 50 nm.  Based on historical data, the majority of the fishing effort by the local small-vessel fleet takes place to the south and east of the main island of Tutuila.  Large pelagic longline, tuna purse seine, and albacore troll vessels, which comprise much of the domestic tuna fishing fleet, are highly mobile.  This mobility enables them to seek new fishing opportunities in the central and western Pacific waters as other domestic fisheries become increasingly restricted.  An influx of these large vessels into the nearshore waters surrounding American Samoa could lead to gear conflicts, catch competition, and reduced opportunities for sustained fishery participation by the locally based small boat operators.  Local fishermen and associated fishing communities depend on this fishery not only for food, income, and employment, but also for the preservation of the Samoan culture.
        The average annual catch of skipjack tuna by a U.S. tuna purse seiner operating in the central and western Pacific between 1990 and 1997 was 3,161 mt (6,970,231 lb,) and a typical 65-foot (19.8 m) Hawaii-based longliner, which sets 1,200 to 1,500 hooks per day, has an average annual catch of 113.4 mt (250,000 lb).  In comparison, a typical American Samoa small-scale longline vessel sets 200 to 500 hooks per day and catches an average of 15.9 mt (35,000 lb) of fish per year.  In addition to the potential for catch competition, physical gear conflicts between small vessels and large longliners are possible if the large vessels were to set 48.3 km (30 mi) of mainline (the Hawaii average) within 50 nm from the shore of American Samoa.
        In response to these concerns, at its June 2000 meeting, the Council recommended a change to the regulations implementing the Fishery Management Plan for Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region (Pelagic FMP).  Specifically, the Council recommended closing the area approximately 50 nm around American Samoa to large vessels fishing for PMUS.  A description of the proposed area closures was circulated to interested parties prior to the Council’s decision to make this recommendation.  The Council specifically requested that NMFS solicit comments on whether tuna purse seiners should be exempt from the proposed prohibitions and to consider exempting them in the final rule.
        Under this proposed rule, U.S. vessels more than 50 ft (15.2 m) in overall length, hereafter referred to as "large vessels", would be prohibited from fishing for PMUS within areas approximately 50 nm of the islands of American Samoa.  The boundaries of the proposed closed areas would be defined by latitude and longitude and would be delineated as straight lines drawn point to point, instead of 50-nm contours, to facilitate enforcement and to clearly demarcate the boundary for the public.  The current owner of a longline vessel that was used (i.e., used by any person, not necessarily the current owner) to make at least one landing of PMUS in American Samoa on or before November 13, 1997, would be exempt from the proposed prohibition.  Exemptions could be registered for use with other vessels owned by the same person; however, exemptions could not be applied to a replacement vessel that is larger than the vessel for which it was originally issued.  If more than one person (e.g., a partnership or corporation) owned a large vessel when it was registered for use with a general longline permit and made at least one landing of a PMUS prior to November 13, 1997, an exemption would be issued to only one person.
        At the Council’s November 2000 meeting, Council members representing American Samoa requested the Council to consider an additional exemption to the proposed area closures for U.S. tuna purse seine vessels.  The Council believes that such an exemption would likely have minimal direct impact on small fishing vessels or provide little benefit to the purse seiners because fishery data indicate that no more than ten tuna purse seine sets were made within American Samoa’s EEZ (and probably outside the proposed closed areas) during the past decade.  However, the exclusion of U.S. tuna purse seine vessels from the nearshore areas could set a negative precedent and encourage other Pacific island nations, in whose EEZs the U.S. tuna purse seine fleet currently fishes, to similarly constrain fishing opportunities for U.S. domestic tuna purse seine vessels.  NMFS specifically requests public comments on this issue.
        Classification
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        The Council prepared an IRFA that describes the impact this proposed rule would have on small entities, if adopted.  A summary of the IRFA follows:
        A description of the reasons why action by the agency is being considered and the objectives of the action are explained in the Summary and Supplemental Information sections of this preamble and are not repeated here.  This action does not contain reporting and recordkeeping requirements or any compliance requirements that would impact small entities.  It will not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules.  This action is taken under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and regulations at 50 CFR part 660.
        This rule would impact 73 vessels, including 61 small-scale vessels (less than 50 ft) and 12 large vessels (greater than 50 ft).  Both large and small longline vessels affected by this proposed rule are considered to be “small entities” under guidelines issued by the Small Business Administration because they are independently owned and operated, and have annual receipts not in excess of $3 million dollars.

        There may be positive long-term economic impacts to those vessels that are able to fish within 50 nm from shore.  These benefits would be based on the ability of small vessels to sustain the fishery, and to develop and utilize technology that would allow them to sell their catch in the fresh albacore market.  Fresh albacore can command premium prices (up to $4.75/lb) as compared to the cannery market ($1.06/lb) in which they now participate.  However, the ability to sell their catch to the fresh albacore market in American Samoa is not pivotal to the success of the small vessels, which is mainly driven by the canneries.  A more realistic price for fresh albacore landed in the U.S. mainland is $2.25/lb, and at that price, the cost of exporting their catch would likely not generate any greater profit than obtained from the cannery.
        According to limited data and anecdotal information, the large vessels comprising the longline fleet are currently fishing in the EEZ at a distance of greater than 50 nm from shore.  If this is indeed true, the proposed rule would have no economic impact on those vessels, since the requirement to fish outside 50 nm would not alter their fishing behavior.  In addition, if vessel captains and owners exhibit rational economic behavior under these conditions, then it would follow that it is more profitable for these vessels to continue fishing outside, as opposed to inside, the 50 nm line.  However, if the limited information is not accurate, there would be added costs to fishing further offshore, e.g., the cost of fuel and food, which may or may not affect vessel profitability.  This depends on the relative rates of increase in average revenues versus average costs of fishing further offshore.  NMFS staff have spoken to several large vessel fishermen, who attest to the fact that the added costs of fishing offshore beyond the 50 nm boundary are indeed offset by the higher catch rates.  Other benefits, including increased safety through elimination of gear conflicts, of establishing closed areas around American Samoa to exclude large pelagic fishing vessels are difficult to quantify, as interactions between pelagic fisheries are difficult to document or model due to limitations of available data, insufficient knowledge of the biology and population dynamics of the resource, and poor understanding of environmental influences.  As of June 2001, there were twelve large longliners based in American Samoa, two of which would be exempted from this rule.
        The Council, in its desire to mitigate potential adverse impacts from implementation of this framework action, moved to include those large vessels that were historical participants by proposing an exemption which would allow vessels that held permits in the fishery prior to the control date of November 13, 1997, to continue fishing within 50 nm off shore.
        The impact of the proposed action on the local tuna canneries in American Samoa is expected to be negligible as a result of excluding a few large longliners, currently based in the islands, from fishing within the closed areas.  These vessels would not qualify for exemptions from the area closure.  In 1998, the total amount of albacore tuna (636,000 lb or 288 mt), the target pelagic species landed by large U.S. longline vessels at the canneries, represented less than 1 percent of the total tuna delivered to the canneries.  Furthermore, most, if not all, of the albacore catches made by the large longliners were from areas beyond 50 nm from the shore of American Samoa.
        The Council rejected an alternative that would have closed waters within 100 nm around American Samoa because the Council determined that the potential negative economic impacts on large vessels would outweigh the possible benefits to the local small-vessel fishing fleet of approximately 30 active vessels fishing generally within 50 nm from shore.  The potential costs to large longline vessels prohibited from fishing in the closed areas under this alternative would consist of increased fuel costs and travel time to reach available fishing grounds.  On the other hand, the small local fishing vessels, even the newer, larger models, have a limited capacity for storing and chilling fish, which discourages fishing beyond 50 nm due to very low efficiency.
        The Council rejected a second alternative that would have closed waters within 50 nm of the islands of Tutuila and Manu’a, Rose Atoll, and within 30 nm of Swains Island because the Council determined that this approach would provide unequal and insufficient protection for small vessels that may choose to fish around Swains Island, as well as for those that may decide, in the future, to be home ported there.
        The Council also rejected a third alternative that would have excluded large U.S. pelagic fishing vessels from waters around American Samoa in which the Pelagic FMP already prohibits longline fishing by foreign vessels (an area approximately 20 nm around each island) because the Council determined that such small closed areas would provide insufficient protection for the local small-vessel fishing fleet.
        On March 29, 2001, NMFS concluded a formal consultation under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) with a biological opinion (BO) stating that the continued operation of the pelagic fisheries in the western Pacific region under the Pelagic FMP is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of green turtles, leatherback turtles, and loggerhead turtles.  Although the BO indicates that the non-Hawaii pelagic fisheries, such as those in American Samoa, probably have minimal levels of interaction with ESA listed species, they add to the jeopardy situation.  The BO includes reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid the likelihood of jeopardy, such as sea turtle handling and resuscitation techniques and regulations governing the non-Hawaii pelagic fisheries to reduce the likelihood of harmful impacts to sea turtles incidentally taken by longline, troll, and handline fishing gear employed by U.S. domestic fishing vessels.  Also, the BO requires NMFS (where feasible) to establish an observer program for the non-Hawaii pelagic fisheries.
        In an informal consultation for the proposed rule establishing American Samoa closed areas, NMFS will assess whether this proposed rule would be likely to adversely affect sea turtles in ways not contemplated by the March 29, 2001, BO.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660

        Administrative practice and procedure, American Samoa,  Fisheries, Fishing, Guam, Hawaiian Natives, Indians, Northern Mariana Islands, and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated: July 24, 2001.
          William T. Hogarth,
          Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

          For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 660 is proposed to be amended as follows:

            PART 660—FISHERIES OFF WEST COAST STATES AND IN THE WESTERN PACIFIC

          1.  The authority citation for part 660 continues to read as follows:

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

          2.  Section 660.12 is amended by adding the definition of “Large vessel” and revising the definition of “Length overall (LOA) or length of a vessel” as follows:

            § 660.12
            Definitions.

            Large vessel means, as used in §§ 660.22, 660.37, and 660.38, any vessel greater than 50 ft (15.2 m) in overall length.

            Length overall (LOA) or length of a vessel means, as used in §§ 660.21(i) and 660.22, the horizontal distance, rounded to the nearest foot (with any 0.5 foot or 0.15 meter fraction rounded upward), between the foremost part of the stem and the aftermost part of the stern, excluding bowsprits, rudders, outboard motor brackets, and similar fittings or attachments (see Figure 2 to this part).  “Stem” is the foremost part of the vessel, consisting of a section of timber or fiberglass, or cast forged or rolled metal, to which the sides of the vessel are united at the fore end, with the lower end united to the keel, and with the bowsprit, if one is present, resting on the upper end.  “Stern” is the aftermost part of the vessel.

          3.  In § 660.22, paragraph (uu) is added to read as follows:

            § 660.22
            Prohibitions.

          (uu)  Use a large vessel to fish for Pacific pelagic management unit species within an American Samoa large vessel prohibited area except as allowed pursuant to an exemption issued under § 660.38.

          4.  A new § 660.37, under subpart C, is added to read as follows:

            § 660.37
            American Samoa pelagic fishery area management.

          (a) Large vessel prohibited areas.  A large vessel of the United States may not be used to fish for Pacific pelagic management unit species in the American Samoa large vessel prohibited areas as defined in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, except as allowed pursuant to an exemption issued under § 660.38.
          (b) Tutuila Island, Manu’a Islands, and Rose Atoll.  The large vessel prohibited area around Tutuila Island, the Manu’a Islands, and Rose Atoll consists of the waters of the EEZ around American Samoa bounded by straight lines connecting the following coordinates in the order listed:

              Point
              S. lat.
              W. long.

              A
              13° 30′
              170° 49′ 42″

              B
              13° 30′
              167° 30′

              C
              15° 30′
              167° 30′

              D
              15° 30′
              171° 51′

          and of the EEZ boundary connecting points D and A.
          (c) Swains Island. The large vessel prohibited area around Swains Island consists of the waters of the EEZ around American Samoa bounded by straight lines connecting the following coordinates in the order listed:

              Point
              S. lat.
              W. long.

              A
              10° 38′
              170° 40′

              B
              11° 28′
              170° 40′

              C
              11° 28′
              171° 30′

              D
              10° 38′
              171° 30′

          and of the EEZ boundary connecting points D and A.

          4. A new § 660.38, under subpart C, is added to read as follows:

            § 660.38
            Exemptions for American Samoa large vessel prohibited areas.

          (a)  An exemption will be issued to a person who currently owns a large vessel, to use that vessel to fish for Pacific pelagic management unit species in the American Samoa large vessel prohibited management areas, if he or she had been the owner of that vessel when it was registered for use with a longline general permit and made at least one landing of Pacific pelagic management unit species in American Samoa on or prior to November 13, 1997.
          (b)  A landing of Pacific pelagic management unit species for the purpose of this section must have been properly recorded on a NMFS Western Pacific Federal daily longline form that was submitted to NMFS, as required in § 660.14.
          (c)  An exemption is valid only for a vessel that was registered for use with a longline general permit and landed Pacific pelagic management unit species in American Samoa on or prior to November 13, 1997, or for a replacement vessel of equal or smaller LOA than the vessel that was initially registered for use with a longline general permit on or prior to November 13, 1997.
          (d)  An exemption is valid only for the vessel for which it is registered.  An exemption not registered for use with a particular vessel may not be used.
          (e)  An exemption may not be transferred to another person.
          (f)  If more than one person, e.g., a partnership or corporation, owned a large vessel when it was registered for use with a longline general permit and made at least one landing of Pacific pelagic management unit species in American Samoa on or prior to November 13, 1997, an exemption issued under this section will be issued to only one person.

          5. Figure 2 to part 660 is revised to read as follows:
          Figure 2 to Part 660 Subpart C - Length of Fishing Vessel
          BILLING CODE  3510-22-S

            EP31JY01.000

      [FR Doc. 01-19061 Filed 7-30-01; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE  3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 622
        [I.D. 071802B]
        Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA) Requirements for Species in the U.S. Caribbean; Comprehensive Amendment Addressing SFA Definitions in Fishery Management Plans of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands; Scoping Meetings

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of scoping meetings; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          The Council will convene scoping meetings to solicit additional public comments on the scope of issues to be addressed in a draft supplemental environmental impact statement (DSEIS) that will assess the impacts on the natural and human environment of the various managed fisheries related to the management measures proposed under the draft Comprehensive Amendment Addressing SFA Definitions and Other Required Provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act in the Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands (Comprehensive SFA Amendment).  The purpose of this document is to solicit additional public comments on the scope of the issues to be addressed in the DSEIS, which will be submitted to NMFS for filing with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for publication of a Notice of Availability for public comment.

          DATES:

          The scoping meetings will be held on August 6 and 7, 2002.  See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for specific dates and times for the scoping meetings.

          ADDRESSES:
          Scoping meetings will be held in Miami, FL.  See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for specific meeting locations.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Graciela Garcia-Moliner; phone: 787-766-5926; e-mail: Graciela.Garcia-Moliner@noaa.gov or Michael C. Barnette; phone:  727-570-5305; fax:  727-570-5583; e-mail: Michael.Barnette@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The Council is preparing to amend the FMPs for Corals and Reef Associated Plants and Invertebrates, Queen Conch, Reef Fish Fishery, and Spiny Lobster to: (1) address the consistency with new definitions; (2) address bycatch management measures and bycatch reporting requirements; (3) provide descriptions of the commercial, recreational, and charter fisheries and quantify trends in landings and data specified for each sector; (4) address fishery impact statements to insure they incorporate the likely effects of management measures on fishing communities; and (5) address overfishing provisions specifying objective and measurable criteria for identifying whether a species is overfished, and provide subsequent measures to rebuild overfished stocks.

        The DSEIS will describe the proposed management measures in the Comprehensive SFA Amendment and will assess the environmental impacts of these proposed and alternative measures.  To ensure compliance with the requirements of the SFA in the various FMPs, the Council intends to evaluate numerous management measures such as permits; commercial reporting requirements, including species-specific and bycatch reporting; limited entry; time/area closures, including closures for spawning aggregations and habitat protection; size limits; trip limits; gear restrictions; and recreational possession limits.  The Council originally published a notice of intent (NOI) to prepare a DSEIS, requested written comments, and notified the public of scoping meetings in the Federal Register on May 31, 2002 (67 FR 38060).

        Once the Council completes the DSEIS, it will submit it to NMFS for filing with the EPA.  The EPA will publish a notice of availability of the DSEIS for public comment in the Federal Register.  The DSEIS will have a 45-day comment period.  This procedure is pursuant to regulations issued by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 40 CFR parts 1500-1508) and to NOAA's Administrative Order 216-6 regarding NOAA's compliance with NEPA and the CEQ regulations. The Council will consider public comments received on the DSEIS before adopting final management measures for the Comprehensive SFA Amendment.  The Council intends to prepare a final supplemental environmental impact statement (FSEIS) in support of the final Comprehensive SFA Amendment.  The Council would then submit the final Comprehensive SFA Amendment and supporting FSEIS to NMFS for Secretary of Commerce (Secretarial) review, approval, and implementation under the Magnuson-Stevens Act.  NMFS will announce availability of the Comprehensive SFA Amendment for public review during the Secretarial review period through a notification published in the Federal Register.  During Secretarial review, NMFS will also file the FSEIS with the EPA for a final 30-day public comment period.  This comment period will be concurrent with the Secretarial review period and will end prior to final agency action to approve, disapprove, or partially approve the Comprehensive SFA Amendment.  All public comment periods on the Comprehensive SFA Amendment, its proposed implementing regulations, and its associated FSEIS will be announced through a notice published in the Federal Register.  NMFS will consider all public comments received during the 60-day Secretarial review period, whether they are on the Comprehensive SFA Amendment, the FSEIS, or the proposed regulations, prior to final agency action.
        The scoping meetings will be held from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. at the following location and dates:
        1. August 6, 2002: National Marine Fisheries Service Southeast Fisheries Science Center, 75 Virginia Beach Drive, Miami , FL, telephone: 305-361-4285; and
        2. August 7, 2002: National Marine Fisheries Service Southeast Fisheries Science Center, 75 Virginia Beach Drive, Miami , FL, telephone: 305-361-4285
        Special Accommodations

        These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities.  Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Graciela Garcia-Moliner at the Council (see
          ADDRESSES).

          Dated: July 24, 2002.
          John H. Dunnigan,
          Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 02-19232 Filed 7-29-02; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE  3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        Surface Transportation Board
        49 CFR Parts 1247 and 1248
        [Docket No. EP 431 (Sub-No. 4)]
        Review of the General Purpose Costing System

          AGENCY:
          Surface Transportation Board.

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          Through this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Surface Transportation Board (Board) is proposing certain changes to its general purpose costing system, the Uniform Railroad Costing System (URCS). Specifically, the Board is proposing to adjust how URCS calculates certain system-average unit costs in Phase II, thereby obviating the need for URCS to apply a separate make-whole adjustment in Phase III. The Board is also proposing other related changes to URCS that would result in more accurate movement costs, as well as changes to two of its reporting requirements.

          DATES:
          Comments are due by March 21, 2013; replies are due by April 22, 2013.

          ADDRESSES:

          Comments may be submitted either via the Board's e-filing format or in the traditional paper format. Any person using e-filing should attach a document and otherwise comply with the instructions at the “E-Filing” link on the Board's Web site, at http://www.stb.dot.gov. Any person submitting a filing in the traditional paper format should send an original and 10 copies to: Surface Transportation Board, Attn: Docket No. EP 431 (Sub-No. 4), 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          The Board's Office of Public Assistance, Governmental Affairs, and Compliance at (202) 245-0238. Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at (800) 877-8339.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        In 1989, the Board's predecessor, the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), adopted URCS as its general purpose costing system. Adoption of the Unif. R.R. Costing Sys. as a Gen. Purpose Costing Sys. for All Regulatory Costing Purposes, 5 I.C.C.2d 894 (1989). The Board uses URCS for a variety of regulatory functions. URCS is used to make the jurisdictional determination in railroad maximum rate reasonableness proceedings, as well as the revenue allocation methodology and rate prescription methodology. URCS is also used to develop variable costs for making cost determinations in abandonment proceedings; to provide the railroad industry and shippers with a standardized costing model; to cost the Board's Car Load Waybill Sample to develop industry cost information; and to provide interested parties with basic cost information. URCS develops a regulatory cost estimate that can be applied to a service that occurs anywhere on a rail carrier's system.
        URCS develops these cost estimates through three distinct phases. In Phase I, which was completed one time when URCS was originally developed, regression analyses were performed using the annual reports submitted by Class I rail carriers (R-1 reports) at the time and equations linking expense account groupings with particular measures of railroad activities were estimated. In Phase II, which is performed annually, URCS takes the aggregated cost data provided by Class I carriers in their most recent R-1 reports and disaggregates them by calculating the system-average unit costs associated with specific rail activites. In Phase III, URCS takes the unit costs from Phase II and applies them to the characteristics of a particular movement in order to calculate the system-average variable and total costs of that movement.
        The ICC and now the Board have made modest adjustments to URCS over the years.1
           In August 2009, the Senate Committee on Appropriations directed the Board to submit a report providing options for updating URCS. In the report submitted by the Board in May 2010, the Board identified the “make-whole adjustment” as one area that warranted further review.2
           This rulemaking is intended to address concerns with the make-whole adjustment in URCS.

            1 See, e.g., Review of the Surface Transp. Bd.'s Gen. Costing Sys., EP 431 (Sub-No. 3) (STB served Apr. 6, 2009); Review of Gen. Purpose Costing Sys., EP 431 (Sub-No. 2) (STB served Dec. 5, 1997); Review of Gen. Purpose Costing Sys., EP 431 (Sub-No. 2) (STB served Oct. 1, 1997); Review of Gen. Purpose Costing Sys., EP 431 (Sub-No. 2) (ICC served July 21, 1993).

            2 Surface Transp. Bd., Surface Transportation Board Report to Congress Regarding the Uniform Rail Costing System, 14, 18-19 (May 27, 2010).

        The make-whole adjustment is applied by URCS to correct the fact that, when disaggregating data and calculating system-average unit costs in Phase II, URCS currently does not take into account the economies of scale realized from larger shipment sizes. The purpose of the make-whole adjustment, which is calculated and applied in Phase III, is to recognize the efficiency savings that a carrier obtains in its higher-volume shipments and thus render more accurate unit costs.
        URCS applies the make-whole adjustment through a three-step process. First, URCS assumes that a movement's costs are equal to that of a system-average movement. Next, URCS applies “efficiency adjustments” to higher-volume movements (multi-car and trainload), thereby reducing the system-average unit costs of such movements.3
           Last, URCS redistributes the total savings obtained in all of the higher-volume shipments (the “shortfall”) across all of the lower-volume shipments (single-car and multi-car), such that the sum of variable costs across all of the carrier's movements remains the same. Currently, single-car shipments are defined as 1 to 5 cars, multi-car shipments are defined as 6 to 49 cars, and trainload shipments are defined as 50 or more cars.4

            3 There are 14 efficiency adjustments for multi-car and trainload movements, any number of which may apply to a particular movement.

            4 Single-car, multi-car, and trainload are the three basic categories for how shipments are treated under the make-whole adjustment. Because of its handling of the Empty/Loaded Ratio, however, URCS currently treats all trainload movements as dedicated unit train movements—that is, it assumes that every trainload movement travels from origination to destination and back to origination. Additionally, URCS treats intermodal traffic as a type of hybrid category. Prior to 1997, URCS treated intermodal traffic as single-car movements. In 1997, the Board concluded that more accurate costs would be obtained by applying to intermodal traffic many of the efficiency adjustments applicable to trainload movements. Review of Gen. Purpose Costing Sys., EP 431 (Sub-No. 2), slip op. at 4-5 (STB served Oct. 1, 1997).

        There are two primary concerns with how the make-whole adjustment is currently applied by URCS. The first concern involves the step function that results from the application of efficiency adjustments, which generally reduce the system-average unit costs by various set percentages depending on whether the movement is classified as trainload, multi-car, or single-car. For example, the system-average unit cost for a multi-car movement is the same whether it is a 6-car or 49-car shipment. The same is true for the unit cost for a trainload movement, whether it be a 50-car or 85-car shipment. At the same time, however, the system-average unit cost for a 49-car multi-car shipment is noticeably higher than a 50-car trainload shipment. In other words, “break points” exist between single-car and multi-car shipments, and between multi-car and trainload shipments. Our concern with respect to the efficiency adjustments is that there is a relatively large difference between the unit costs of a movement on one side of a break point compared to the unit costs just on the other side of a break point.
        The second concern is with how the make-whole adjustment redistributes the shortfall across single-car and multi-car movements. Currently, the shortfall is distributed across lower volume movements on a per-car basis. For example, under the per-car method for switching related costs, costs are increased in proportion to the number of cars switched (i.e., a two-car movement is costed as twice as expensive to switch as a one-car movement, a three-car movement is three times as expensive to switch as a one-car movement, etc.). Yet the actual switching costs for two cars as opposed to one car are not likely to be twice as expensive because the time, equipment, and personnel involved do not double. By not decreasing the per-car costs as shipment size increases, the redistribution of savings does not adequately account for economies of scale. Additionally, the redistribution of savings creates a second step function because the add-ons increase costs per-car across single-car and multi-car shipments, but do not apply to trainload shipments. For example, under the current system, the costs are increased in proportion to the number of cars. If the shortfall redistribution for a one-car shipment is $1,000, then the shortfall redistribution for a 49-car shipment is $49,000. But because the add-ons do not apply to trainload shipments, there is no redistribution of costs to a 50-car shipment. This causes the costs of a 49-car shipment to be higher than a 50-car shipment, thus creating a step function. This second step function, in which there is a relatively large difference between the variable costs of a 49-car movement and a 50-car movement, is caused by the current per-car method of redistributing the shortfall.
        Proposed Changes
        Rather than attempting to refine the make-whole adjustment as it is currently applied, we believe that the best course of action is to more accurately calculate the system-average unit costs in Phase II. If the unit costs calculated in Phase II were to more accurately account for operating costs and economies of scale as shipment size increases, then it would no longer be necessary to apply a separate make-whole adjustment in Phase III. In other words, we propose to change how certain system-average unit costs are calculated in Phase II to better reflect railroad operations and to automatically reflect economies of scale as shipment size increases. This solution would thus obviate our concerns about the step functions, properly account for economies of scale, and ultimately render more accurate system-average unit costs.
        With this goal in mind, we evaluated the three categories of costs for which efficiency adjustments are made to determine what changes would be needed in order to adjust the calculation of system-average unit costs in Phase II. These categories are: (1) Switching costs related to switch engine minutes; (2) equipment costs for the use of railroad-owned cars during switching; and (3) station clerical costs. After addressing each category below, we will then address several other proposed changes to further improve URCS.

          Switching Costs Related to Switch Engine Minutes. This rulemaking proposes to adjust how URCS calculates the operating costs for switching cars, regardless of car ownership. These costs are referred to as “switch engine minute” (SEM) costs. Currently, in Phase II, URCS calculates SEM costs on a per-car basis, which we do not believe reflects actual railroad operations or economies of scale as shipment size increases. Instead, this rulemaking proposes to calculate SEM unit costs in Phase II on a per-shipment basis for all five types of switching accounted for by URCS, namely: (1) Industry switching; (2) inter-train & intra-train (I&I) switching; (3) interchange switching; (4) intraterminal switching; and (5) interterminal switching.5

            5 Industry switching is switching that occurs at origin or destination points. I&I switching is switching that occurs at intermediate yards on a rail carrier's own lines, as opposed to interchange switching, which occurs between different carriers. Intraterminal switching is the switching of cars within a rail terminal, and interterminal switching is the switching of cars between rail terminals.

        Operationally, a shipment of rail cars is generally connected into a contiguous block of cars prior to loading, and is handled as a contiguous block from origin to destination. As such, the costs to switch a shipment of a four-car block should be the same as the costs to switch a shipment of an eight-car block. For this reason, the costs for each type of SEM switching are better accounted for on a per-shipment basis rather than a per-car basis. This change would not only better reflect actual operating costs, but the per-car cost of switching would drop as shipment size increases, thus properly reflecting economies of scale. As a result, URCS would no longer need to make a separate make-whole adjustment because the operating efficiencies of larger shipments would already be reflected in the unit costs.

        In order to calculate SEM unit costs on a per-shipment basis, we also propose adjusting our reporting requirements accordingly. In order to calculate the SEM unit costs on a per-shipment basis, we propose to adjust the reporting requirements of both the Annual Report of Cars Loaded and Cars Terminated (Form STB-54) and the Quarterly Report of Freight Commodity Statistics (Form QCS). Specifically, in addition to the information currently required by both forms, the Form STB-54 would require information on shipments loaded and terminated, while the Form QCS would require information on number of shipments.6

           For the purposes of both forms, a “shipment” would be defined as a block of one or more cars moving under the same waybill from origin to destination. See, e.g., App. A (proposed § 1248.2(a)(3)); App. B (Form STB-54 Instructions). These new requirements should not pose a significant burden on the Class I rail carriers because it is likely that they are already tracking this information. The proposed rules governing the Form STB-54 and the Form QCS are set forth in Appendix A.7
           Additionally, the proposed changes to the Form STB-54 and Form QCS are set out in Appendix B and C, respectively.

            6 Because we are proposing to add information regarding number of shipments, we are also proposing to change the title of Form STB-54 to Annual Report of Cars and Shipments Originated and Terminated.

            7 Because this rulemaking proposes changes to the Form QCS, we are taking this opportunity to propose a new instruction for the Form QCS related to Rule 11 movements, as the current instructions are silent on these types of movements. The proposed instruction, which would be located at 49 CFR 1248.4(o), is also set forth in Appendix A.

          Additionally, we are making certain other modifications to update and clarify the existing regulations in 49 CFR parts 1247 and 1248 (subpart A), which govern the Form STB-54 and Form QCS, respectively. Consistent with the goals announced in Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, EP 712, which seeks to ensure that existing regulations are current and effective, we seek comment on whether the Board could improve or update other language in parts 1247 and 1248 (subpart A). We do not, however, plan to address the car types listed in the Form STB-54 in this rulemaking. Any updates to the car types would be addressed in a separate rulemaking examining car types across all of our reporting requirements.

          Equipment Costs for the Use of Railroad-Owned Cars During Switching. Another category of system-average unit costs associated with switching pertains to the equipment costs for the use of railroad-owned cars. Currently, URCS calculates the costs for use of railroad-owned cars on a per-car basis in Phase II, and then applies the make-whole adjustment in Phase III to account for efficiencies in multi-car and unit-train movements. We believe that these costs, which are distance- and time-related,8
           are properly accounted for by URCS on a per-car basis. In other words, unlike SEM switching costs, we believe a two-car shipment will incur twice the car-miles and car-days as a one-car shipment. Therefore, we propose to continue calculating equipment costs for the use of railroad-owned cars during switching on a per-car basis, which in turn requires the continued reporting of number of cars that are interchanged.

            8 In other words, the costs for using a railroad-owned car are based both on the distance it travels and the time it is being used during the switching process. For example, if a railroad-owned car travels two miles during an interchange switch, but is held at the interchange for three days, the costs for use of that car will be based both on the two-miles it traveled and the three-days it was held.

        Although we propose to continue calculating these costs on a per-car basis in Phase II, this proposal nonetheless would affect a change in how these costs are applied in Phase III. Under our new proposal, which eliminates a separate make-whole adjustment in Phase III, the costs for the use of railroad-owned cars would not receive a subsequent adjustment because it does not appear that there are efficiencies associated with these costs.

          Station Clerical Costs. This rulemaking also proposes to adjust how URCS calculates station clerical costs, which are the administrative costs associated with a shipment. Currently, in Phase II, URCS calculates station clerical costs on a per-car basis, which we are concerned does not properly reflect actual railroad operations or economies of scale. We believe that, operationally, there is little difference in the administrative costs between shipments of different sizes. As such, we propose to also calculate station clerical costs in Phase II on a per-shipment basis. To implement this change, we would rely on the proposed changes to the Form QCS and the Form STB-54 described above, wherein Class I railroads would be required to report on the number of shipments.

          Other Changes. In addition to the above changes to how URCS calculates system-average unit costs in Phase II, we also propose additional changes that would further our effort to more accurately calculate costs under URCS.

          Car-Mile Costs. In order to calculate car-mile costs, URCS currently uses what is referred to as the Empty/Loaded Ratio (E/L Ratio) to adjust the number of miles in a particular movement. The E/L Ratio is used when costing all movements because, although there are costs associated with both empty miles and loaded miles, URCS only requires a user to input loaded miles to cost a movement. Thus, to account for the costs of a carrier's total miles, URCS multiplies loaded miles by the E/L Ratio. The E/L Ratio, which can be described as total miles divided by loaded miles, is a figure computed by URCS based on data supplied by the Class I carriers.
        Currently, in Phase III, URCS uses the E/L Ratio for single-car and multi-car movements. For trainload movements, however, URCS replaces the E/L Ratio with the figure 2.0, which is meant to assume that a loaded car will return to its origination location, such that empty miles are equal to loaded miles. In other words, URCS treats all trainload movements as dedicated unit trains. Currently, if a rail carrier's E/L Ratio is less than 2.0 (i.e., there are fewer empty miles and thus more efficiencies), URCS will disregard that more efficient E/L ratio and apply the less efficient value of 2.0.9

            9 A trainload movement's E/L ratio might be greater or less than 2.0 for a variety of reasons, including whether the shipment at issue is moved in railroad-owned cars or privately-owned cars. In the case of the former, where the rail carrier typically controls the movement of its cars across its network, a shipment may travel from point A (loading origin) to point B (unloading destination) to point C (next loading origin). If point C is closer to point B than point A, then the E/L Ratio would be less than 2.0. If, however, point C is farther from point B than point A, then the E/L Ratio would be greater than 2.0. This is in contrast to, for example, the latter case involving a unit train of privately-owned cars that cycles between point A and point B, such that the movement's E/L Ratio would be equal to 2.0.

        We believe that the E/L Ratio computed from data supplied by the carriers is the best reflection of a railroad's actual operations and that it should not be replaced by the figure 2.0 in the case of a trainload movement. Therefore, we propose to adjust URCS so that it would apply the E/L Ratio to all types of movements. With this change, URCS would no longer treat all trainload movements as unit trains, but would instead reflect unit train service only to the extent that such service is indicated by the E/L Ratio.

          I&I Switching Mileage. Currently, URCS assumes that single-car and multi-car shipments receive I&I switching every 200 miles. A number of years ago, the Board noted that this figure appeared to be outdated. Review of Gen. Purpose Costing Sys., EP 431 (Sub-No. 2), slip op. at 5 n.18 (STB served Oct. 1, 1997). We now propose to update this figure to reflect the fact that, since the mergers of the 1990s, the average length of haul on individual railroads has increased. Based on a comparison of the average length of haul for the Class I railroads in 1990 (pre-mergers) and 2011 (post-mergers), we observed a 60% increase in the overall length of haul. We therefore propose to increase the distance between I&I switches by 60%, from 200 miles to 320 miles. We acknowledge that the actual average distance between I&I switches may be greater than 320 miles, and we encourage interested parties to submit data and comments on whether 60% is an appropriate increase, or whether the Board should consider an alternative distance between I&I switches that more accurately reflects railroad operations.

          Definition of Trainload. Under this proposal to eliminate a separate make-whole adjustment in Phase III, URCS would no longer make percentage reductions in Phase III based on the number of cars per movement. As such, the distinction between single-car and multi-car would become largely irrelevant. The definition of trainload would, however, continue to play a role, despite the fact that the E/L Ratio would no longer be adjusted exclusively for trainload movements under our proposal, because URCS assumes that trainload movements receive no I&I switching. In other words, when distinguishing movements based on the number of cars per movement, the operative distinctions under our proposal would be “trainload” and “non-trainload.” It is, therefore, appropriate to consider the proper definition of trainload.
        A trainload shipment is currently defined as a shipment consisting of 50 or more cars. Also inherent in the definition of trainload is the fact that a trainload shipment constitutes the only shipment on the particular train on which it moves. We propose to increase the number of cars in a trainload movement to account for the fact that train lengths have increased over the years due to a variety of factors, including higher horsepower engines and advances in distributive power. By way of example, today it is not unusual for a carrier to move 100 cars or more in one train, which is double the figure at which trainload is currently defined. If the railroads can routinely move two 50-car shipments on one train, then the current definition of trainload is likely inadequate, as a trainload movement is supposed to constitute the only shipment on the train.
        Therefore, we propose to define trainload as consisting of 80 cars or more. The 80-car figure appears appropriate because the shipment size is large enough that rail carriers do not routinely move two 80-car shipments on one train.10
           In other words, an 80-car shipment is likely to be the minimum size shipment that a carrier would move as a single train, consistent with the definition of trainload where only one shipment is on a train. A survey of the 2011 Waybill Sample, which is the most recently available data and thus the best reflection of current railroad operations, reveals that, for shipment sizes between 50 and 90, there is a higher occurrence of 80-car movements than any other shipment size. This suggests that 80 cars may be an appropriate definition for trainload. Nevertheless, we encourage interested parties to submit data or comments on whether the Board should adopt the proposed definition or consider an alternate figure in defining trainload.

            10 Based on a review of the 2011 Waybill Sample, the most frequently occurring shipment size between 100 cars and 160 cars is 135 cars. These 135-car shipments represent a typical maximum train length for what is usually the longest train movement—unit coal trains.

          Locomotive Unit-Mile. Finally, this rulemaking proposes to adjust the locomotive unit-mile (LUM) cost allocation. Currently, the LUM cost allocation produces a third step function between multi-car and trainload shipments, such that the LUM costs assigned to a 49-car shipment (the maximum multi-car shipment under the current definition) are higher than the costs assigned to a 50-car shipment (the minimum number of cars under the current definition of trainload). The total locomotive unit-miles are calculated by multiplying the total distance of a movement by the average number of locomotives for a particular type of train. Because a single-car or multi-car shipment (i.e., non-trainload) should only incur a portion of the LUM costs for the entire train, as that train will contain other shipments, URCS allocates the LUM costs of the train to a shipment based on the gross tons of that shipment compared to the average gross tons of that entire train.11

            11 The average gross tons for different types of trains are calculated by dividing gross ton-miles by train-miles, both of which are reported by carriers in Schedule 755 of the R-1 annual reports.

        We therefore propose two modifications to how URCS currently allocates LUM costs. First, the entire train's LUM costs would be allocated to the trainload shipment, regardless of the gross tons of the trainload shipment relative to the average gross tons of a particular train. This should be more accurate than the current approach because, by definition, a trainload shipment has no other shipments that should share the LUM costs of that train.
        Second, the allocation of LUM costs for single and multi-car shipments would be based on the number of cars in the shipment relative to the minimum number of cars in a trainload shipment, which, as described above, we propose to be 80 cars. For example, a 20-car shipment would be allocated 25% (20/80) of the LUM costs.12
           While the current allocation of LUM costs to single and multi-car shipments is based on the gross tons of the shipment relative to the average gross tons of way trains and through trains, basing the allocation on the number of cars in the shipment should be sufficiently precise, particularly if most cars are homogenously loaded at or near the maximum weight. Moreover, whenever practical, we seek a smooth cost function, such that there is no large cost discrepancy between a 79-car multi-car movement and an 80-car trainload movement. Basing this allocation on the number of cars in the shipment should assign LUM costs consistently on a prorated share of the total LUM costs and produce a smooth cost function across all shipment sizes, including trainload shipments.

            12 Because we also propose to modify the definition of trainload from 50 or more cars to 80 or more cars, the prorated share of LUM costs assigned to non-trainloads will be less than under the current definition of trainload. For example, under the current definition of trainload, a 10-car shipment would be assigned the prorated costs of 10 cars out of 50, whereas under our proposed definition, a 10-car shipment would be assigned the prorated costs of 10 cars out of 80.

        Conclusion
        We believe that the proposed modifications to URCS described above would produce more accurate costs and would more accurately reflect the current state of rail industry operations. We also believe that the modifications to our reporting requirements, which update the existing regulations and add additional reporting requirements in order to implement the proposed changes to URCS, would not impose a significant burden on the railroads. We therefore invite public comment on each of the proposals described herein.
        Regulatory Flexibility Act

        The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, generally requires a description and analysis of new rules that would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In drafting a rule, an agency is required to: (1) Assess the effect that its regulation will have on small entities; (2) analyze effective alternatives that may minimize a regulation's impact; and (3) make the analysis available for public comment. 5 U.S.C. 601-604. In its notice of proposed rulemaking, the agency must either include an initial regulatory flexibility analysis, § 603(a), or certify that the proposed rule would not have a “significant impact on a substantial number of small entities,” § 605(b).

        Because the goal of the RFA is to reduce the cost to small entities of complying with federal regulations, the RFA requires an agency to perform a regulatory flexibility analysis of small entity impacts only when a rule directly regulates those entities. In other words, the impact must be a direct impact on small entities “whose conduct is circumscribed or mandated” by the proposed rule. White Eagle Coop. Ass'n v. Conner, 553 F.3d 467, 478, 480 (7th Cir. 2009). An agency has no obligation to conduct a small entity impact analysis of effects on entities that it does not regulate. United Dist. Cos. v. FERC, 88 F.3d 1105, 1170 (DC Cir. 1996).
        This proposal will not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities, within the meaning of the RFA. The reporting requirements that we are proposing here are applicable only to Class I rail carriers, which, under the Board's regulations, have annual carrier operating revenues of $250 million or more in 1991 dollars. Class I carriers generally do not fall within the Small Business Administration's definition of a small business for the rail transportation industry. The purpose of our changes to URCS is to improve the Board's general purpose costing system, which is used to develop regulatory cost estimates for rail carriers. These changes will result in more accurate estimates of variable costs. Therefore, the Board certifies under 49 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the RFA.
        Paperwork Reduction Act
        Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501-3549, and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(3), the Board seeks comments regarding: (1) Whether each of the collections of information (the Form QCS and the Form STB-54), as modified in the proposed rules and further described in Appendix D, is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Board, including whether the collection has practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the Board's burden estimates; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, when appropriate. The modified collections in this proposed rule will be submitted to OMB for review as required under 44 U.S.C. 3507(d) and 5 CFR 1320.11.
        This action will not significantly affect either the quality of the human environment or the conservation of energy resources.

          List of Subjects
          49 CFR Part 1247
          Freight, Railroads, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
          49 CFR Part 1248
          Freight, Railroads, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Statistics.

          It is ordered:

        1. The Board proposes to adjust URCS and to amend its rules as detailed in this decision. Notice of this decision and the proposed rules will be published in the Federal Register.
        2. Comments are due by March 21, 2013; replies are due by April 22, 2013.
        3. A copy of this decision will be served upon the Chief Counsel for Advocacy, Office of Advocacy, U.S. Small Business Administration.
        4. This decision is effective on its service date.

          Decided: January 25, 2013.

          By the Board, Chairman Elliott, Vice Chairman Begeman, and Commissioner Mulvey.
          Raina S. White,
          Clearance Clerk.

        For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Surface Transportation Board proposes to amend parts 1247 and 1248 of title 49, chapter X, of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
        1. Revise part 1247 to read as follows:

          PART 1247—REPORT OF CARS AND SHIPMENTS LOADED AND TERMINATED

            Authority:
             49 U.S.C. 721, 10707, 11144, 11145.

            § 1247.1
            Annual Report of Cars and Shipments Originated and Terminated.

            Each Class I railroad shall file Form STB-54, Annual Report of Cars and Shipments Originated and Terminated, together with the accompanying certification, with the Office of Economics, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, DC 20423, within 90 days after the end of the reporting year. Blank forms and instructions are available on the Board's Web site (http://www.stb.dot.gov) or can be obtained by contacting the Office of Economics.

          PART 1248—FREIGHT COMMODITY STATISTICS

        2. The authority citation for part 1248 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
           49 U.S.C. 721, 11144 and 11145.

        3. Revise the note to part 1248 to read as follows:

          Note:
           The report forms prescribed by part 1248 are available upon request from the Office of Economics, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, DC 20423-0001.

        4. Amend § 1248.2 by revising paragraph (a)(2) and by adding paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:

          § 1248.2
          Items to be reported.
          (a) * * *
          (2) For each commodity code used in reporting, except that the number of carloads for commodity code 431, “Small packaged freight shipments,” shall be omitted, the following items:
          Revenue freight originating on respondent's road:

          Terminating on line:
          Number of carloads.
          Number of tons (2,000 pounds).
          Number of shipments.
          Delivered to connecting rail carriers:
          Number of carloads.
          Number of tons (2,000 pounds).
          Number of shipments.
          Revenue freight received from connecting rail carriers:

          Terminating on line:
          Number of carloads.
          Number of tons (2,000 pounds).
          Number of shipments.
          Delivered to connecting rail carriers:
          Number of carloads.
          Number of tons (2,000 pounds).
          Number of shipments.
          Total revenue freight carried:
          Number of carloads.
          Number of tons (2,000 pounds).
          Number of shipments.
          Gross freight revenue.

          (3) For the purpose of reporting number of shipments under this section, a shipment is defined as a block of one or more cars moving under the same waybill from origin to destination.

        5. Revise § 1248.3 to read as follows:

          § 1248.3
          Carload and L.C.L. traffic defined.
          (a) Commodity codes 01 through 422 and 44 through 462, named in § 1248.101, shall include only carload traffic. All carloads weighing less than 10,000 pounds shall be included in commodity code 431, “Small packaged freight shipments.”
          (b) A carload for the purpose of this order shall consist of a carload of not less than 10,000 pounds of one commodity. A mixed carload for the purpose of this order shall be treated as a carload of that commodity which forms the majority of the weight. If a single shipment is loaded into more than one car, each car used shall be reported as a carload. If more than one carload shipment is loaded into one car, each shipment shall be reported separately as a carload.

        6. Amend § 1248.4 by revising paragraphs (a), (b), (d), (e), and (l); and by adding paragraph (o) to read as follows:

          § 1248.4
          Originating and connecting line traffic.
          (a) Revenue freight reported as received from connecting rail carriers shall include all carloads and shipments received from connecting rail carriers, either directly or indirectly, so far as apparent from information on the waybills or abstracts.
          (b) Revenue freight reported as originating on respondent's road shall include carloads and shipments originating on line and carloads and shipments received from water lines and highway motor truck lines, except when identified as having had previous rail transportation, as provided in paragraph (a) of this section.

          (d) Revenue freight reported as delivered to connecting rail carriers shall include carloads and shipments delivered to connecting rail carriers, either directly or indirectly, as far as apparent from information on waybills or abstracts.
          (e) Revenue freight reported as terminating on respondent's road shall include carloads and shipments terminating on line and carloads and shipments delivered to water lines and highway motor truck lines, except when identified as to receive further rail transportation as provided in paragraph (d) of this section.

          (l) Freight accorded transit privileges shall be reported as “originated on respondent's road” at the transit point, even though the outbound carload(s) or shipment may move under transit balances or proportional rates.

          (o) Rail carriers originating a Rule 11 traffic movement shall report the movement as originated and forwarded. Rail carriers receiving a Rule 11 traffic movement and completing the movement to final destination shall report the movement as received and terminated. Rail carriers receiving a Rule 11 traffic movement and forwarding the movement to another rail carrier shall report the movement as forwarded or received.

        7. Remove the note to § 1248.5.
        8. Revise § 1248.5(a) to read as follows:

          § 1248.5
          Report forms and date of filing.
          (a) Reports required from Class I carriers by this section shall be filed in duplicate with the Office of Economics, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, DC 20423, on forms which will be furnished to the carriers. Data required under § 1248.2 shall be filed on Form QCS on or before the 60th day succeeding the close of the period for which they are compiled.

        9. Revise § 1248.6 to read as follows:

          § 1248.6
          Public inspection—railroad reports.
          The individual commodity statistics reports of Class I railroads, required to be filed under the terms of § 1248.1, will be open for public inspection. Such required commodity statistics reports, however, to the extent that they involve traffic of less than three shippers, reportable in one of the commodity reporting classes, may be excluded from a railroad's regular freight commodity statistics report and filed in a supplemental report which will not be open for public inspection, except that access to supplemental reports may be given upon approval by the Board.
          BILLING CODE 4915-01-P

            EP04FE13.011

            EP04FE13.012

            EP04FE13.013

            EP04FE13.014

              APPENDIX B

              Proposed Form QCS

            EP04FE13.015

            EP04FE13.016

            EP04FE13.017

            EP04FE13.018

            EP04FE13.019

            EP04FE13.020

            EP04FE13.021

            EP04FE13.022

            EP04FE13.023

          BILLING CODE 4915-01-C

            Appendix C
            The additional information below is included to assist those who may wish to submit comments pertinent to review under the Paperwork Reduction Act of the two collections for which modifications are proposed in this proceeding:
            Collection Number 1

              OMB Control Number: 2140-0001.

              Title: Quarterly Report of Freight Commodity Statistics (Form QCS).

              Form Number: None.

              Type of Review: Revision of currently approved collection.

              Respondents: Class I railroads.

              Number of Respondents: 7.

              Estimated Time per Response: 217 hours, plus a one-time addition of 7.5 start-up hours.

              Frequency of Response: Quarterly, with an annual summation.

              Total Annual Hour Burden: 7,613 hours annually (includes additional 2.5 hours per year per railroad, which is 7.5 start-up hours annualized over the three-year approval period).

              Total Annual “Non-Hour Burden” Cost: No “non-hour burden” costs associated with this collection have been identified.

              Needs and Uses: This collection, which is based on information contained in carload waybills used by railroads in the ordinary course of business, reports car loadings and total revenues by commodity code for each commodity that moved on the railroad during the reporting period. See 49 CFR part 1248. While the public is the primary user of the quarterly data, the Board enters information from the annual report into URCS. The Board uses URCS as a tool in rail rate proceedings, in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 10707(d), to calculate the variable costs associated with providing a particular service. The Board also uses this information to more effectively carry out other of its regulatory responsibilities, including: Acting on railroad requests for authority to engage in Board-regulated financial transactions such as mergers, acquisitions of control, and consolidations, see 49 U.S.C. 11323-11324; analyzing the information that the Board obtains through the annual railroad industry waybill sample, see 49 CFR 1244; measuring off-branch costs in railroad abandonment proceedings, in accordance with 49 CFR 1152.32(n); developing the “rail cost adjustment factors,” in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 10708; and conducting investigations and rulemakings. In addition, many other Federal agencies and industry groups depend on Form QCS for information regarding the cost of the movement of goods by railroads. The Board now proposes to modify this collection to require railroads to provide additional data regarding the number of shipments. This modification will provide the Board with information relevant to proposed changes in the way that URCS calculates switch engine minute costs and station clerical costs. There is no other source for the information contained in this report.
            Collection Number 2

              Title: Annual Report of Cars Loaded and Cars Terminated. (Under the proposal described in this proceeding, the name of this report would be changed to “Annual Report of Cars and Shipments Originated and Terminated” to reflect the substantive modifications to the reporting requirements.)

              OMB Control Number: 2140-0011.

              Form Number: Form STB-54.

              Type of Review: Revision of currently approved collection.

              Number of Respondents: 7.

              Estimated Time per Response: 4 hours, plus a one-time addition of 9 start-up hours.

              Frequency of Response: Annual.

              Total Annual Hour Burden: 49 hours (includes additional 3 hour per year per railroad, which is 9 start-up hours annualized over the three-year approval period).

              Total Annual “Non-Hour Burden” Cost: No “non-hour burden” costs associated with this collection have been identified.

              Needs and Uses: This collection reports the number of cars loaded and cars terminated on the reporting carrier's line. See 49 CFR part 247. Information in this report is entered into the Board's URCS, the uses of which are explained under Collection 1. The Board now proposes to modify this collection to require railroads to provide additional data regarding the number of shipments. This modification will provide the Board with information relevant to proposed changes in the way that URCS calculates switch engine minute costs and station clerical costs. There is no other source for the information contained in this report.

      [FR Doc. 2013-02037 Filed 2-1-13; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4915-01-P