        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        RIN 1018-AI24
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designations of Critical Habitat for Plant Species From the Island of Oahu, HI

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; extension of comment period and notice of availability of draft economic analysis.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the availability of the draft economic analysis for the proposed designations of critical habitat for plant species from the island of Oahu, Hawaii. The comment period for the proposed critical habitat designations originally closed on July 29, 2002. On August 26, 2002, we reopened the comment period and provided notice that the comment period would close on September 30, 2002. On October 10, 2002, we announced a public hearing and reopened the comment period to allow all interested parties to submit oral or written comments on the proposal until November 30, 2002. We are now providing notice of an extension of the comment period to allow peer reviewers and all interested parties to comment simultaneously on the proposed rule and the associated draft economic analysis. Over a 10-year time period, the total section 7-related direct costs associated with the plants species listings and critical habitat are estimated at $1.1 million to $2.3 million. Indirect costs have the potential to be as much as $100 million, although the likelihood of this potential being reached is unclear. Comments previously submitted need not be resubmitted as they will be incorporated into the public record as part of this extended comment period and will be fully considered in preparation of the final rule.

          DATES:
          We will accept public comments until January 27, 2003.

          ADDRESSES:

          Send your written comments and information to Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Office, 300 Ala Moana Blvd., PO Box 50088, Honolulu, HI 96850-0001; or e-mail your comments to FW1PIE_Oahu_crithab@r1.fws.gov. For further instructions on commenting, refer to Public Comments Solicited section of this notice.

          To obtain a copy of the draft economic analysis, send a written request to the address listed above, call 808/541-3441, or visit the following Internet site: http://pacificislands.fws.gov.

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

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        Between 1991 and 1996, a total of 101 species historically found on Oahu were listed as endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (the Act)(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). On May 28, 2002, we published in the Federal Register (67 FR 37108) a proposed rule to propose critical habitat for 99 of the 101 plant species historically found on Oahu. Some of these species may also occur on other Hawaiian islands.

        Previously, we proposed that designation of critical habitat was prudent for 45 (Adenophorus periens, Alectryon macrococcus, Bonamia menziesii, Cenchrus agrimonioides, Centaurium sebaeoides, Colubrina oppositifolia, Ctenitis squamigera, Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana, Cyperus trachysanthos, Diellia erecta, Diplazium molokaiense, Eugenia koolauensis, Euphorbia haeleeleana, Flueggea neowawraea, Gouania meyenii, Gouania vitifolia, Hedyotis coriacea, Hesperomannia arborescens, Hesperomannia arbuscula, Hibiscus brackenridgei, Isodendrion laurifolium, Isodendrion longifolium, Isodendrion pyrifolium, Lobelia niihauensis, Lysimachia filifolia, Mariscus pennatiformis, Marsilea villosa, Melicope pallida, Nototrichium humile, Peucedanum sandwicense, Phlegmariurus nutans, Phyllostegia mollis, Phyllostegia parviflora, Plantago princeps, Platanthera holochila, Pteris lidgatei, Sanicula purpurea, Schiedea hookeri, Schiedea nuttallii, Sesbania tomentosa, Silene lanceolata, Solanum sandwicense, Spermolepis hawaiiensis, Tetramolopium lepidotum ssp. lepidotum, and Vigna o-wahuensis) of the 101 species reported from the island of Oahu. No change is made to the 45 proposed prudency determinations in the May 28, 2002, proposed critical habitat rule for plants from Oahu. In addition, in the May 28, 2002, proposed rule, we proposed that designation of critical habitat was not prudent for Pritchardia kaalae because it would likely increase the threats from vandalism or collection of this species on Oahu. In the same rule, we proposed that designation of critical habitat was not prudent for Cyrtandra crenata because it had not been seen recently in the wild and no viable genetic material of this species is known to exist. We also proposed that designation of critical habitat is prudent for 54 species (Abutilon sandwicense, Alsinidendron obovatum, Alsinidendron trinerve, Chamaesyce celastroides var. kaenana, Chamaesyce deppeana, Chamaesyce herbstii, Chamaesyce kuwaleana, Chamaesyce rockii, Cyanea acuminata, Cyanea crispa, Cyanea grimesiana ssp. obatae, Cyanea humboltiana, Cyanea koolauensis, Cyanea longiflora, Cyanea pinnatifida, Cyanea st.-johnii, Cyanea superba, Cyanea truncata, Cyrtandra dentata, Cyrtandra polyantha, Cyrtandra subumbellata, Cyrtandra viridiflora, Delissea subcordata, Diellia falcata, Diellia unisora, Dubautia herbstobatae, Eragrostis fosbergii, Gardenia mannii, Hedyotis degeneri, Hedyotis parvula, Labordia cyrtandrae, Lepidium arbuscula, Lipochaeta lobata var. leptophylla, Lipochaeta tenuifolia, Lobelia gaudichaudii ssp. koolauensis, Lobelia monostachya, Lobelia oahuensis, Melicope lydgatei, Melicope saint-johnii, Myrsine juddii, Neraudia angulata, Phyllostegia hirsuta, Phyllostegia kaalaensis, Sanicula mariversa, Schiedea kaalae, Schiedea kealiae, Silene perlmanii, Stenogyne kanehoana, Tetramolopium filiforme, Tetraplasandra gymnocarpa, Trematalobelia singularis, Urera kaalae, Viola chamissoniana ssp. chamissoniana, and Viola oahuensis) for which prudency determinations have not been made previously.

        We further proposed designation of critical habitat for 99 plant species (Abutilon sandwicense, Adenophorus periens, Alectryon macrococcus, Alsinidendron obovatum, Alsinidendron trinerve, Bonamia menziesii, Cenchrus agrimonioides, Centaurium sebaeoides, Chamaesyce celastroides var. kaenana, Chamaesyce deppeana, Chamaesyce herbstii, Chamaesyce kuwaleana, Chamaesyce rockii, Colubrina oppositifolia, Ctenitis squamigera, Cyanea acuminata, Cyanea crispa, Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana, Cyanea grimesiana ssp. obatae, Cyanea humboltiana, Cyanea koolauensis, Cyanea longiflora, Cyanea pinnatifida, Cyanea st.-johnii, Cyanea superba, Cyanea truncata, Cyperus trachysanthos, Cyrtandra dentata, Cyrtandra polyantha, Cyrtandra subumbellata, Cyrtandra viridiflora, Delissea subcordata, Diellia erecta, Diellia falcata, Diellia unisora, Diplazium molokaiense, Dubautia herbstobatae, Eragrostis fosbergii, Eugenia koolauensis, Euphorbia haeleeleana, Flueggea neowawraea, Gardenia mannii, Gouania meyenii, Gouania vitifolia, Hedyotis coriacea, Hedyotis degeneri, Hedyotis parvula, Hesperomannia arborescens, Hesperomannia arbuscula, Hibiscus brackenridgei, Isodendrion laurifolium, Isodendrion longifolium, Isodendrion pyrifolium, Labordia cyrtandrae, Lepidium arbuscula, Lipochaeta lobata var. leptophylla, Lipochaeta tenuifolia, Lobelia gaudichaudii ssp. koolauensis, Lobelia monostachya, Lobelia niihauensis, Lobelia oahuensis, Lysimachia filifolia, Mariscus pennatiformis, Marsilea villosa, Melicope pallida, Melicope saint-johnii, Myrsine juddii, Neraudia angulata, Nototrichium humile, Pelea lydgatei, Peucedanum sandwicense, Phlegmariurus nutans, Phyllostegia hirsuta, Phyllostegia kaalaensis, Phyllostegia mollis, Phyllostegia parviflora, Plantago princeps, Platanthera holochila, Pteris lidgatei, Sanicula mariversa, Sanicula purpurea, Schiedea hookeri, Schiedea kaalae, Schiedea kealiae, Schiedea nuttallii, Sesbania tomentosa, Silene lanceolata, Silene perlmanii, Solanum sandwicense, Spermolepis hawaiiensis, Stenogyne kanehoana, Tetramolopium filiforme, Tetramolopium lepidotum ssp. lepidotum, Tetraplasandra gymnocarpa, Trematalobelia singularis, Urera kaalae, Vigna o-wahuensis, Viola chamissoniana ssp. chamissoniana, and Viola oahuensis). We did not propose critical habitat for Pritchardia munroi and Cyrtandra crenata for the reasons given above.
        We proposed critical habitat designations for 99 species within 25 critical habitat units totaling approximately 45,067 hectares (111,364 acres) on the island of Oahu.

        Critical habitat receives protection from destruction or adverse modification through required consultation under section 7 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) with regard to actions carried out, funded, or authorized by a Federal agency. Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that the Secretary designate or revise critical habitat based upon the best scientific and commercial data available, and after taking into consideration the economic impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. We have prepared a draft economic analysis of the proposed critical habitat designation. The draft economic analysis is available on the Internet and from the mailing address listed below in the Public Comments Solicited section.

        The public comment period for the May 28, 2002, proposal originally closed on July 29, 2002. On August 26, 2002, we published in the Federal Register (67 FR 54766) a notice reopening the comment period for the proposed designations and non-designations of critical habitat for plant species on the island of Oahu, as well as for the proposed designations and non-designations of critical habitat for plant species on the islands of Kauai, Niihau, Molokai, Maui, Kahoolawe, and Hawaii, and we announced that the comment period would close on September 30, 2002. On October 10, 2002, we announced a public hearing and reopened the comment period to allow all interested parties to submit oral or written comments on the proposal until November 30, 2002 (67 FR 63066). We are now announcing the availability of the draft economic analysis and the extension of the comment period for the proposed designations and non-designations of critical habitat for plant species on the island of Oahu. We will accept public comments on the proposal and the associated draft economic analysis for plants species from the island of Oahu until the date specified above in DATES. The extension of the comment period gives all interested parties the opportunity to comment on the proposal and the associated draft economic analysis for plant species from the island of Oahu. Comments already submitted on the proposed designations and non-designations of critical habitat for plant species from the island of Oahu need not be resubmitted as they will be fully considered in the final determinations.
        Public Comments Solicited
        We specifically request comments on the following matters addressed in the “Indirect Costs” section of the draft economic analysis:
        (1) The likelihood of adverse impacts on hunting resulting from changes in game management, and the likelihood of such changes in game management;
        (2) The likelihood of adverse impacts on military readiness and military communications;
        (3) The likelihood of mandated conservation management on private land by the State of Hawaii or the courts;
        (4) The likelihood of redistricting of land to Conservation District status;
        (5) The likelihood of reduced property values; and
        (6) The likelihood of increased costs, delays and denials in permit applications by Federal, State and county authorities, all as a result of the proposed critical habitat designations.
        We seek comments on the likelihood of these impacts, including the reasons they might or might not occur, and the likely direct and indirect costs or other effects if the impacts do occur, including the basis for the costs or other effects. To the extent that those submitting comments have specific information related to their comments, we encourage its inclusion.
        If you wish to provide written comments, you may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposal by any of several methods:
        (1) You may submit written comments and information to the Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Office, 300 Ala Moana Blvd., PO Box 50088, Honolulu, HI 96850-0001.
        (2) You may send comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to: FW1PIE_Oahu_crithab@r1.fws.gov. If you submit comments by e-mail, please submit them as an ASCII file and avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Please also include “Attn: RIN 1018-AI24” and your name and return address in your e-mail message. If you do not receive a confirmation from the system that we have received your e-mail message, contact us directly by calling our Honolulu Fish and Wildlife Office at telephone number 808/541-3441.
        (3) You may hand-deliver comments to our Honolulu Fish and Wildlife Office at the address given above under (1).
        Comments and materials received, as well as supporting documentation used in preparation of the proposal to designate critical habitat, will be available for inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the address under (1) above.

        Copies of the draft economic analysis are available on the Internet at http://pacificislands.fws.gov or by request from the Field Supervisor at the address and phone number listed in ADDRESSES.

        Author(s)
        The primary author of this document is Michelle Mansker (See
          ADDRESSES section).
        Authority

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

          Dated: December 16, 2002.
          Craig Manson,
          Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

      [FR Doc. 02-32522 Filed 12-24-02; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 70
        [IA 183-1183; FRL-7559-7]
        Approval and Promulgation of Operating Permits Program; State of Iowa

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          EPA proposes to approve revisions to the Iowa Operating Permits Program for air pollution control submitted to EPA on March 11, 2002, and July 17, 2002. This action proposes approval of numerous rules adopted by the state in 2002. Iowa rule revisions addressed in this action pertain to the deadlines for which an application for a significant modification is due, and Title V insignificant activities, and insignificant emission levels. Approval of these revisions will ensure consistency between the state and federally-approved rules.

          DATES:
          Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by October 16, 2003.

          ADDRESSES:

          Comments may be submitted either by mail or electronically. Written comments should be mailed to Judith Robinson, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. Electronic comments should be sent either to robinson.judith@epa.gov or to http://www.regulations.gov, which is an alternative method for submitting electronic comments to EPA. To submit comments, please follow the detailed instructions described in “What action is EPA taking” in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of the direct final rule which is located in the rules section of the Federal Register.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Judith Robinson at (913) 551-7825, or by e-mail at robinson.judith@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        In the final rules section of the Federal Register, EPA is approving the state's operating permits program revisions as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial revision amendment and anticipates no relevant adverse comments to this action. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no relevant adverse comments are received in response to this action, no further activity is contemplated in relation to this action. If EPA receives relevant adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on part of this rule and if that part can be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those parts of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. See the information provided in the direct final rule which is located in the rules section of the Federal Register.

          Dated: September 4, 2003.
          William W. Rice,
          Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.

      [FR Doc. 03-23585 Filed 9-15-03; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 300
        [Docket No. 170616568-7568-01]
        RIN 0648-BG93
        International Fisheries; Western and Central Pacific Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species; Fishing Limits in Purse Seine Fisheries for 2017

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:

          NMFS seeks comments on this proposed rule issued under authority of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention Implementation Act (WCPFC Implementation Act). The proposed rule would establish a limit for calendar year 2017 on fishing effort by U.S. purse seine vessels in the U.S. exclusive economic zone (U.S. EEZ) and on the high seas between the latitudes of 20° N. and 20° S. in the area of application of the Convention on the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (Convention). The limit is 1,828 fishing days. The rule also would make corrections to outdated cross references in existing regulatory text. This action is necessary to satisfy the obligations of the United States under the Convention, to which it is a Contracting Party.

          DATES:
          Comments on the proposed rule must be submitted in writing by October 5, 2017.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on the proposed rule and the regulatory impact review (RIR) prepared for the proposed rule, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2017-0100, by either of the following methods:
          • Electronic submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal.
          1. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D= NOAA-NMFS-2017-0100,

          2. Click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and
          3. Enter or attach your comments.

          -OR-

          • Mail: Submit written comments to Michael D. Tosatto, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Pacific Islands Regional Office (PIRO), 1845 Wasp Blvd., Building 176, Honolulu, HI 96818.

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

          An initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) prepared under authority of the Regulatory Flexibility Act is included in the Classification section of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

          Copies of the RIR and the programmatic environmental assessment (PEA) prepared for National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) purposes are available at www.regulations.gov or may be obtained from Michael D. Tosatto, Regional Administrator, NMFS PIRO (see address above).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Emily Crigler, NMFS PIRO, 808-725-5036.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Background on the Convention
        The Convention is concerned with the conservation and management of fisheries for highly migratory species (HMS). The objective of the Convention is to ensure, through effective management, the long-term conservation and sustainable use of HMS in the WCPO. To accomplish this objective, the Convention established the Commission, which includes Members, Cooperating Non-members, and Participating Territories (collectively referred to here as “members”). The United States of America is a Member. American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) are Participating Territories.

        As a Contracting Party to the Convention and a Member of the Commission, the United States implements, as appropriate, conservation and management measures and other decisions adopted by the Commission. The WCPFC Implementation Act (16 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.), authorizes the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Department in which the United States Coast Guard is operating (currently the Department of Homeland Security), to promulgate such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the obligations of the United States under the Convention, including the decisions of the Commission. The WCPFC Implementation Act further provides that the Secretary of Commerce shall ensure consistency, to the extent practicable, of fishery management programs administered under the WCPFC Implementation Act and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA; 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), as well as other specific laws (see 16 U.S.C. 6905(b)). The Secretary of Commerce has delegated the authority to promulgate regulations under the WCPFC Implementation Act to NMFS. A map showing the boundaries of the area of application of the Convention (Convention Area), which comprises the majority of the WCPO, can be found on the WCPFC Web site at: www.wcpfc.int/doc/convention-area-map.

        Proposed Action
        This proposed rule would implement specific provisions of the Commission's Conservation and Management Measure (CMM) 2016-01, “Conservation and Management Measure for Bigeye, Yellowfin, and Skipjack Tuna in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean,” for purse seine fisheries. CMM 2016-01 was adopted by the Commission at its thirteenth regular annual session, in December 2016, went into effect February 2017, and is applicable for 2017. The rule would also make some administrative changes to correct cross references in existing regulatory text.

        CMM 2016-01 is the latest in a series of CMMs devoted to the conservation and management of tropical tuna stocks, particularly stocks of bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus), yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares), and skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis). CMM 2016-01 maintains the provisions of its predecessor, CMM 2015-01. These and the other CMMs are available at: www.wcpfc.int/conservation-and-management-measures.

        The stated objective of CMM 2016-01 and several of its predecessor CMMs is to ensure that the stocks of bigeye tuna, yellowfin tuna, and skipjack tuna in the WCPO are, at a minimum, maintained at levels capable of producing their maximum sustainable yield as qualified by relevant environmental and economic factors. The CMM includes specific objectives for each of the three stocks: for each, the fishing mortality rate is to be reduced to or maintained at levels no greater than the fishing mortality rate associated with maximum sustainable yield. The proposed rule would implement the provisions for purse seine vessels that have not yet been implemented for 2017. Several provisions of CMM 2016-01 that are the same as in CMM 2015-01 have already been implemented by NMFS. NMFS is also adjusting the longline bigeye tuna catch limit as required under CMM 2016-01 through a separate rulemaking (82 FR 36341; August 4, 2017).
        The elements of the proposed rule are detailed below. The administrative changes that would be made to correct outdated references in existing regulatory text are described at the end of this preamble.
        Purse Seine Effort Limits

        As in previous rules to implement similar Commission-mandated limits on purse seine fishing effort, this proposed rule would implement the applicable limits for the U.S. EEZ (paragraph 23 of CMM 2016-01) and the high seas (paragraph 25 of CMM 2016-01) such that they apply to a single area, without regard to the boundary between the U.S. EEZ and the high seas. CMM 2016-01 has separate provisions for the high seas and the EEZ merely because they are subject to different management responsibility, and not because of different conservation and management needs or objectives for the two areas. Specifically, CMM 2016-01 calls for fishing effort in EEZs to be limited by coastal States, and fishing effort in areas of high seas to be limited by flag States.

        In this case, the United States is both a coastal state and a flag state and will satisfy its dual responsibilities by implementing a rule that combines the two areas for the purpose of limiting purse seine fishing effort. NMFS considered both the action alternative that would combine the two areas and another alternative that would not (see the PEA and the RIR for comparisons of the two alternatives). Because both alternatives would accomplish the objective of controlling fishing effort by the WPCFC-adopted amount (i.e., by U.S. purse seine vessels operating on the high seas and by purse seine vessels in areas under U.S. jurisdiction, collectively), and because the alternative of combining the two areas is expected to result in greater operational flexibility to affected purse seine vessels and lesser adverse economic impacts, as in previous years, NMFS is proposing to implement the alternative that would combine the two areas. This combined area (within the Convention Area between the latitudes of 20° N. and 20° S.) is referred to in U.S. regulations as the Effort Limit Area for Purse Seine, or ELAPS (see 50 CFR 300.211).
        The 2017 purse seine fishing effort limit for the ELAPS is formulated as in previous rules to establish limits for the ELAPS: The applicable limit for the U.S. EEZ portion of the ELAPS, 558 fishing days per year, is combined with the applicable limit for the high seas portion of the ELAPS, 1,270 fishing days per year, resulting in a combined limit of 1,828 fishing days in the ELAPS for calendar year 2017. This ELAPS limit for 2017, 1,828 fishing days, is identical to the limits established for 2014, 2015, and 2016.
        The meaning of “fishing day” is defined at 50 CFR 300.211; that is, any day in which a fishing vessel of the United States equipped with purse seine gear searches for fish, deploys a FAD, services a FAD, or sets a purse seine, with the exception of setting a purse seine solely for the purpose of testing or cleaning the gear and resulting in no catch.

        As established in existing regulations for purse seine fishing effort limits in the ELAPS, NMFS will monitor the number of fishing days spent in the ELAPS using data submitted in logbooks and other available information. If and when NMFS determines that the limit of 1,828 fishing days is expected to be reached by a specific future date, it will publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing that the purse seine fishery in the ELAPS will be closed starting on a specific future date and will remain closed until the end of calendar year 2017. NMFS will publish that notice at least seven days in advance of the closure date (see 50 CFR 300.223(a)(2)). Starting on the announced closure date, and for the remainder of calendar year 2017, it will be prohibited for U.S. purse seine vessels to fish in the ELAPS (see CFR 300.223(a)(3)).
        Related Rulemaking
        On May 12, 2015, as NMFS was preparing to publish an interim rule to establish the ELAPS limit for 2015 (published May 21, 2015; 80 FR 29220), NMFS received a petition for rulemaking from Tri Marine Management Company, LLC. The company requested, first, that NOAA undertake an emergency rulemaking to implement the 2015 ELAPS limits for fishing days on the high seas, and second, that NOAA issue a rule exempting from that high seas limit any U.S.-flagged purse seine vessel that, pursuant to contract or declaration of intent, delivers or will deliver at least 50 percent of its catch to tuna processing facilities based in American Samoa.
        On July 17, 2015, NMFS issued a notice of receipt of, and a request for comments on, the petition (80 FR 42464).

        On October 23, 2015, after considering the petition and public comments on the petition, NMFS announced that it had denied the petition (80 FR 64382). The petition, the public comments on the petition, and NMFS' decision on the petition are available via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal, at www.regulations.gov (search for Docket ID NOAA-NMFS-2015-0088).

        Although NMFS denied the petition, it acknowledged that some of the issues raised in the petition warrant further examination. Accordingly, on the same date, October 23, 2015, and in the same Federal Register document, NMFS issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) related to the subject of the petition (80 FR 64382). NMFS continues to evaluate options that may mitigate adverse economic impacts of purse seine fishing restrictions on the U.S. territories, to the extent consistent with U.S. obligations under the Convention. Establishing a limit of 1,828 fishing days in the ELAPS for 2017 through this proposed rule, however, would not preclude NMFS from proposing at a later date such regulations for 2017 or subsequent years.
        Administrative Changes to Existing Regulations

        The regulations at 50 CFR 300.217(b) and 300.218(a)(2)(v) contain outdated cross references that would be corrected by this proposed rule. In Section 300.217, paragraph (b)(1) would be revised to provide a cross reference to Section 300.336(b)(2), not Section 300.14(b), and in Section 300.218(a)(2)(v), the cross reference would be to Section 300.341(a) instead of to Sections 300.17(a) and (b). Sections 300.14(b) and Sections 300.17(a) and (b) no longer exist and have been replaced through a new regulatory action implementing provisions of the High Seas Fishing Compliance Act (16 U.S.C. 5501 et seq.).
        Classification
        The Administrator, Pacific Islands Region, NMFS, has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the WCPFC Implementation Act and other applicable laws, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)
        NMFS determined that this action is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of the approved coastal management program of American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), Guam, and the State of Hawaii. Determinations to Hawaii and each of the Territories were submitted on June 26, 2017, for review by the responsible state and territorial agencies under section 307 of the CZMA.
        Executive Order 12866
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

        An initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) was prepared, as required by section 603 of the RFA. The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained in the SUMMARY section of the preamble and in other sections of this
          SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of the preamble. The analysis follows:
        Estimated Number of Small Entities Affected
        For Regulatory Flexibility Act purposes only, NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing (NAICS code 114111) is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $11 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide.
        The proposed rule would apply to owners and operators of U.S. purse seine vessels used for fishing for HMS in the Convention Area.
        There would be no disproportionate economic impacts between small and large entities operating vessels resulting from this rule. Furthermore, there would be no disproportionate economic impacts based on vessel size, gear, or home port.
        The proposed rule would apply to owners and operators of U.S. commercial fishing vessels that use purse seine gear to fish for HMS in the Convention Area. The estimated number of affected fishing vessels is 40 purse seine vessels (based on the maximum number of purse seine vessels licenses available under the South Pacific Tuna Treaty excluding joint-venture licenses, of which there are five available under the SPTT, but no joint-venture licenses have ever been applied for or issued).
        Based on (limited) financial information about the affected fishing fleets, and using individual vessels as proxies for individual businesses, NMFS believes that over half of the vessels in the purse seine fleet are small entities as defined by the RFA; that is, they are independently owned and operated and not dominant in their fields of operation, and have annual receipts of no more than $11.0 million. Within the purse seine fleet, analysis of average revenue, by vessel, for the three years of 2014-2016 reveals that average fleet revenue was $10,201,962; 22 participating vessels qualified as small entities with their average of the most recent three years of vessel revenue for which data is available of less than $11 million.
        Recordkeeping, Reporting, and Other Compliance Requirements
        The reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance requirements of this proposed rule are described earlier in the preamble. The classes of small entities subject to the requirements and the types of professional skills necessary to fulfill the requirements are as follows:
        The proposed action would establish fishing effort limits for purse seine vessels fishing in the U.S. EEZ and the high seas within the Convention Area between 20 N and 20 S: These requirements would not impose any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements (within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act). Fulfillment of this requirement is not expected to require any professional skills that the vessel owners and operators do not already possess. The costs of complying with the proposed requirements are described below to the extent possible:
        If and when the purse seine fishery is closed to fishing in the ELAPS as a result of the annual fishing effort limit being reached in 2017, owners and operators of U.S. purse seine vessels would have to cease fishing in that area for the remainder of the calendar year. Closure of the fishery in the ELAPS could thereby cause foregone fishing opportunities and associated economic losses if the ELAPS contains preferred fishing grounds during such a closure. The likelihood of the fishery being closed in the ELAPS in 2017 under the proposed rule (1,828 days) is greater than under the no-action alternative (no limit). Purse seine fishing was closed in the ELAPS in 2015 and 2016 after NMFS projected the fishing day limit would be reached in the ELAPS in those years. To determine the likelihood of the limit being reached in 2017, fishing effort in the ELAPS was considered for the most recent 10 years, but omitting 2010-2012, during which two important areas of high seas were closed to fishing. In order to make the data comparable among years, historical fishing effort as well as the proposed ELAPS limit are expressed here in terms of fishing days per year per active vessel, on average. The proposed limit is 1,828 days, and assuming 40 active vessels in 2017, this is equivalent to 45.7 fishing days per vessel per year on average (“proposed threshold”). Among the 10 years 2005-2009 and 2013-2016, fishing effort in the ELAPS ranged from 31 to 65 fishing days per year, exceeding the proposed threshold in 8 of the 10 years, or 80 percent of the time. Based on this history, the likelihood of the proposed limit being reached in 2017 is substantial—roughly 80 percent. However, current fishing patterns for 2017 as of June 2017 suggest that the rate of fishing in the ELAPS in 2017 (~220 days) is much lower than the historical average with average fishing days per vessel at 6.5 fishing days from January-June 2017. Assuming fishing conditions in the latter half of the year mimic the first half of 2017, NMFS believes that it is unlikely that the ELAPS limit would be reached in 2017. If fishing conditions in the latter half of the year were to increase to the highest rate observed in 2015 (21 fishing days/calendar day), there would be a high likelihood that the ELAPS limit would be reached prior to the end of 2017. The highest rate observed to date in 2017 has been 8.5 fishing days/calendar day, and if the highest rate in 2017 were to occur through end of 2017, the ELAPS limit would be expected to be reached by December 22, 2017.

        Other factors that could influence the likelihood of the proposed limit being reached are the status of vessels with respect to whether they have fishery endorsements and are allowed to fish in the U.S. EEZ, El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) conditions, and fishing day opportunities through the South Pacific Tuna Treaty and fishing day opportunities in the Eastern Pacific Ocean. Regarding the first factor, if the proportion of the fleet that has fishery endorsements changes from the proportion during the baseline period, the likelihood of the ELAPs limit being reached would change accordingly (if the proportion increases, the likelihood would increase). However, because fishing in the U.S. EEZ makes up a relatively small portion of all fishing in the ELAPS, this is a relatively minor factor, and is not examined any further here. Regarding the second factor, the eastern areas of the WCPO have tended to be comparatively more attractive to the U.S. purse seine fleet during El Nino events (versus other times), when warm surface water spreads from the western Pacific to the eastern Pacific and large, valuable yellowfin become more vulnerable to purse seine fishing. Consequently, the ELAPS, much of which is situated in the eastern range of the fleet's fishing grounds, is likely to be more important fishing grounds to the fleet during El Nino events (as compared to neutral or La Nina events). According to the National Weather Service ((see www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/index.shtml), as of June 2017, conditions were ENSO-neutral and the forecast was that ENSO-neutral conditions are favored through the second half of 2017. The 35-50 percent chance of an El Nino developing in the fall of 2017 suggests a slight chance that fishing in the ELAPS could become more important in the latter half of the year, but would only slightly increase the likelihood (than indicated by fishing effort alone) of the proposed 2017 ELAPS limit being reached. Regarding the third factor, effective January 1, 2017, a new treaty is in place between U.S. purse seine vessel owners and the members of the Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) that allows the U.S. fleet the opportunity to purchase fishing days for use in the EEZs of the Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA, a subset of eight FFA members in whose waters most WCPO tropical purse seine fishing occurs), and in the EEZs of the other FFA members during the period of the arrangement, which is through 2022). Under the new treaty, vessels notify the U.S. government which in turn informs FFA of the number of treaty days each vessel or group of vessels desires to purchase. These days can be traded among vessels participating in the treaty, and vessels may purchase additional bilateral days during the agreement period if additional days are desired. As each vessel decides on the number of fishing days it wishes to purchase, and vessels can trade and purchase additional bilateral days, it appears that there is a relatively small likelihood of all of the EEZs of the FFA members becoming unavailable to the U.S. fleet before the end of 2017. It is possible that vessels that purchase more treaty days may rely less on the use of ELAPS days whereas vessels that purchase fewer treaty days may rely more heavily on the use of ELAPS days. Regarding the fourth factor, vessels may also choose to fish outside the Convention Area in the eastern Pacific Ocean (EPO). Historically, the fleet fished very little in the EPO, but the numbers of U.S. purse seine vessels fishing in the EPO has been steadily increasing since 2014. Vessels fishing in the EPO are required to be on the IATTC Vessel Register, and can either apply to be on the active purse seine capacity list where they can fish in the EPO during the calendar year or request to use one fishing trip in the EPO that an SPTT-licensed vessel is allowed to make, not to exceed 90 days in length, and there is an annual limit of 32 trips for the entire SPTT-licensed fleet (50 CFR 300.22(b)(1)). If vessels choose to fish in the EPO, this could influence the number of ELAPS days they use, particularly if they opt to fish in the overlap area between the WCPFC and IATTC where their effort would count against the ELAPS limit or fish outside of the area of the overlap where their effort would not count against the ELAPS limit. As of June 2017, 17 U.S. purse seine vessels with WCPFC Area Endorsements are also on the IATTC active purse seine register for 2017.
        In summary, based on the available information and particularly the current fishing patterns in 2017, there is a small likelihood that the proposed ELAPS limit would be reached before the end of 2017.

        The costs associated with a closure of the ELAPS would depend greatly on the length of the closure as well as whether the EEZs of other nations, particularly the typically most favored fishing grounds, the EEZs of the PNA, or the Eastern Pacific were available for fishing. NMFS conducted a study on the economic impacts of the 2015 ELAPS closure, which lasted from June 15-December 31, 2015, and found that the 2015 ELAPS closure had an adverse impact on profitability across the combined sectors of vessels, canneries and vessel support facilities in American Samoa. During the 2015 and 2016 ELAPS closures, the EEZs of the FFA members remained available for fishing as well as fishing in the Eastern Pacific. As indicated above, there is relatively small likelihood of the EEZs of the FFA members being unavailable for fishing before the end of 2017. Assuming the EEZs of the FFA and Eastern Pacific remain available as fishing grounds, the impacts of a closure of the ELAPS would depend greatly on its length. The closure of any fishing grounds for any amount of time would be expected to bring impacts to affected entities (e.g., because the open area might, during the closed period, be less optimal than the closed area, and vessels might use more fuel and spend more time having to travel to open areas). If the ELAPS is a relatively preferred fishing ground during the closure (e.g., because of oceanic conditions or other factors), then the losses would be accordingly greater than if the ELAPS is not preferred relative to other fishing grounds. If the EEZs of the PNA and other FFA members are not available during an ELAPS closure, the costs of an ELAPS closure could be substantial. In the event the entire WCPO is closed to fishing during an ELAPS closure, possible next-best opportunities include fishing outside the Convention Area in the eastern Pacific Ocean (EPO), and not fishing. As discussed above, an increasing number of vessels have started fishing in the EPO, and almost half the fleet is on the IATTC active vessel register list. Vessels that are not on the IATTC active purse seine vessel register list can request to use the one trip option to fish in the EPO. The alternative of not fishing at all during an ELAPS closure would mean a loss of any revenues from fishing. However, many of the vessels' variable operating costs would be avoided in that case, and for some vessels the time might be used for productive activities like vessel and equipment maintenance. U.S. purse seine vessel operating costs are not known, so estimates of economic losses cannot be made. But information on revenues per day can give an indication of the magnitude of possible economic costs to affected entities. Average annual gross revenues for the 40 affected purse seine vessels during 2014-2016 were approximately $10 million per vessel, on average. This equates to about $28,000 per calendar day, on average.

        The proposed 2017 ELAPS limit could affect the temporal distribution of fishing effort in the U.S. purse seine fishery. Since the limits would apply fleet-wide; that is, they would not be allocated to individual vessels, vessel operators might have an incentive to fish harder in the ELAPS earlier in a given year than they otherwise would. Such a “race-to-fish” effect might also be expected in the time period between when a closure of the fishery is announced and when it is actually closed, which would be at least seven calendar days. To the extent such temporal shifts occur, they could affect the seasonal timing of fish catches and deliveries to canneries, and conceivably affect prices. However, because most of the traditional fishing grounds are outside the ELAPS, the intensity of any race-to-fish in the ELAPS is likely to be low if it occurs at all. The small likelihood of the EEZs of the FFA being closed to fishing before the end of 2017, as discussed above, might also influence the behavior of fishermen earlier in the year, but it is not clear how it would influence fishing in the ELAPS. If fishermen are more concerned about the FFA members' EEZs closing at some point, they might fish harder in those waters earlier in the year; if, on the other hand, they are more concerned about the ELAPS closing, they might fish harder in the ELAPS earlier in the year. In any case, the timing of cannery deliveries by the U.S. fleet alone (as it might be affected by a race to fish in the ELAPS) is unlikely to have an appreciable impact on prices, since many canneries buy from the fleets of multiple nations at any given time. A race to fish could bring costs to affected entities if it causes vessel operators to forego vessel maintenance in favor of fishing or to fish in weather or ocean conditions that they otherwise would not. This could bring costs in terms of the health and safety of the crew as well as the economic performance of the vessel.

        In summary, there is a small likelihood that the ELAPS limit will be reached before the end of 2017, and if it is reached before the end of 2017, the impacts to affected entities could be minor or substantial, depending on such factors as the length of the closure, whether the EEZs of the FFA members and Eastern Pacific remain available for fishing, and oceanic conditions.
        There would be no disproportionate economic impacts between small and large entities operating vessels as a result of this proposed rule. Furthermore, there would be no disproportionate economic impacts based on vessel size, gear, or home-port.
        Duplicating, Overlapping, and Conflicting Federal Regulations
        NMFS has not identified any Federal regulations that duplicate, overlap with, or conflict with the proposed regulations.
        Alternatives to the Proposed Rule
        NMFS has not been able to identify any alternatives that would accomplish the objectives of the Act and minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities. The alternative of taking no action at all was rejected because it would fail to accomplish the objectives of the Act. As a Contracting Party to the Convention, the United States is required to implement the decisions of WCPFC. Consequently, NMFS has limited discretion as to how to implement those decisions.

        In previous rulemakings to establish or revise U.S. purse seine fishing effort limits in the ELAPS in accordance with WCPFC decisions, NMFS considered a number of alternatives. The alternatives had to do, firstly, with the time scales for the limits (e.g., single-year versus multiple-year limits); secondly, with whether separate limits would be established in the U.S. EEZ and high seas portions of the ELAPS or they would be combined; thirdly, with whether the limit(s) would be allocated to individual vessels; and fourthly, with the magnitude of the limit(s).
        The first category, time scales, is not relevant here because the objective is to implement the required fishing effort limit for 2017 only. The second category, whether to break up the ELAPS limit into separate limits for the U.S. EEZ and the high seas portions of the ELAPS, would provide less operational flexibility for affected purse seine vessels, and thus be more constraining and costly than the proposed limit. It is not preferred for that reason. The third category, allocating the limit among individual vessels, would likely alleviate any adverse impacts of a race-to-fish that might occur as a result of establishing the competitive fishing effort limits as in the proposed rule. As described in the previous paragraphs, those potential impacts include lower prices for landed product and risks to performance and safety stemming from fishing during sub-optimal times. Those impacts, however, are expected to be minor, so this alternative is not preferred.
        Regarding the fourth category, the magnitude of the limits, NMFS could, as it did for the 2013 rule that established the 2013 and existing 2014 ELAPS limit, consider both smaller and larger limits for the ELAPS. Smaller limits, being more constraining and costly to affected fishing businesses, are not considered further here. CMM 2013-01 includes an explicit limit for the United States for the high seas, 1,270 fishing days per year, so NMFS is not afforded any discretion there. Like its predecessor, CMM 2012-01, CMM 2013-01 is less explicit with respect to the U.S. EEZ, so NMFS could consider a more expansive limit for that aspect of the total ELAPS limit. For example, in the 2013 rule, NMFS considered an alternative that would be based in part on the fleet's greatest annual level of fishing effort in the U.S. EEZ (on an average per-vessel basis, then expanded to a 40-vessel equivalent) during the 1997-2010 time period. Using that approach here, the U.S. EEZ aspect of the limit would be 1,655 fishing days, and when combined with the high seas aspect of 1,270 fishing days, the total ELAPS limit would be 2,925 fishing days. Because this alternative limit is greater and thus less constraining than the proposed limit of 1,828 fishing days, the costs of complying with this alternative would be less than or equal to those of the proposed limit. This alternative is not preferred because it would depart from the effort limits established for the period 2009-2016. The approach used in formulating the limit proposed in this rule is consistent with the precedent set by the 2009 rule and the 2013 rule, and affected entities have been exposed to the impacts of those limits for the past five years. The alternative of taking no action at all, which would not set any fishing day limits, is not preferred because it would fail to accomplish the objective of the WCPFC Implementation Act or satisfy the international obligations of the United States as a Contracting Party to the Convention.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 300
          Administrative practice and procedure, Fish, Fisheries, Fishing, Marine resources, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Treaties.

          Dated: September 14, 2017.
          Samuel D. Rauch, III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 300 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 300—INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES REGULATIONS

            Subpart O—Western and Central Pacific Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species

        1. The authority citation for 50 CFR part 300, subpart O, continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
           16 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.

        2. In § 300.217, revise paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows:

          § 300.217
          Vessel identification.

          (b) Marking. (1) Vessels shall be marked in accordance with the identification requirements of § 300.336(b)(2), and if an IRCS has not been assigned to the vessel, then the Federal, State, or other documentation number used in lieu of the IRCS must be preceded by the characters “USA” and a hyphen (that is, “USA-”).

        3. In § 300.218, revise paragraph (a)(2)(v) to read as follows:

          § 300.218
          Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          (v) High seas fisheries. Fishing activities subject to the reporting requirements of § 300.341 must be maintained and reported in the manner specified in § 300.341(a).

        4. In § 300.223, revise paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:

          § 300.223
          Purse seine fishing restrictions.

          (a) * * *
          (1) For calendar year 2017 there is a limit of 1,828 fishing days.

      [FR Doc. 2017-19981 Filed 9-19-17; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 73
        [DA 03-1122; MB Docket No. 03-98; RM-10688]
        Radio Broadcasting Services; Sellersburg and Seymour, IN

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          This document requests comment on a petition for rulemaking filed on behalf of INDY LICO, Inc., licensee of Station WGRL(FM), Channel 230A, Noblesville, Indiana, and S.C.I. Broadcasting, Inc., licensee of Station WQKC(FM), Channel 229B, Seymour, Indiana, requesting substitution of Channel 230A for Channel 229B at Seymour, Indiana, and the reallotment of Channel 230A from Seymour to Sellersburg, Indiana, as the community's first local transmission service, and the modification of the license for Station WQKC(FM) to reflect the changes. This petition was originally filed as an amended proposal in MM Docket 01-143 which was terminated. Channel 230A can be allotted to Sellersburg at a site 11.5 kilometers (7.1 miles) south of the community at coordinates 38-17-41 NL and 85-45-07 WL.

          DATES:
          Comments must be filed on or before July 21, 2003, and reply comments on or before August 5, 2003.

          ADDRESSES:
          Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve the petitioners, as follows: Mark N. Lipp, Esq., J. Thomas Nolan, Esq., Vinson & Elkins L.L.P., The Willard Office Building, 1455 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004-1008 (Counsel to Petitioners).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Victoria M. McCauley, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No. 03-98, adopted May 28, 2003, and released May 30, 2003. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Information Center at Portals II, CY-A257, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC. This document may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractors, Qualex International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 202-863-2893, or via e-mail qualexint@aol.com.

        Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of l980 do not apply to this proceeding.

        Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing permissible ex parte contacts.
        For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

          List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
          Radio, Radio broadcasting.

          For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 73 as follows:

            PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES

          1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336.

            § 73.202
            [Amended]

          2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Indiana, is amended by adding Sellersburg, Channel 230A and removing Seymour, Channel 229B.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          John A. Karousos,
          Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau.

      [FR Doc. 03-15070 Filed 6-13-03; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        RIN 1018-AU79
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; reopening of comment period, availability of draft economic analysis, announcement of public hearing, and amended required determinations.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are reopening the comment period on our October 31, 2006, proposed revision of critical habitat for the Cape Sable seaside sparrow (Ammodramus maritimus mirabilis under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We also announce the availability of the draft economic analysis for the proposed critical habitat revision and provide amended required determinations for the proposal. The draft economic analysis estimated potential future impacts associated with conservation efforts for the sparrow in areas proposed for designation to be $32.2 million over the next 20 years (undiscounted). The present value of these impacts is $26.9 million, using a discount rate of 3 percent, or $22.2 million, using a discount rate of 7 percent. The annualized value of these impacts is $1.8 million, using a discount rate of 3 percent, or $2.1 million, using a discount rate of 7 percent. Finally, we announce a public hearing during the reopening of the comment period. We are taking these actions to allow all interested parties an opportunity to comment simultaneously on the original proposal rule and the newly available associated draft economic analysis. Previously submitted comments need not be resubmitted; they are already part of the public record that we will consider in preparing our final rule determination.

          DATES:

          We will accept public comments until September 17, 2007. We will hold one public hearing on August 29, 2007, on the proposed critical habitat designation and the draft economic analysis. See “Public Hearing” under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for details.

          ADDRESSES:

          Written comments: If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and information concerning this proposal by any one of the following methods:
          1. Mail or hand-deliver written comments and information to Tylan Dean, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, South Florida Ecological Services Office, 1339 20th Street, Vero Beach, FL 32960-3559.
          2. E-mail your comments to Tylan_Dean@fws.gov. Please see the “Public Comments Solicited” under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for additional information about this method.
          3. Fax your comments to 772-562-4288.
          4. Submit comments via the Federal Rulemaking portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions on the site.
          Please see the “Public Comments Solicited” section below for more information about submitting comments or viewing our received materials.

            Public Hearing: We will hold a public hearing on August 29, 2007 at the John D. Campbell Agricultural Center, 18710 S.W. 288th Street, Miami, FL. An information session will be held between 5 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. and the meeting will be held between 6:30 and 8:30 p.m. You may provide oral or written comments at the public hearing.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Tylan Dean, South Florida Ecological Services office (see ADDRESSES); telephone 772-562-3909; facsimile 772-562-4288. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Public Hearing

        On August 29, 2007, we will hold a public hearing on the proposed critical habitat designation and the draft economic analysis. An information session will be held from 5 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. and will precede the hearing. The public hearing will run from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. See the ADDRESSES section for the location of the public hearing. Persons needing reasonable accommodations to attend and participate in the public hearing should contact the person listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT as soon as possible. To allow sufficient time to process requests, please call no later than one week before the hearing date. Information regarding the proposal is available in alternative formats upon request.
        Public Comments Solicited
        We intend that any final action resulting from the proposal 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 the proposed rule. We particularly seek comments concerning:

        (1) The reasons why any habitat should or should not be designated as critical habitat as provided by section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), including whether designation of critical habitat is prudent in that (a) the degree of any threat to the species due to the designation of critical habitat is not increased by identification of critical habitat; and (b) designation would benefit the species;
        (2) Specific information on the amount and distribution of Cape Sable seaside sparrow habitat, including areas occupied by Cape Sable seaside sparrows, areas containing features essential to the conservation of the species, and areas that are essential to the conservation of the species;
        (3) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed revised critical habitat;
        (4) Any foreseeable economic, national security, or other potential impacts resulting from the proposed designation and, in particular, any impacts on small entities, and the benefits of including or excluding areas that exhibit these impacts;
        (5) Whether the draft economic analysis identifies all State and local costs attributable to the proposed revised critical habitat designation, and information on any costs that we could have inadvertently overlooked;
        (6) Whether the draft economic analysis makes appropriate assumptions regarding current practices and likely regulatory changes imposed as a result of the designation of critical habitat;
        (7) Whether the draft economic analysis correctly assesses the effect on regional costs associated with any land use controls that may derive from the revised designation of critical habitat;
        (8) Any foreseeable economic or other impacts resulting from the proposed designation of revised critical habitat, and in particular, any impacts on small entities or families; and other information that would indicate that the revision of critical habitat would or would not have any impacts on small entities or families;
        (9) Whether the draft economic analysis appropriately identifies all costs and benefits that could result from the designation;
        (10) Whether the benefits of exclusion of any particular area from critical habitat would outweigh the benefits of inclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act;
        (11) Economic data on the incremental effects that would result from designating any particular area as revised critical habitat, since it is our intent to include the incremental costs attributed to the revised critical habitat designation in the final economic analysis; and
        (12) 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.

        If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposal by any one of several methods (see ADDRESSES). Please submit comments electronically to Tylan_Dean@fws.gov. Please also include “Attn: Cape Sable seaside sparrow critical habitat” in your e-mail subject header and your name and return address in the body of your message.
        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.

        Copies of the draft economic analysis and the proposed rule for critical habitat designation are available on the Internet at http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/ or from the South Florida Ecological Services Office (see ADDRESSES).

        Our final designation of critical habitat will take into consideration all comments and any additional information we received during both comment periods, including those provided at the public hearing.  If you submit previous comments and information during the initial comment period on the October 31, 2006, proposed rule (71 FR 63980), you need to resubmit them, because they are currently part of our record and we will consider them in developing our final rule determination.  On the basis of public comment on this analysis, the critical habitat proposal, and the final economic analysis, 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.  We may exclude an area from critical habitat if we determined that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of including a particular area as critical habitat, unless the failure to designate such area is critical habitat would result in the extinction of the species.  We may exclude an area from designated critical habitat based on economic impacts, national security, or any other relevant impact.
        Background

        We originally designated critical habitat for the Cape Sable seaside sparrow on August 11, 1977 (42 FR 40685) and published a correction on September 22, 1977 (42 FR 47840).  For a description of the sparrow, its habitat, and Federal Actions that occurred prior to our October 31, 2006, proposed rule to revise critical habitat (71 FR 63980), please refer to the original proposed rule published on July 14, 1976 (41 FR 28978); the August 11, 1977, final rule (42 FR 40685); and the September 22, 1977, correction (42 FR 47840).  On October 31, 2006, we published a proposed rule to revise the critical habitat designated for the sparrow in Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties, Florida (71 FR 63980).  The proposed revision identifies seven units that encompass a total area of approximately 156,350 acres (52,291 hectares), which represents a reduction in the acreage of designated critical habitat by approximately 40,910 acres (13,682 hectares).  In accordance with a settlement agreement, we will submit for publication in the Federal Register a final critical habitat designation for the Cape Sable seaside sparrow on or before October 24, 2007.
        Critical habitat is defined in section 2 of the Act 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.  Federal agencies proposing actions affecting areas designated as critical habitat must consult with us on the effects of their proposed actions, under section 7(a)(2) of the Act.
        Summary of Draft Economic Analysis
        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 or any other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat.  We will continue to review any conservation or management plans that address the species within the areas we have proposed for revised designation, under to section 4(b)(2) and based on the definition of critical habitat provided in section 3(5)(A) of the Act.
        Based on the October 31, 2006, proposed rule (71 FR 63980), we prepared a draft economic analysis of the proposed revised critical habitat designation (see “Public Comments Solicited” for how to obtain a copy). The draft economic analysis considers the potential economic effects of actions relating to the conservation of the sparrow, including costs associated with sections 4, 7, and 10 of the Act, which would include costs attributable to designating critical habitat. It further considers the economic effects of protective measures taken as a result of other Federal, State, and local laws that aid habitat conservation for the sparrow in critical habitat areas. The draft analysis considers both economic efficiency and distributional effects. Economic efficiency effects generally reflect “opportunity costs” associated with the commitment of resources required to accomplish species and habitat  conservation and comply with habitat protection measures (such as lost economic opportunities associated with restrictions on land use). This analysis also addresses how potential economic impacts are likely to be distributed, including an assessment of any local or regional impacts of habitat conservation and the potential effects of conservation activities on small entities and the energy industry. Decision-makers can use this information to assess whether the effects of the revised designation might unduly burden a particular group or economic sector. The anticipated economic effects associated with the proposed revision of critical habitat are estimated based on activities that are “reasonably foreseeable,” including, but not limited to, activities that are currently authorized, permitted, or funded, or for which proposed plans are currently available to the public. The analysis summarizes costs associated with past species conservation efforts for the sparrow and then forecasts projected future impacts for the 20-year period from 2007 (the year of the species' final critical habitat designation) to 2026. Forecasts of economic conditions and other factors beyond the next 20 years would be speculative.
        The draft economic analysis is intended to quantify the economic impacts of all potential conservation efforts for the Cape Sable seaside sparrow. All dollar amounts include those costs coextensive with listing; some of these costs will likely be incurred under the existing critical habitat designation and other existing regulatory mechanisms regardless of whether critical habitat is revised. The analysis estimates potential future impacts associated with conservation efforts for the sparrow in areas proposed for designation to be $32.2 million over the next 20 years (undiscounted). However, because it is uncertain whether incremental conservation measures implemented for sparrow conservation will represent a constraint on overall water management activities due to future actions for the Everglades Restoration program, costs from this proposal associated with water management activities are calculated for only the next 5 years.
        The present value of these impacts is $26.9 million, using a discount rate of 3 percent, or $22.2 million, using a discount rate of 7 percent. The annualized value of these impacts is $1.8 million, using a discount rate of 3 percent, or $2.1 million, using a discount rate of 7 percent. The majority (58 percent) of the total potential impacts estimated in this report are associated with potential species management efforts (such as surveying, monitoring, research, and exotic vegetation control). The remaining impacts are associated with potential water management changes to conserve the sparrow (33 percent), fire management (7 percent) and administrative costs of consultation (2 percent).
        As stated earlier, we solicit data and comments from the public on this draft economic analysis, as well as on all aspects of our proposal. We may revise the proposal, or its supporting documents, to incorporate or address new information we receive during this comment period.
        Required Determinations—Amended

        In our October 31, 2006, proposed rule (71 FR 63980), we indicated that we would be deferring 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 was available in the draft economic analysis. Those data are now available for our use in making these determinations. We now affirm the information contained in original proposed rule concerning Executive Order (E.O.) 13132 (Federalism); E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform) E.O. 13211 (Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use); the Paperwork Reduction Act; the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951); and the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). Based on the information made available to us in the draft economic analysis, we are amending our Required Determinations, as provided below, concerning E.O. 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, E.O. 12630 (Takings), and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
        Regulatory Planning and Review

        In accordance with E.O. 12866, this document is a significant rule, because it may raise novel legal and policy issues. However, we do not anticipate that it will have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or affect the economy in a material way. Due to the timeline for publication in the Federal Register the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) did not formally review the proposed rule.
        Further, E.O. 12866 directs Federal agencies promulgating regulations to evaluate regulatory alternatives (OMB, Circular A-4, September 17, 2003). Pursuant to Circular A-4, if the agency determines that a Federal regulatory action is appropriate, the agency will need to consider alternative regulatory approaches. Since the determination of critical habitat is a statutory requirement pursuant to the Act, we must then evaluate alternative regulatory approaches, where feasible, when promulgating a designation of critical habitat.
        In developing our designations of critical habitat, we consider economic impacts, impacts to national security, and other relevant impacts pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Based on the discretion allowable under this provision, we may exclude any particular area from the designation of critical habitat, providing that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying the area as critical habitat and that such exclusion would not result in the extinction of the species. We believe that the evaluation of the inclusion or exclusion of particular areas, or combination thereof, in a designation constitutes our regulatory alternative analysis.
        Regulatory Flexibility Act
        Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996, whenever an agency is required to publish a proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities (small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In our proposal rule, we withheld our determination of whether this designation would result in a significant effect as defined under SBREFA until we completed our draft economic analysis of the proposed revised designation so that we would have the factual basis for our determination.
        According to the Small Business Administration (SBA), small entities include small organizations, such as independent nonprofit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions, including school boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 residents, as well as 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 revised critical habitat for the Cape Sable seaside sparrow would affect a substantial number of small entities, we considered the number of small entities affected within particular types of economic activities (such as residential and commercial development). We considered each industry or category individually to determine if certification is appropriate. In estimating the numbers of small entities potentially affected, we also considered whether their activities have any Federal involvement; some kinds of activities are unlikely to have any Federal involvement and so will not be affected by the revised designation of critical habitat. Designation of critical habitat only affects activities conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies; non-Federal activities are not affected by the designation.
        In our draft economic analysis of the proposed critical habitat designation, we evaluated the potential economic effects on small business entities resulting from conservation actions related to the proposed revision of Cape Sable seaside sparrow critical habitat. The economic impacts of conservation efforts for the sparrow are expected to be borne primarily by State and Federal agencies, including the Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, National Park Service, South Florida Water Management District, and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. None of these agencies is defined as a small entity by the Small Business Administration (SBA). Consequently, the designation of revised critical habitat for the sparrow is not expected to impact small entities. Based on currently available information, the Service certifies that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
        Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
        In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501), we make the following findings:

        (a) This rule would not produce a Federal mandate.  In general, a Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or Tribal governments, or the private sector, and includes both “Federal intergovernmental mandates” and “Federal private sector mandates.”  These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7).  “Federal intergovernmental mandate” includes a regulation that “would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments,” with two exceptions.  It excludes “a condition of Federal assistance.”  It also excludes “a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program,” unless the regulation “relates to a then-existing Federal program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State, local, and Tribal governments under entitlement authority,” if the provision would “increase the stringency of conditions of assistance” or “place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's responsibility to provide funding” and the State, local, or Tribal governments “lack authority” to adjust accordingly.  At the time of enactment, these entitlement programs were:  Medicaid; Aid to Families with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement.  “Federal private sector mandate” includes a regulation that “would impose an enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of Federal assistance; or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program.”
        The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally binding duty on non-Federal government entities or private parties.  Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat under section 7.  Non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat.  However, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency.  Furthermore, to the extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply; nor would critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs listed above onto State governments.
        (b) As discussed in the draft economic analysis of the proposed designation of revised critical habitat for the Cape Sable seaside sparrow, we expect the impacts on nonprofits and small governments to be primarily those impacts related to changes in environmental and ecological conditions. It is likely that small governments involved with developments and infrastructure projects would be interested parties or involved with projects involving section 7 consultations for the Cape Sable seaside sparrow within their jurisdictional areas. Any costs associated with this activity are likely to represent a small portion of a local government's budget. Consequently, we do not believe that the designation of revised critical habitat for the Cape Sable seaside sparrow would significantly or uniquely affect these small governmental entities. As such, a Small Government Agency Plan is not required.
        Takings
        In accordance with E.O. 12630 (Government Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights), we have analyzed the potential takings implications of proposing revised critical habitat for the Cape Sable seaside sparrow in a takings implications assessment. The takings implications assessment concludes that this proposed revised designation of critical habitat for the Cape Sable seaside sparrow does not pose significant takings implications.
        Author
        The primary author of this notice is the South Florida Ecological Services Office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
        Authority

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

          Dated: August 10, 2007.
          David M. Verhey,
          Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

      [FR Doc. 07-4030 Filed 8-14-07; 12:45 pm]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-M