        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 15
        RIN 1018-AH89
        Importation of Exotic Wild Birds Into the United States; Adding Blue-Fronted Amazon Parrots From Argentina's Approved Sustainable-Use Management Plan to the Approved List of Non-Captive-Bred Species

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          In this rule, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) proposes to approve a sustainable-use management plan developed by the CITES Management Authority of Argentina for blue-fronted amazon parrots (Amazona aestiva), under the Wild Bird Conservation Act of 1992 (WBCA). Approval of Argentina's petition would allow the import into the United States of blue-fronted amazon parrots removed from the wild in Argentina under an approved sustainable-use management plan. Criteria for approval of sustainable-use management plans are contained in 50 CFR 15.32. This rule proposes to add blue-fronted amazon parrots to the approved list of non-captive-bred (wild-caught) species contained in 50 CFR 15.33(b).

          DATES:
          Comments must be submitted on or before October 6, 2003.

          ADDRESSES:
          Materials related to this proposed rule are available for public inspection by appointment from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, at the Division of Management Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 700, Arlington, Virginia 22203.

          Please send comments and materials relating to this proposed rule to Dr. Peter O. Thomas, Chief, Division of Management Authority, at the above address, or via E-mail at: cites@fws.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Dr. Peter O. Thomas, Chief, Division of Management Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; telephone (703) 358-2093; fax (703) 358-2280.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Background

        This proposed rule would amend the regulations implementing aspects of the Wild Bird Conservation Act (WBCA), which was signed into law on October 23, 1992. The WBCA limits or prohibits imports of exotic bird species to ensure that their wild populations are not harmed by trade. It also encourages wild bird conservation programs in countries of origin by ensuring that all imports of such species into the United States are biologically sustainable and not detrimental to the survival of the species. A final rule published in the Federal Register on November 16, 1993 (58 FR 60536), implemented the prohibitions stipulated in the WBCA and provided permit requirements and procedures for some allowed exemptions.

        Import quotas were established for CITES-listed bird species for the year immediately following enactment of the WBCA, from October 23, 1992, to October 22, 1993. Those quotas were announced in the Federal Register on December 4, 1992 (57 FR 57510). In that same notice, we informed the public that, after that year, the importation of all exotic bird species listed in the CITES Appendices would be prohibited unless the species was listed in an approved list, or unless the species was a member of one of the ten families of birds specifically exempted from the WBCA. A notice published on March 30, 1993 (58 FR 16644), solicited public comments and announced a public meeting, held April 15-16, 1993, to receive input for developing regulations to implement some of the provisions of the WBCA. We received input, both at the meeting and in writing, from a broad cross-section of the interested public. During the year in which import quotas for CITES-listed bird species were in place, we published two notices in the Federal Register, one on April 16, 1993 (58 FR 19840), and one on August 10, 1993 (58 FR 42573), announcing species for which the quotas had been met and no further individual birds could be imported.

        Since the publication of the final rule of November 16, 1993, imports of all CITES-listed birds (as defined in the final rule) are prohibited, except for (a) species included in an approved list; (b) specimens for which an import permit has been issued; (c) species from countries that have approved sustainable-use management plans for those species; or (d) specimens from approved foreign captive-breeding facilities. We published a proposed rule in the Federal Register on March 17, 1994 (59 FR 12784), that would implement procedures for the establishment of an approved list of captive-bred species listed in the CITES Appendices that could be imported without a WBCA permit, provide criteria for including non-captive-bred (wild-caught) species in the approved list, and provide criteria for approval of foreign captive-breeding facilities.

        As the result of a lawsuit filed on February 15, 1994, and a resultant District Court Order that found a portion of the regulation in the November 16, 1993, Federal Register invalid, we announced in the Federal Register on May 24, 1994 (59 FR 26810), that all exotic birds listed in Appendix III of CITES would also be covered by the automatic import moratorium of the WBCA, regardless of their country of origin. A proposed rule was published on June 3, 1994 (59 FR 28826), to promulgate that regulatory change, and the final rule was published on December 2, 1994 (59 FR 62254).
        On December 2, 1994 (59 FR 62255), we published a final rule implementing procedures for the establishment of an approved list of captive-bred species listed in the CITES Appendices that could be imported without a WBCA permit; the approved captive-bred species were those for which it had been determined that trade involved only captive-bred specimens.
        A final rule published on January 24, 1996 (61 FR 2084), implemented procedures for the establishment of an approved list of non-captive-bred (wild-caught) species listed in the CITES Appendices that could be imported. The list of approved non-captive-bred species is contained in 50 CFR 15.33(b). For wild-caught CITES-listed birds to be on the approved list, we must determine that CITES is being effectively implemented for the species for each country of origin from which imports will be allowed, CITES-recommended measures are implemented, and there is a scientifically based management plan for the species that is adequately implemented and enforced. The scientifically based management plan must: (a) Provide for the conservation of the species and its habitat; (b) include incentives for conservation; (c) ensure that the use of the species is biologically sustainable and is well above the level at which the species might become threatened; (d) ensure that the species is maintained throughout its range at a level consistent with its role in the ecosystem; (e) address factors that include illegal trade, domestic trade, subsistence use, disease, and habitat loss; and (f) ensure that the methods of capture, transport, and maintenance of the species minimize the risk of injury or damage to health. For a species with a multinational distribution, we must also consider (a) whether populations of the species in other countries will be detrimentally affected by exports from the country requesting approval; (b) whether factors affecting conservation of the species are regulated throughout its range so that recruitment and/or breeding stocks will not be detrimentally affected by the proposed export; (c) whether the projected take and export will detrimentally affect breeding populations; and (d) whether the projected take and export will detrimentally affect existing enhancement activities, conservation programs, or enforcement efforts throughout the species' range. A species and country of export listed in 50 CFR 15.33(b) may be approved for three years, after which time the Service will have an opportunity to consider renewal of the approval.

        On August 10, 2000, we published a notice of receipt of application for approval in the Federal Register (65 FR 49007), which announced the receipt of a petition from the Management Authority of Argentina, Dirección de Fauna and Flora Silvestre, for approval of a sustainable-use management plan for the blue-fronted amazon parrot (Amazona aestiva) in Argentina. We accepted comments on that application until October 11, 2000. Although we have used information received to date in formulating this proposed rule, we will address previously received comments as well as any new comments in our final rule.
        Criteria for Approval of Species for Importation (50 CFR 15.32)
        Section 15.32(b)(1) Whether the Country of Export Is Effectively Implementing the Convention

        Argentina has been a Party to CITES since 1981 and has established two Management Authorities and two Scientific Authorities. Designation of competent CITES authorities is crucial for effective implementation of the Convention and ensures that the country has the necessary regulatory and technical infrastructure for the issuance of CITES documents and for making the required findings for the issuance of those documents. Argentina received a Category 1 rating in the CITES National Legislation Project. As directed in this project, the CITES Secretariat made this determination following a thorough review of Argentina's CITES implementing legislation. Category 1 is the highest rating possible and indicates that a Party has enacted “legislation that is believed generally to meet the requirements for implementation of CITES.” Furthermore, the CITES Standing Committee has never recommended that other CITES Parties enact sanctions against Argentina for failure to submit annual reports or properly implement the Convention. Argentina has also taken additional steps to demonstrate its commitment to the conservation of blue-fronted amazon parrots. In 1992, in response to concerns regarding the large number of blue-fronted amazons in trade, Argentina instituted a zero export quota. Prior to re-opening the export of blue-fronted amazons, Argentina worked to develop and implement a sustainable-use management plan for the species. Based on this information, we conclude that Argentina is effectively implementing CITES.
        Section 15.32(b)(2) Whether the Country of Export Has Developed a Scientifically Based Management Plan for the Species
        Although the population biology information provided in the application is not exhaustive, we conclude that there is sufficient baseline data provided in the petition to determine that Argentina has developed a scientifically based management plan and has established levels of harvest that will not be detrimental to the survival of the species in the wild.

          Conservation of species and habitat and incentives for conservation: The management plan provides for the conservation of the species and its habitat. The purpose of the sustainable-use management program, Project Elé, is to increase wild populations of blue-fronted amazons by working with private landowners to protect critical habitat (Chaco and transitional forests) and allow a strictly controlled limited harvest for export. The project currently covers 150,000 km2 in the Provinces of Chaco, Formosa, Jujuy, and Salta. These Provinces contain the majority of the remaining Chaco and transitional forest habitat and are where the greatest concentration of blue-fronted amazons in Argentina occurs (Moschione and Banchs, 1993). The habitat occurs primarily on privately or communally owned land. The main threat to the species in Argentina is habitat loss. According to Flombaum, et. al. (1997), the most limiting factor for survival of the birds is the lack of nest sites caused by accelerated deforestation. The birds nest only in primary-growth forests, with most nests in white quebracho trees (Aspidosperma quebracho-blanco)—a species that is in demand for tannins used for curing leather. Other species, such as quebracho colorado (Schinopsis quebraco-colorado), ceiba (Ceiba insignis), algarrobo blanco (Prosopsis alba), and palo santo (Bulnesia sarmientoi), which are used by the birds as nesting sites and for food, are commercially valuable for use as fenceposts, telephone poles, and furniture. In addition, large tracts of forest are cleared for cultivation of sugar cane, soybean, cotton, tobacco, and other crops. Because much of the remaining habitat used by the blue-fronted amazon is on private property, participation of property owners in the management program provides a deterrent to destroying parrot habitat for agricultural or development purposes.

        We believe that the proposed level of harvest will maintain the species throughout its range at a level consistent with its role in the ecosystem (See Sustainability, effect on wild population number). The collection quotas are conservative and based on science (Bucher et al., 1995; Flombaum et al., 1997).

        Included with Argentina's application is Decision 425/97, the Letter of Agreement To Conserve the Blue-fronted Parrot (Amazona aestiva) in Argentina, issued by the Department of Natural Resources and Sustainable Development. The Decision requires the establishment, using income generated from the program, of government-owned reserves where harvesting of blue-fronted amazons is prohibited. It also authorizes designating wooded areas within large private properties where parrot harvesting is permitted. The program coordinators work closely with provincial officials to determine where the reserves should be established in order to maximize critical habitat protection. Since the program's inception, three reserves have been established: Salta Province (dry transitional forest, established November, 2001, 15,000 ha), Chaco Province (dry chaco forest, established May, 2002 with 17,500 ha), and Jujuy Province (transitional forest, established December, 2002 with 10,000 ha). The reserve in Salta Province now also serves as the nucleus of a larger biosphere reserve. In Reserva Natural Loro Hablador, Chaco Province, funds from the project paid for the construction of a small building which is used as a guardhouse and a dormitory, and to store supplies for researchers and staff. The reserves are managed with funds and staff from the project.
        The sustainable-use management plan prohibits the felling of nest trees to collect nestlings, thereby protecting nest sites. Exportation is only authorized for birds from nests that are marked and numbered and meet the project criteria. The financial benefits to the landowners from the controlled harvest provide the landowners an incentive to protect the nesting habitat on their property. In citrus groves where juvenile birds are collected, the killing of birds as agricultural pests, normally permitted by provincial law, is prohibited. The applicant notes that participating landowners become sensitized and educated regarding conservation of the species and its habitat through the authorization process, inspections, and advice on how to minimize environmental impact in the harvest process. Based on this information, we conclude that Argentina's scientifically based management plan for blue-fronted amazons provides for the conservation of the species and its habitat.

          Implementation and enforcement: The applicant has provided substantial implementation and enforcement information. Decision 425/97 gives oversight of the project to the Wildlife Office. It provides mechanisms for the administration and enforcement of the program, establishment of reserves, control of illegal trade, and handling and disposition of confiscated birds at the national and provincial levels. Annual decrees also address collection zones, quotas, and export requirements.

        Most of the oversight for the project is done by project staff members. Project staff live in the communities or on the properties of collectors during the harvest seasons. They place leg bands on each captured nestling and record biological data, inspect nests, mark each tree from which nestlings are removed, and inspect animal care conditions. All inspection and biological information is maintained in a large database. Staff members also accompany all collectors of juvenile birds to ensure compliance with project policies. The project coordinators identify collection properties and establish collection quotas for each broker so that brokers do not purchase more birds than allotted. In addition, project staff members accompany brokers when birds are purchased from the collectors. Staff members also inspect the parrot housing facilities of collectors and brokers. Frequent inspections by staff members and the perceived importance of the project in communities where the income generated by the collection is shared among community members reduce the incentive to cheat. During a site visit in January 2003, two U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, International Affairs, biologists observed the project coordinators take every available opportunity to provide outreach materials and information to national law enforcement personnel at highway checkpoints in the region. Officers were reminded to contact the provincial wildlife authority if they observed any individual with numerous parrots who did not have authorized certificates of origin and leg bands on the birds (contact information was provided). Unlike in the 1980s, birds can no longer be exported directly from the provinces; all legal exports of blue-fronted amazons from this project are through Buenos Aires.
        The provinces participating in the program are responsible for meeting the criteria set forth in the national decrees, and only birds from authorized and inspected properties will be permitted to be exported. We received international trade data from the United Nations Environment Programme-World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) showing that the number of blue-fronted amazons exported from Argentina during 1998 and 1999 closely matched the number of birds that were harvested for the program and certified for export, as reported in the application. Based on the above information, we conclude that the program appears to be adequately implemented and enforced.

          Sustainability, effect on wild population number: The blue-fronted amazon is one of the most common amazon species in South America. Although the species is listed in CITES Appendix II, it is not listed in Birds To Watch 2: The World List of Threatened Birds (Collar et al., 1994), Parrots: Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan 2000-2004 (Snyder et al., 2000), or the 2002 IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals (http://www.redlist.org). In their comments to the Division of Management Authority (October 2000), TRAFFIC—North America and TRAFFIC—South America argued that the wild blue-fronted amazon parrot population could sustain the proposed harvest.

        The applicant proposes collection of nestlings during the breeding season (December and January) and juvenile birds, which are designated as pests by landowners, on citrus farms in May, June, and July. While the species' range extends over 430,000 km2 in Argentina, not all of the range is available habitat. The greatest population densities are within an area of 200,000 km2, and the area subject to management that contains optimal roosting, foraging, and nesting areas is 170,000 km2 in the Provinces of Chaco, Formosa, Jujuy, and Salta (Moschione and Banchs, 1993). Sampling in three localities between 1996 and 2002 resulted in an estimation of 7.70 nests per km2 (1,309,000 active nests per breeding season within the management area). The mean number of hatchlings per nest at the sites sampled ranged from 3.87 to 4.27 hatchlings (Banchs et al., 2000).

        The nestling collection quotas are based on the total number of participating properties, the amount of forest in each, and the degree of past compliance by each collector. For new properties, satellite photographs are used to determine the area of forest and estimate nest density. If the property is fully forested, there is a high probability that there will be at least one nest per 7 hectares. However, to be conservative, the project assumes one nest per 20 hectares. Therefore, on a 100-hectare property, nestlings may be collected from only 5 nests, regardless of the actual number of nests on the property. In each nest from which birds are collected, a minimum of one nestling must be left in the nest. Because the typical nest contains 4 eggs, of which 3 hatch, and 2 nestlings survive to fledge, on the 100-hectare property, two nestlings could be taken from each of the five nests. Thus, the quota for the property would be 10 nestlings. Using fledgling rate only, the harvest per nest is less than that recommended by Bucher et al. (1995) as sustainable. Using fledging rate only, Bucher et al. (1995) recommended a harvest of 1.5 nestlings per nest based on a study of the population biology of the blue-fronted amazon at the Los Colorados Field Station, Salta Province. According to the model by Bucher et al., on a 100-hectare property, 21.4 nestlings could be harvested sustainably given one nest per seven hectares.
        The greater the number of properties that participate in the program, the higher the quota. Large properties are given much smaller quotas ( based on an estimate of 1 nest/50 ha) because it is unlikely that the collector will explore the entire property. The total national quota is equal to the sum of the quotas from the different properties. The quota per property in succeeding years may be adjusted in response to the results of sampling (actual nest counts and number of hatchlings per nest). If a collector does not abide by the rules of the project, his quota may be lowered or, in rare instances, he may be expelled from the program. Only birds removed from individually numbered nest cavities in standing trees may be collected. Capture involves cutting a hole into the cavity to reach the nestling and resealing the hole following take. The project staff and landowners have observed pairs re-using nests that have been opened in previous years, indicating that opening nests has minimal effect on the quality of a nest cavity.
        The blue-fronted amazon in Argentina is viewed as a pest species by citrus growers (Bucher 1992). The species is legally classified as a pest species in provinces where the project permits the harvest of juveniles, and large numbers of blue-fronted amazon parrots were regularly shot by citrus-grove managers prior to the establishment of the sustainable-use program. During their visit, the Service biologists were informed that there has not been an observed decline in the number of juvenile birds at nearby roosting areas in spite of shooting that may occur on properties not participating in the program. The maximum take of juveniles is set at one-third of the number of nestlings collected in the immediately preceding breeding season. Although the number of participating properties may increase each year, the take of juveniles per unit area does not change. Juveniles can only be taken when the owners declare in writing to the local administrative authority that the birds are damaging their crops, and project staff must verify that the damage is due to blue-fronted amazons. Banchs and Moschione believe that there are over 700,000 juveniles in the transitional forest area (Pers. comm. with DSA and DMA biologists, Jan. 2003). Because few nestlings are found in the Salta and Jujuy Provinces, the creation of reserves there to protect the transitional forests, as required by Decision 425/97, was made possible only through the harvest of juveniles. Thus, the limited harvest of juveniles may actually increase the population by protecting important roosting areas. As with nestlings, a project staff member bands each bird captured and collects biological data. The staff member also explores the property to determine if the participant is also shooting parrots. If so, the quota is reduced in the current or following year, or the collector is suspended from the program.
        It is doubtful that the individuals that are left in the nests following the nestling collection become the source of juveniles collected in the citrus groves are the same. According to Banchs and Moschione, this is because the distance between the nesting areas and the citrus groves is over 150 km. It is unlikely that the flocks observed in the citrus groves are those that nest on the properties participating in the program (E-mail to M. Kreger, February 7, 2003).

        The total quota for nestlings and juveniles has not been met in any given year. This is because the properties are extensive and may not be completely explored. The applicant notes that it is difficult to locate nests, the vegetation is often dense and impenetrable, and most indigenous communities prefer to take only the birds they need to pay for short-term (subsistence) economic needs. No birds may be collected before or after the collection period. From a total authorized quota of 16,348 birds (nestlings + juveniles) for the period 1998-2002, only 8,940 were actually collected and exported.
        Although complete information on the population biology of this species is not available, funds generated by the sustainable-use program are being used to address information gaps. All of the data collected each season by program staff members are entered into a database maintained by I. Berkunsky, a Ph.D. student and author of the management plan for the reserve in Chaco Province. These data are providing information on the number of nestlings per nest, nestling health and mortality, nest locations, whether or not nests are being re-used, harvest trends at each property or habitat, who is harvesting, and levels of compliance.
        Now that reserves are in place, basic biological studies can be accomplished. Because there is no extraction of parrots in the reserves, these areas serve as a control for comparison with properties involved in the harvest. Berkunsky is also studying the reproductive biology of the birds, including clutch size, fledging rate, frequency of repeated nest use, predation of fledglings, natural recruitment, etc. Another study, which will involve radio-tracking of individuals, will examine population dynamics, flock movements, and habitat use. Such a study will determine whether birds in the harvest areas flock to the transitional forests or citrus groves. The project should also allow estimation of the percentage of the total population involved in foraging in citrus groves. Additional studies are proposed to focus on taxonomy, landscape ecology, the impact of foraging on citrus groves, and the impact of the project on local economies.
        The information generated by these studies will also assist us to determine whether to renew the program after the initial approval period. If approved, we will require that the applicant provide an annual report at the end of each collection season during the period covered by the approval. The applicant will be asked to include in the report the number and size of the properties participating in the program, population censuses in the collection areas, and an assessment of the short- and long-term impacts of collection on the population, including recruitment, natural nestling mortality within the nest, and the effects of artificially opening and resealing nest cavities.
        Illegal Trade, Domestic Trade, Subsistence Use, Disease, Habitat Loss
        The management plan for the species addresses illegal trade, domestic trade, subsistence use, disease, and habitat loss. The program is operated at a national level with collaboration at the provincial level. In a supplemental letter dated September 2000, the applicant stated that domestic demand for blue-fronted amazons has declined due to economic factors and stricter controls over the harvest and transport of the species. In addition, more field personnel have been assigned to monitor legal harvest and control illegal trade. Argentina's application states that domestic trade is under the same guidelines as the proposed program and involves fewer than 150 birds per year.
        The project is the only legal means to export blue-fronted amazons or commercialize parrots domestically. Some of the project birds are sold as pets in large cities such as Buenos Aires at prices competitive with export prices. There is a “folkloric” market in small pueblos and aldeas within the range of the species, where birds captured by individuals not participating in the program are sold as pets to local people. Such trade of single birds is permitted within a province. Larger numbers of birds in transport that are not certified as originating from the program are confiscated. Because the birds are imprinted on humans and their exact origin is unknown, they are non-releasable. The project pays for their rehabilitation and distributes them to local people as pets along with information about their care and about conservation of the species. Although about 500 non-program parrots were confiscated in 2002, Banchs and Moschione believe that illegal exports have declined by 600 birds each year since the inception of the program based on the numbers of birds confiscated by provincial authorities (Pers. comm. with DSA and DMA biologists, Jan. 2003).
        The program staff strictly controls the harvest and bands all specimens in the field immediately after capture. Staff members ensure that nesting trees are labeled with plastic tags, check that no tree has been cut down to retrieve nestlings, and inspect some, to all, of the nests from which the nestlings have been removed, to verify that at least one nestling remains in the nest. The nestlings left in the nest are marked by project staff members under each wing with methylene blue to ensure they will not be harvested later and put into trade. Because the bands, capture locations, and other identifying information for each bird must be registered at a national level, and only birds harvested in accordance with the sustainable-use management plan are exported as part of this program, we believe that reasonable measures are being implemented to prevent illegal trafficking in blue-fronted amazon parrots from Argentina. More inspections are made on the properties of first-time participants and on those identified as needing closer oversight to ensure compliance with the program.
        The possibility of disease is a concern within holding areas and in the countries into which the birds are imported. Decision 425/97 requires that a veterinarian be present at the assembly areas, separation within the assembly facility of birds captured from different locations, and appropriate quarantine prior to export. The birds are not assembled in the same housing area as other species, the housing areas must be well-ventilated, the floors of the cages must be cleaned daily, and sick birds must be isolated for diagnosis and treatment. Quarantine in Argentina must comply with rules established by SENASA (National Animal Health Service). Exotic birds imported into the United States are subject to quarantine in U.S. Department of Agriculture approved facilities before they can be released to U.S. importers. If the program were approved, blue-fronted amazons from Argentina would be subject to those quarantine requirements. Spain currently imports a large number of blue-fronted amazons from Argentina's sustainable-use program, and the Management Authority of that country reports that they have not linked any avian disease outbreaks to blue-fronted amazons from Argentina (E-mail to A. St. John, May 12, 2003). We are confident that approving this program would not increase the risk of introduction of avian diseases to the United States.
        Loss of parrot habitat results mainly from logging of nesting habitat or habitat conversion for farming and agriculture. This program is intended to reduce habitat loss by providing incentives for protecting nesting areas on private property and requiring the establishment of national reserves.
        Methods of Capture, Maintenance, and Transport

        Nestlings are harvested in December and January. At least one nestling must be left in every nest harvested. The blue-fronted amazon is a cavity nester. In order to locate nests, collectors look for holes in tree trunks that have insects swarming around the opening, adult birds entering and leaving the cavity, or audible vocalizations from within the cavity. In the 1980s, collectors cut down nesting trees to collect the nestlings. However, Argentina's sustainable-use management program prohibits this practice, and project staff train collectors to use lassos and harness systems to safely climb nest trees to collect the birds. Once at the opening of the cavity, collectors use a weighted string to determine the depth of the nest. When the depth is determined, the collector uses an axe or machete to cut a hole in the side of the tree in order to remove the nestlings. The nestlings are placed in a bag and the collector reseals the new opening with mud and sticks. A plastic identification label, indicating the unique number of the nest, is nailed to each harvested nesting tree. There is no evidence, since full implementation of the project in December 1997, that opening and resealing a hole near the nest has caused mortality of the remaining nestlings or failure of adult pairs to use the site in subsequent years. Project staff are continuing to collect these data.
        After harvest, the nestlings are placed in a holding area until they are purchased by a broker. The holding areas must be dry to avoid fungus-induced respiratory and skin infections. We observed several different holding areas. The most common was a shallow hole dug into the ground with wooden planks over the top to keep predators out and maintain darkness typical of the nest.
        The birds are hand-fed at least three times per day. The feed used is a commercial corn-based mash produced specifically for parrots by a pet food company in Buenos Aires. Project personnel provide the feed and feeding instructions to the collectors. The mash is mixed with water and fed by hand or spoon. On the site visit, we saw no evidence of force-feeding. Collectors and their families often supplement the commercial feed with local fruit and seeds that the birds would have been likely to receive from their parents.
        Brokers prefer to purchase nestlings when the birds can feed independently. In addition, frequent handling of the birds is thought to tame them. We did not see nestlings in the holding area resist handling. We saw no evidence of illness or injuries in the nestlings in the holding areas, and collectors report very few mortalities. The nestlings remain with the collector 2-4 weeks, depending on the age of the birds at the time of collection.
        Project staff members (biologists or field technicians) visit each collector before the arrival of the broker. They affix leg bands (open metal bands that once closed can only be removed by breaking) with the code AR or ARG and a unique identification number. Only staff members may affix leg bands, reducing the likelihood of injury during banding and ensuring that only legally acquired birds are banded. The birds are weighed, wing length is measured, and the general health of each bird is recorded. Injured birds are treated, and most injuries have been superficial around legs or toes. If the project staff were to observe evidence of a high mortality, injuries, or more birds collected than the quota allows, the collector might have his quota reduced the following year or be suspended from the program.

        Juveniles are harvested from May through July in the citrus groves. Project staff members live on the properties and accompany collectors in every stage of the trapping process. Snares made of reeds are set at dawn before the birds arrive to forage in the citrus groves. The snares are set in the branches of the citrus trees to ensure that only birds that are actually foraging are caught. If a parrot is captured, its loud vocalizations alert the collector to the capture. In rare instances, other species are captured (e.g., passerines); however, mortality is reported to be minimal. Every trap is inspected and disarmed within four hours of being set. The parrots usually retreat to the transitional forest by midday to escape the heat. No blue-fronted amazon has required euthanasia as a result of injuries sustained from the trapping process for juvenile birds since the project's inception.
        We visited the holding facilities of three brokers. Each facility was indoors and contained stainless steel cages either suspended from the ceiling, on legs above the floor, or mounted on the wall above the floor. The cages are constructed of wire and contain water and feed pans. Each facility had windows providing sunlight, ventilation, drainage, and a source of clean running water. Depending on the size of the bird, up to 25 birds can be housed in each cage. The same commercial diet provided to collectors is provided to brokers. Brokers typically maintain the birds for less than 2 weeks. According to the application, cages at the assembly area may house up to 30 birds per cubic meter. We believe that, particularly for nestlings, such space is more than adequate. Other housing conditions, such as ventilation, lighting, running water, and sanitation, also appear to be adequate. Each assembly center is required to have a veterinarian available, who is responsible for animal health and official reporting.

        Transport from the point of capture to the quarantine facility in Buenos Aires, road transport in excess of 500 kilometers, and air transport, require the use of crates built to IATA (International Air Transport Association) standards. Air circulation, crate handling, and other conditions for transport within the province of origin are addressed in the application, but do not have to meet IATA standards. It is important to note that Standards for Humane and Healthful Transport of Wild Mammals and Birds to the United States (50 CFR 14.105) prohibits the import of unweaned birds. Subsequently, we would not allow the import of birds into the United States that still require hand-feeding. However, during our visit to collection sites and broker facilities, brokers noted that they only purchase birds from collectors when the birds no longer require hand-feeding.

        In a letter dated September 2000, the applicant reported that mortality during capture and transport is less than one percent. The nestling mortality, primarily during housing, in 1998 was 3.2 percent, 22.5 percent in 1999, and 4.2 percent in 2000. The high mortality in 1999 was due to Pacheco's disease at a quarantine facility that killed 95 percent of the birds at that facility. After that incident, Resolution 1955/99 was passed, that suspends from the program any exporters who experience mortalities greater than 25 percent in one season. Other causes of mortality that have been experienced in the program were not reported to us, although the application indicates that such information is reported to the Wildlife Office. No numbers were provided on animals that were sick or injured during the capture, housing, and transport process. As a condition of program approval, we would require that the annual reports include figures on disease, injury, and mortality during capture, housing, and transport. We would also require that the applicant provide training to program participants to ensure that appropriate parrot husbandry (including diet and basic animal health care) is provided to all individuals who will be responsible for the birds.

        Section 15.32(b)(3) Whether the Country of Export Has Developed a Scientifically Based Management Plan for the Species That Considers Factors Relating to the Multi-National Distribution of the Species

        The Division of Scientific Authority sent letters to the Scientific Authorities of the range countries for this species (Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, and Paraguay) and asked them to address this criterion. Argentina, Bolivia, and Paraguay responded in support of Argentina's sustainable-use management plan. We did not receive a response from Brazil. However, the predominant subspecies in Brazil, Amazona aestiva aestiva, is not found in Argentina (Collar 1997). The Bolivian Scientific Authority said that Bolivia's blue-fronted amazon populations are non-migratory and would not be affected by the sustainable-use program in Argentina (Marianela Subieta Frías, Executive Director of the National Museum of Natural History in La Paz, Bolivia, email to DSA, September 2000). Bolivia expressed its support for Argentina's program, but noted concern over the possibility of illegally harvested Bolivian birds entering Argentina and being exported through this program. Studies of this species in Paraguay indicate that breeding populations are non-migratory and are distinct from populations in Argentina. Thus, the program in Argentina would not affect the populations in Paraguay (Braulio Román Solís, Director, CITES Office, Paraguay, letter to DSA, August 2000). According to Mr. Solís, Paraguay developed a similar program in 1999 based on the Argentine program and has regulations to ensure sustainable management of the species. Although Paraguay reported that its population of blue-fronted amazons is robust and that the species is locally common, the European Commission has asked Member States not to allow imports of blue-fronted amazons from Paraguay until further notice. This decision was made in response to information received that called into question the scientific basis of Paraguay's export quotas for this species. (E-mail to A. St. John, May 8, 2003). Argentina, Bolivia, and Paraguay have held roundtable discussions to develop a regional study plan in order to determine optimal population management for this species. They have also discussed the need for local educational outreach.
        The application and additional information received from Argentina outline the safeguards in place to prevent illegally harvested birds from entering this program. As discussed above, most of the oversight for the project is done by project staff members. Only program staff affix legbands (open metal bands that once closed can only be removed by breaking) with the code AR or ARG and a unique identification number, and only birds with official bands are permitted for export. See earlier sections for discussion of additional safeguards. This program is the only legal source of birds for export from Argentina, and all exports are through Buenos Aires.
        Complete population biology information is lacking for the specific effects of this program on breeding and recruitment of this species in other range countries, but we are unaware of any possible detrimental effects of this program on conservation programs or enforcement efforts throughout the range of this species. The program coordinators have been in contact with biologists from the other range countries who have expressed interest in developing similar programs (Pers. comm. with DSA and DMA biologists, Jan. 2003). The export of blue-fronted amazon parrots from each range country is regulated by CITES, and imports into the United States would also be subject to the provisions of the WBCA.
        We believe that the proposed level of harvest will maintain the species throughout its range at a level consistent with its role in the ecosystem and that it is unlikely that the proposed harvest will significantly reduce the wild population during the 3 years for which the program would be approved. Critical research on the species' population biology as a result of this program in comparison to non-harvested areas will provide insight into the long- and short-term effects of the program on the species' survival. Any problems that arise during the 3 years could be addressed prior to renewing the program. Furthermore, because the program protects nests, creates nesting habitat, and reduces habitat loss, a population increase is expected.
        Conclusion

        We reviewed the proposal by the Management Authority of Argentina for the approval of a sustainable-use management plan for blue-fronted amazon parrots (Amazona aestiva), based on the criteria in 50 CFR 15.32. We propose to add blue-fronted amazon parrots from Argentina to the list of non-captive-bred species under the Wild Bird Conservation Act of 1992, with the following condition:
        1. The Management Authority of Argentina must provide an annual report at the end of each collection season during the period covered by this approval. The report must include the following information: the number and size of the properties participating in the program, results of population censuses in the collection areas, and short- and long-term impacts of collection on the population, including recruitment, nestling mortality, and the effects of artificially opening and resealing nest cavities. The report must also include the number of birds that became sick or injured during capture, housing, and transport. Causes of mortality, illness, and injury should be reported, if known. Such data will be considered at the time of a request for program renewal.
        References

          Banchs, R., F. Moschione, M. Codesido, P. Gado, and P. Grilli. 2000. Reproductive parameters of Amazona aestiva (Psittacidae) in the Argentine Chaco. Abstracts of the VIII Brazilian Congress of Ornithology.
          Bucher, T. H. 1992. Neotropical parrots as pests. In: New World Parrots in Crisis: Solutions from Conservation Biology. Sr. Beissinger and N.F.R. Snyder, eds. Smithsonian Institution Press: Washington, DC, pp. 201-219.

          Bucher, E., J. Chani, C. Saravia Toledo, A. Echevarría, and N. Marigliano. 1995. Status and Management of the Blue-fronted Amazon Parrot in Argentina. Unpublished Research Report for TRAFFIC USA. Centro de Zoología Aplicada, University of Córdoba: Argentina, 12 pp.

          Collar, N.J., M.J. Crosby, and A.J. Stattersfield. 1994. Birds To Watch 2: The World List of Threatened Birds. BirdLife International/Smithsonian Institution Press: Washington, DC., p. 198.
          Collar, N.J. 1997. Blue-fronted Amazon (Amazona aestiva). In: Handbook of the Birds of the World. Volume 4: Sandgrouse to Cuckoos. J. del Hoyo, A. Elliot, J. Sargatal, eds. Lynx Ediciones: Barcelona, p. 473.
          European Commission. April 11, 2003. Note for the Attention of the CITES Scientific Authorities of the Member States. ENV.E.3 Brussels, Belgium.

          Flombaum, P., L.D. Boffi Lissin, and R. Banchs. 1997. Análisis del bosque chaqueño en función del Loro Hablador (Amazona aestiva). Resúmenes XVIII Reunión Arg., Ecol. Fac. Agron. UBA Bs. As.
          IUCN-The World Conservation Union. 2002. 2002 IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals. IUCN: Gland, Switzerland.
          Juniper, T., and M. Parr. 1998. Parrots: A Guide to Parrots of the World. Yale University Press: New Haven, Connecticut. Pp. 540-541.

          Moschione, F. and R. Banchs. 1993. Distribution of the Loro Hablador (Amazona aestiva) in Northern Argentina. Book of Abstracts I, Ornithology Meeting for the Plata watershed. Ornithology Association of Plata: Iguazú, Paraguay.

          Snyder, N., P. McGowan, J. Gilardi, and A. Grajal. 2000. Parrots: Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan 2000-2004. IUCN: Gland, Switzerland. Pp. 90-97.

        Required Determinations
        Regulatory Planning and Review
        In accordance with the criteria in Executive Order 12866, this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action, because:

          a. The annual economic effect of the proposed rule would be less than $100 million and it would not adversely affect any economic sector, productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of government. A cost-benefit and economic analysis is not required.
          b. This proposed rule would not create inconsistencies with other agencies' actions.
          c. This proposed rule would not materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof.
          d. This proposed rule would not raise novel legal or policy issues.

        Regulatory Flexibility Act

        The Department of the Interior certifies that the proposed rule would not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities as defined under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Most of the potential applicants who might take advantage of the procedures implemented through this rule are individuals or small entities. However, we do not expect that the amount of trade generated as a result of this rule to be large enough to have a significant economic effect on any industries, large or small.
        Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
        This proposed rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, because it:
        a. Would not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.
        b. Would not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions.
        c. Would not have significant negative effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies.
        Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

        The proposed rule would not significantly or uniquely affect small governments under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501, et seq.). The proposed rule would not produce a Federal requirement of $100 million or greater in any year, so it is not a “significant regulatory action” under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
        Takings
        Under Executive Order 12630, this proposed rule would not have significant takings implications. The proposed rule would set forth regulations under an existing law (the WBCA) and a takings implication evaluation is not required.
        Federalism
        Since the proposed rule applies to the importation of live wild birds into the United States, it does not contain any Federalism impacts as described in Executive Order 13132. This proposed rule would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the Federal government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, and a Federalism evaluation is not required.
        Civil Justice Reform
        Under Executive Order 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has determined that this proposed rule would not overly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order.
        Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
        Because this proposed rule would allow the import into the United States of blue-fronted amazon parrots removed from the wild in Argentina under an approved sustainable-use management plan, it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and is not expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use.
        Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
        This proposed rule does not contain any new information collection requirements that require approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Existing requirements in 50 CFR 15 are currently approved by OMB under OMB control number 1018-0093, which expires on March 31, 2004.
        National Environmental Policy Act
        We have prepared a draft environmental assessment under regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Council on Environmental Quality regulations in 40 CFR 1501.3(b) state that an agency “may prepare an environmental assessment on any action at any time in order to assist agency planning and decision making.” Future regulations implementing the WBCA may be subject to NEPA documentation requirements on a case-by-case basis. The draft environmental assessment for this proposed action is on file at the Division of Management Authority in Arlington, Virginia, and a copy may be obtained for review and comment by contacting Dr. Peter O. Thomas, Chief, Division of Management Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; telephone (703) 358-2093; fax (703) 358-2280.
        Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
        Under the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations With Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951) and 512 DM 2, we have evaluated possible effects on Federally recognized Indian tribes and have determined that there are no effects.
        Author
        This document was prepared by Ms. Anne St. John, Division of Managment Authority, and Dr. Michael Kreger, Division of Scientific Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC 20240.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 15
          Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wildlife.

        Regulation Promulgation
        Accordingly, for the reasons given in the preamble, we propose to amend part 15, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

          PART 15—WILD BIRD CONSERVATION ACT
          1. The authority citation for part 15 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            Pub. L. 102-440, 16 U.S.C. 4901-4916.

          2. Amend § 15.33 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:

            § 15.33
            Species included in the approved list.

            (b) Non-captive-bred species. The list in this paragraph includes species of non-captive-bred exotic birds and countries for which importation into the United States is not prohibited by § 15.11. The species are grouped taxonomically by order, and may only be imported from the approved country, except as provided under a permit issued pursuant to subpart C of this part. The list of non-captive-bred species follows:

                Species
                Common name
                Country
                Date approved

                Order Psittaciformes:
                    Amazona aestiva.

                Blue-fronted Amazon Parrot
                Argentina
                [date of publication of final rule].

            Dated: July 22, 2003.
            Paul Hoffman,
            Assistant Secretary—Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

      [FR Doc. 03-19945 Filed 8-5-03; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
        Coast Guard
        46 CFR Part 401
        [USCG-2014-0481; 1625-AC22]
        Great Lakes Pilotage Rates—2015 Annual Review and Adjustment—Extension of Comment Period

          AGENCY:
          Coast Guard, DHS.

          ACTION:
          Notice.

          SUMMARY:
          The Coast Guard is extending the comment period for the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled “Great Lakes Pilotage Rates—2015 Annual Review and Adjustment,” published on September 4, 2014, for 30 days. We have decided to extend the comment period as we have received new financial data that could affect the discretion provided by Step 7 of the Appendix A methodology and the final rate.

          DATES:

          Comments and related material must either be submitted to our online docket via http://www.regulations.gov on or before December 31, 2014 or reach the Docket Management Facility by that date.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2014-0481 using any one of the following methods:
          (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

          (2) Fax: 202-493-2251.
          (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
          (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is 202-366-9329.

          To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on submitting comments.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          If you have questions on this notice, call or email Mr. Todd Haviland, Director, Great Lakes Pilotage, Commandant (CG-WWM-2), Coast Guard; telephone 202-372-2037, email Todd.A.Haviland@uscg.mil, or fax 202-372-1914. If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Ms. Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

        We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided.
        A. Submitting Comments
        If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2014-0481), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
        To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert “USCG-2014-0481” in the “Search” box. Click on “Submit a Comment” in the “Actions” column. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope.
        We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) based on your comments.
        B. Viewing Comments and Documents

        To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert “USCG-2014-0481” in the “Search” box. Click “Search.” Click the “Open Docket Folder” in the “Actions” column. If you do not have access to the Internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We have an agreement with the Department of Transportation to use the Docket Management Facility.
        C. Privacy Act

        Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008 issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).
        II. Regulatory History and Information
        The Coast Guard published an NPRM entitled “Great Lakes Pilotage Rates—2015 Annual Review and Adjustment,” on September 4, 2014, (79 FR 52602) proposing rate adjustments for pilotage services on the Great Lakes, last amended in March 2014. The proposed adjustments would establish new base rates made in accordance with a full ratemaking procedure. Additionally, the Coast Guard proposed to exercise the discretion provided by Step 7 of the Appendix A methodology to result in an upward adjustment to match the rate increase of the Canadian Great Lakes Pilotage Authority. The NPRM also proposed temporary surcharges to accelerate recoupment of necessary and reasonable training costs for the pilot associations. All comments on this NPRM were originally due by November 3, 2014.
        III. Background and Purpose
        On November 14, 2014, we received the final reports of the revenue audits conducted by CohnReznick, LLP for the three pilotage districts. Performance of these audits was unanimously recommended by the Great Lakes Pilotage Advisory Committee to the Coast Guard at the most recent committee meeting on July 23-24, 2014, in Washington, DC. The data found by the revenue audits are important to analyzing the proposed rule as the findings may alter the final rate. We believe that the data provided in the revenue audits are “other supportable circumstances” that may alter the rate through the discretion provided by Step 7 of the ratemaking methodology. As these revenue audits were received after the comment period closed, we wish to give commenter's the opportunity to review these revenue audits, which can be found in the docket, and make comments on the revenue audits.
        V. Authority
        This notice is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a).

          Dated: November 25, 2014.
          Scott J. Smith,
          Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Director of Marine Transportation Systems, U.S. Coast Guard.

      [FR Doc. 2014-28272 Filed 11-28-14; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        RIN 1018-AG14
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reopening of Comment Period and Notice of Availability of Draft Economic Analysis on Proposed Critical Habitat Designation for the Great Lakes Breeding Population of the Piping Plover

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule, reopening of comment period and notice of availability of draft economic analysis; correction.

          SUMMARY:

          This document corrects the closing date of the comment period listed in a document published in the Federal Register on September 19, 2000, regarding the reopening of the comment period and notice of availability of draft economic analysis for proposed critical habitat designation for the Great Lakes breeding population of the piping plover. This clarification provides the correct date for the closing of the comment period on the proposed critical habitat designation for the Great Lakes breeding population of the piping plover and the draft economic analysis for the proposed critical habitat designation.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before November 20, 2000.

          For Further Information Contact:
           Laura Ragan @ (612) 713-5157.
          Correction

          In the document announcing the reopening of the comment period and notice of availability of draft economic analysis for proposed critical habitat designation for the Great Lakes breeding population of the piping plover, 65 FR 56530 in the issue of September 19, 2000, make the following correction in the DATES section. On page 56530 in the 3rd column, correct the date by when comments must be received from “October 19, 2000” to “November 20, 2000.”

            Dated: September 21, 2000.
            T.J. Miller,
            Acting, Assistant Regional Director, Ecological Services, Region 3, Fort Snelling, Minnesota.

      [FR Doc. 00-24759 Filed 9-27-00; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        Federal Transit Administration
        49 CFR Part 604
        [Docket No. FTA-97-2624]
        RIN 2132-AA58
        Charter Services Demonstration Program

          AGENCY:
          Federal Transit Administration, DOT.

          ACTION:
          Withdrawal of rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          This document withdraws the rulemaking in which the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) proposed to amend its requirements on charter bus service. On June 23, 1997, FTA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in which it sought public comment on proposed amendments to the charter service regulations. Based on a review of the comments to the NPRM, FTA has concluded that there is no consensus that the proposed changes will improve the ability of public operators to utilize the existing regulatory exceptions to the prohibition against providing charter service when a private charter operator is willing and able to do so. Accordingly, FTA hereby withdraws this rulemaking.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Elizabeth S. Martineau, Attorney Advisor, Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, 202-366-1936.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        All documents pertaining to this regulatory action, including the comments to the NPRM, may be viewed and copied at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL-401, Department of Transportation, 400 7th St., SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001 between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m., E.T., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An electronic version of this document, and all documents entered into this docket, are available on the World Wide Web at http://dms.dot.gov.
        Comments may also be viewed on the Internet. To read the comments on the Internet, take the following steps: Go to the Docket Management System (“DMS”) Web page of the Department of Transportation (http://dms.dot.gov). On that page, click on “search.” On the next page (http://dms.dot.gov/search), type in the four-digit docket number. The docket number for this rulemaking is 2624. After typing the docket number, click on “search.” On the next page, which contains docket snummary information for the docket you selected, click on the desired comments. You may download the comments.
        I. Background
        Pursuant to Section 3040 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), FTA established a demonstration program that would permit public transit operators to provide charter services for the purpose of meeting the transit needs of the government, civic, charitable, and other community activities that otherwise would not be served in a cost effective and efficient manner. Congress required the creation of this demonstration program in response to public transit operators' concerns that existing charter service regulations were causing certain transit needs to go unmet.
        Public transit operators were particularly concerned about the effect of 49 CFR 604.9. This provision prohibits an FTA recipient from using FTA equipment or facilities to provide any charter service where there is at least one private charter operator that is willing and able to provide the charter service, unless one of the exceptions set out in the regulations is met. Some FTA recipients asserted that they were unable to provide needed charter services to their communities when a private operator had indicated that it was “willing and able“ but actually did not have the desire or capability to provide certain trips.
        According to the Conference Report accompanying ISTEA, (H. Rpt. No. 404, 102nd Cong., 1st Sess. 424 (1991)), the demonstration program was intended to provide public transit operators with additional flexibility not afforded under the existing charter regulations, without creating undue competition for privately owned charter operators. The Conference Report also indicated that the results of the demonstration program were expected to provide Congress and FTA with data to determine the most effective method for providing charter services to local communities and whether the current regulations were in need of modification.
        FTA selected the following public transit operators in four states encompassing large and medium sized cities, as well as rural areas, to participate in the demonstration program:

        Monterey-Salinas Transit, Monterey, California;
        Central Oklahoma Transportation and Parking Authority, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma;
        Bi-State Development Agency, St. Louis, Missouri;
        Yolo County Transit Authority, Yolo, California;
        Isabella County Transportation Commission, Isabella County, Michigan;
        Capital Area Transit Authority, Lansing, Michigan;
        Marquette County Area Transportation Authority, Marquette, Michigan;
        Muskegon Area Transit System, Muskegon, Michigan.

        FTA authorized these public transit operators to conduct their demonstration programs beginning on August 9, 1993, and continuing through October 31, 1995.
        II. Results of the Charter Demonstration Program

        The data gathered as a result of the charter demonstration program did not support the public operators' claims of unmet needs for the groups for which the demonstration was primarily intended: government, civic, charitable, and other community activities. Although the public operators in each area identified groups that would not be otherwise served in a cost-effective manner, the charter service provided during the demonstration did not serve a significant number of these groups or significantly increase the level of service to these groups. This information was submitted to Congress on June 16, 1998.
        III. FTA's Recommended Action and Comments to the NPRM
        The results of the demonstration program did not indicate the need for FTA to significantly alter its current service regulations. The results, however, did show that there may be a need for minor changes in order to improve the ability of public operators to utilize the existing exceptions to the prohibition against their providing charter service if a private charter operator is willing and able to do so.
        In its June 23, 1997, NPRM, found at 62 FR 33793, FTA sought comment on the following proposals. FTA received twenty-five written comments on the NPRM from public transit authorities, private sector charter providers, trade associations, a union, and a member of Congress.
        A. Definition of “Willing and Able” Private Operators and Review of the “Willing and Able” Determination Process

          Proposed change: In order to exclude a private charter operator who may be incapable of providing service within a public transit operator's service area, FTA proposed to narrow the definition of “willing and able” contained in 49 CFR 604.5. The amended definition would have defined a “willing and able” operator as an operator having one bus or one van and possessing the legal authority to operate the service. That authority included having the necessary safety certifications, licenses and other legal prerequisites to provide charter service to parties located within a 125-mile radius of the recipient's service area.
        FTA also proposed to amend 49 CFR 604.13(e) to allow public transit operators to look behind evidence that a private charter operator is “willing and able” to provide the requested service if it had valid reasons to believe that the operator was unable to effectively serve local charter needs. The public transit operator would have been required to inform FTA of the finding and FTA would then have made a determination regarding the private operator in question.

          Comments: The comments filed generally did not support the proposal to limit the definition of “willing and able” to private charter operators located within 125 miles of the service area. Only two commenters expressed support for FTA's proposed change. Twelve commenters suggested that the 125-mile radius was too large and should be reduced. Among the reasons relied on by these commenters were increased burdens on public transit agencies due to surveying additional private operators, increased costs to consumers resulting from the extra drive time to reach the charter group, and a low probability that private charter operators would travel the 125 miles to serve some charter groups.
        Eleven commenters submitted alternative suggestions for limiting the definition of “willing and able.” Seven of these comments proposed modifications of the geographic limit, which ranged from only the service area to a 75-mile radius. Two commenters favored limiting the definition to a radius of a one hour drive from the service area. In addition, two other commenters recommended that FTA change the existing regulations to permit public transit operators to provide charter service to local governments, nonprofit agencies, and community groups.
        Four commenters asserted that no change should be made to the current regulations. They reasoned that any change in the current regulations would create unfair competition for private operators and that the 125-mile radius was arbitrary and the proposal was unclear in how the boundary was to be calculated. It was also argued that private charter operators outside the geographic limit should be considered “willing and able” because they may choose to serve the area by positioning vehicles in remote locations or by using the terminal facilities or vehicles of competitors.
        Three comments were filed supporting FTA's proposal to allow public transit operators to look behind evidence that a private charter operator is “willing and able” to provide the requested service where it has valid reasons to believe that the operator is unable to effectively serve the local charter needs. One commenter opposed the change stating that it would only invite disputes between private and public entities.
        B. Extension of Non-Urbanized Area Hardship Exception to Small Urbanized Areas

          Proposed Change: Under 49 CFR 604.9(b)(3), an FTA recipient may petition FTA for an exception to provide charter service directly to the customer in non-urbanized areas (population under 50,000) if the charter service provided by the “willing and able” private operator would create a hardship on the customer due to state-imposed minimum duration requirements. FTA proposed to extend this exception to small urbanized areas (population between 50,000 and 200,000).

          Comments: Seven comments were filed supporting an extension of the non-urbanized area hardship exception to small urbanized areas.  Four comments were filed objecting to the extension of the hardship exception.  These commenters objecting stated that the extension would cause unfair increases in competition and asserted the results of the charter demonstration project failed to provide evidence of unmet needs.  Finally, one commenter added that the hardship exception applies to hardship from state-imposed minimum charges and that few states may actually impose such charges.
        C. Amendment of the Exception for Formal Agreements With All Private Charter Operators

          Proposed Change: Under 49 CFR 604.9(b)(7), if a public transit operator obtains a written agreement with all “willing and able” private operators, it can provide certain specified types of charter services directly to the customer. Some FTA recipients have asserted that it is often impossible to obtain such an agreement with all of the various organizations. Therefore, FTA proposed to amend 49 CFR 604.9(b)(7) to provide that only a two-thirds majority of all local private operators would be required for a formal charter agreement.

          Comments: Three commenters stated that FTA should not reduce the level of agreement required under the formal agreement exception to two-thirds of local operators.  These commenters based their opposition on the possible unfair injury that the change might have on those carriers not a party to the agreement. One of these commenters suggested that if a reduction is necessary, the two-thirds determination should be based on percentage of revenue, passengers miles, or some other criteria in order to ensure that large carriers are not penalized where a sufficient number of small carriers agree to the exception.

        Six commenters supported the proposed reduction in the exception for formal agreements to two-thirds. Six other commenters suggested that FTA go further and reduce the minimum required to create a formal agreement to a simple majority of “willing and able” charter operators.

        D. Implementation of an Outreach Program To Foster a Better Understanding of the Charter Regulations and Exceptions

          Proposed Change: The demonstration program revealed that many public and private operators have an incomplete understanding of FTA's charter requirements and how to use them effectively to serve the charter needs in their communities.  Therefore, FTA proposed to implement an outreach program for public and private operators to provide them with a better understanding of how to better utilize the charter regulations and exceptions.  The outreach program would have included the distribution of brochures and literature to public and private operators describing the charter bus regulations and exceptions, and examples of how to best utilize the exception process.  FTA also proposed to sponsor seminars and information sessions on the charter requirements at meetings and conferences sponsored by various industry groups.

          Comments: Eight commenters supported the outreach program as set out in the NPRM. One commenter expressed the view that the outreach program should be designed with the customer in mind.  Another commenter stated that an outreach program was unnecessary because the regulations are clear, but the problem is that the exceptions are too restrictive.  One commenter stated that an outreach program was unnecessary because nearly all public operators were familiar with these long-standing regulations.
        IV. Conclusion
        FTA has decided not to make any changes to the charter bus regulations in 49 CFR Part 604.  The current rule is not being changed at this time because there is no consensus that the proposed changes will improve the ability of public operators to utilize the existing exceptions to the prohibition against their providing charter service when a private charter operator is willing and able to provide such service.

          Issued on: September 13, 2001.
          Jennifer L. Dorn,
          Administrator.

      [FR Doc. 01-23256  Filed 9-17-01; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-57-M


        NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
        48 CFR Part 1812
        RIN 2700-AD64
        Commercial Acquisition; Anchor Tenancy

          AGENCY:
          National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule with request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NASA proposes to revise the NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) to include guidance consistent with NASA's authority under Section 401 of the Commercial Space Competitiveness Act (CSCA) of 1992. NASA may enter into multi-year anchor tenancy contracts for commercial space goods or services. Anchor Tenancy means “an arrangement in which the United States Government agrees to procure sufficient quantities of a commercial space product or service needed to meet Government mission requirements so that a commercial venture is made viable.”

          DATES:

          Interested parties should submit comments to NASA at the address below on or before July 25, 2011 to be considered in formulation of the final rule.

          ADDRESSES:

          You may submit comments, identified by RIN 2007-AD64, using either of the following methods: (1) Regulations.gov: http://www.regulations.gov. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by inputting RIN 2007-AD64 under the heading “Enter keyword or ID” and selecting “Search.” Select the link “Submit a Comment” that corresponds with “RIN 2007-AD64.” Follow the instructions provided at the “Submit a Comment” screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “RIN 2700-AD64” on your attached document. (2) E-mail: leigh.pomponio@nasa.gov. Include RIN 2007-AD64 in the subject line of the message.

          Comments received generally will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. To confirm receipt of your comment(s), please check http://www.regulations.gov approximately two to three days after submission to verify posting.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Leigh Pomponio, NASA, Office of Procurement, Contract Management Division (Suite 5G84); (202) 358-0592; facsimile 202-358-3083; e-mail: leigh.pomponio@nasa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        A. Background
        NASA's FAR Supplement currently includes an incorrect statement that anchor tenancy contracts are not permitted. This proposed rule removes that statement, consistent with NASA's authority under Section 401 of the Commercial Space Competitiveness Act (CSCA) of 1992 (15 U.S.C. 5806) which provides authorization for NASA to enter into multi-year anchor tenancy contracts for commercial space goods or services.
        B. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
        This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under Section 6(b) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. In accordance with Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, dated January 18, 2011, NASA determined that this rule is not excessively burdensome to the public, and is consistent with the administrative nature of rule. This is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
        C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

        This proposed rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. because it does not impose any new requirements on small entities.
        D. Paperwork Reduction Act

        The Paperwork Reduction Act (Pub. L. 104-13) is not applicable because the NFS changes do not impose information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.

          List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 1812
          Government procurement.

          William P. McNally,
          Assistant Administrator for Procurement.

        Accordingly, 48 CFR part 1812 is proposed to be amended as follows:
        1. The authority citation for 48 CFR parts 1812.

          Authority:
           42 U.S.C. 2455(a), 2473(c)(1).

          PART 1812—ACQUISITION OF COMMERCIAL ITEMS
          2. Section 1812.7000 is revised to read as follows.

            1812.7000
            Anchor tenancy contracts.
            (a) Section 401 of the Commercial Space Competitiveness Act, 15 U.S.C. 5806, allows NASA, subject to appropriations, to enter into multi-year anchor tenancy contracts for the purchase of a good or service if the Administrator determines that—
            (1) The good or service meets the mission requirements of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration;
            (2) The commercially procured good or service is cost effective;
            (3) The good or service is procured through a competitive process;
            (4) Existing or potential customers for the good or service other than the United States Government have been specifically identified;
            (5) The long-term viability of the venture is not dependent upon a continued Government market or other nonreimbursable Government support; and
            (6) Private capital is at risk in the venture.
            (b) Section 401 of the Commercial Space Competitiveness Act, 15 U.S.C. 5806, allows for contracts entered into under paragraph (a) of this section to provide for the payment of termination liability in the event that the Government terminates such contracts for is convenience.
            (1) Contracts that provide for this payment of termination liability shall include a fixed schedule of such termination liability payments. Liability under such contracts shall not exceed the total payments which the Government would have made after the date of termination to purchase the good or service if the contract were not terminated.
            (2) Subject to appropriations, funds available for such termination liability payments may be used for purchase of the good or service upon successful delivery of the good or service pursuant to the contract. In such case, sufficient funds shall remain available to cover any remaining termination liability.
            (c) Limitations—
            (1) Contracts entered into under this section shall not exceed 10 years in duration.
            (2) Such contracts shall provide for delivery of the good or service on a firm, fixed price basis.
            (3) To the extent practicable, reasonable performance specifications shall be used to define technical requirements in such contracts.
            (4) In any such contract, the Administrator shall reserve the right to completely or partially terminate the contract without payment of such termination liability because of the contractor's actual or anticipated failure to perform its contractual obligations.

      [FR Doc. 2011-10917 Filed 5-24-11; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 7510-01-P