The final rule published at 65 FR 80548 establishes the NOP under the direction of AMS, an arm of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). The NOP will facilitate domestic and international marketing of fresh and processed food that is organically produced and assure consumers that such products meet consistent, uniform standards. The NOP establishes national standards for the production and handling of organically produced products, including a national list of substances approved for or prohibited from use in organic production and handling. The NOP includes a national accreditation program for state officials and private persons who want to be accredited as certifying agents. Under the NOP, certifying agents will certify whether production and handling operations comply with the requirements of 7 CFR part 205, and will enforce program requirements. The final rule includes requirements that products must meet to be labeled as organic or as containing organic ingredients. The program is authorized under the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990.

This action corrects the effective date of the final rule in order to meet the requirements of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1966 (5 U.S.C. 801-808). The act requires that before a final rule can take effect, it must be submitted to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General, along with a concise general statement of the rule and its proposed effective date. We have determined that the report to Congress and to the Comptroller General was not received, as previously thought, concurrent with the transmission of the rule to the Federal Register. This information was provided to Congress and the Comptroller General on February 20, 2001. Under 5 U.S.C. 801-808, the effective date of a major rule is, as pertinent here, “the later of the date occurring 60 days after the date on which * * * the Congress received the [required] report * * * or * * * the rule is published in the Federal Register * * *”. Thus the published effective date which was 60 days following the date of publication of the rule in the Federal Register, is erroneous; rather the actual effective date of the rule is 60 days after the receipt by Congress of the final rule, or April 21, 2001. This final rule corrects the previously published effective date.

Because the correction of the effective date is required by law, we find good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) and 555(d)(3) to waive public comment thereon.

The rule is now scheduled to become effective on April 21, 2001.

NCUA's chartering and field of membership policy is set out in Interpretive Ruling and Policy Statement 99-1, Chartering and Field of Membership Policy (IRPS 99-1), as amended by IRPS 00-01. The policy is incorporated by reference in NCUA's regulations at 12 CFR 701.1. It is also published as NCUA's Chartering and Field of Membership Manual (Chartering Manual), which is the document most interested parties use and to which references in the following discussion are made.

The Chartering Manual requires community charter applicants to establish that an area is a “well-defined local community, neighborhood, or rural district.” Chartering Manual, Chapter 2, V.A.1. It provides that an applicant may submit a letter describing how the area meets the standards for interaction or common interest for certain geographic and population sizes, namely, a single political jurisdiction such as a county with 300,000 or fewer people, or multiple, contiguous political jurisdictions with 200,000 or fewer people. Applicants must submit maps and information about population and the political jurisdiction. Regional directors currently have delegated authority to approve charter applications or amendments of this size. NCUA Delegations of Authority, Chartering 3A and 3B.

For larger areas in terms of population and geographic size, the Chartering Manual provides for applicants to submit a narrative summary and documentation supporting the finding of interaction and common interests in the proposed community. The Chartering Manual provides examples of the type of documentation that an applicant may submit but does not require or specify particular documentation.

In 2000, the regional offices received 27 community expansions and 104 community conversion requests. Of these 131 requests, 15 required NCUA Board approval.

Presently, the preparation and processing of a community charter, expansion or conversion request that requires NCUA Board approval are extensive. Credit unions often take a year or more to prepare a community charter application and credit unions may also use outside consultants to assist them.

A significant part of any application requiring Board approval is the documentation supporting the finding that the requested area is a “well-defined local community, neighborhood, or rural district.” NCUA's Chartering and Field of Membership Manual (Chartering Manual), Chapter 2, V.A.2 at p. 2-45. In this regard, applications contain detailed information to demonstrate the residents of the proposed area have common interests or interact sufficiently to meet the statutory “local” requirement, along with supporting documentation as suggested in the Chartering Manual. Often, this portion of an application runs hundreds of pages.

A practice has arisen in which applicants for an area that the Board has already approved as a community obtain copies of that portion of an earlier application addressing the community requirements and resubmit the identical documents as part of their own application. The NCUA has processed numerous requests for all or part of approved charter applications under the Freedom of Information Act.

The Chartering Manual provides examples of documentation that applicants may consider using to support the area as a community, neighborhood or rural district. One of these examples is: “Common characteristics and background of residents (for example, income, religious beliefs, primary ethnic groups, similarity of occupations, household types, primary age, group, etc.).” Id. at 2-46. This documentation has proven to be of limited relevance in determining whether the area meets the community requirements.

Although this category is only one of eight examples of the type of documentation that is acceptable, the Board is aware that applicants may feel compelled to provide documentation in all categories. Mere statistical data about religious beliefs, ethnicity, age or income may encourage questionable assumptions and, as a matter of public policy, the Board does not want to encourage the classification of credit union members on such bases. To the extent that meaningful similarities exist among residents, an applicant may address them under the last suggested example of documentation demonstrating that residents share common interests or interact.

The first amendment provides that applicants for an area that is the same as one the NCUA has previously determined to be a well-defined local community, neighborhood or rural area need not submit a summary or any documentation to meet that requirement. The Board believes this amendment provides a common sense approach for documentation requirements by eliminating redundant proof by subsequent applicants for the same exact geographic area that either it or regional directors have already addressed. Applicants need only identify in their applications the fact of the prior approval and their reliance on the summary and documentation already part of the agency's records. Nevertheless, applicants may be required to submit their own summary and documents if the agency has reason to believe that the documents on file from previous applications are no longer accurate or are insufficient.

The second amendment is the deletion of the example of documentation for community requirements for common characteristics and background of residents. As discussed above, this documentation has proven to be of little value and, therefore, is an unnecessary burden for applicants and an administrative waste of time for NCUA staff.

These amendments will help reduce the time involved in the community application process, reduce costs for credit unions seeking to serve a previously approved community, and reduce regional and Board staff time and preparation.

The Board wants to note that these amendments only apply to required documentation to support the proposed area as a community. They do not eliminate any of the remaining requirements necessary to process a community application, such as addressing safety and soundness concerns and the requirement for business and marketing plans.

In conjunction with promulgation of this rule, the Board has approved a delegation of authority to regional directors to approve applications for new community charters and charter amendments, including expansions of existing community charters and conversions of any type of federal charter to community charter, regardless of the number of residents, where the Board has previously determined that the community requirements have been met for the same exact geographic area.

The NCUA Board is issuing this amendment to its chartering regulation as an interim final rule because it is an interpretation of an existing regulation and merely addresses agency procedures for processing chartering applications. The Board believes the amendments further the public interest in removing unnecessary regulatory burden for the public and promotes the efficient use of agency resources and staff. Accordingly, for good cause, the Board finds that, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), notice and public procedures are impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest; and, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the rule shall be effective immediately and without 30 days advance notice of publication. Although the rule is being issued as an interim final rule and is effective immediately, the NCUA Board encourages interested parties to submit comments.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires NCUA to prepare an analysis to describe any significant economic impact a regulation may have on a substantial number of small credit unions (primarily those under $1 million in assets). The amendments will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small credit unions and therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

The NCUA Board has determined that this interim final rule does not increase, and will in fact reduce, paperwork requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act and regulations of the Office of Management and Budget.

The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121) provides generally for congressional review of agency rules. A reporting requirement is triggered in instances where NCUA issues a final rule as defined by Section 551 of the Administrative Procedures Act. 5 U.S.C. 551. The rule has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for its determination of whether this is a major rule.

Executive Order 13132 encourages independent regulatory agencies to consider the impact of their regulatory actions on state and local interests. In adherence to fundamental federalism principles, NCUA, an independent regulatory agency as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5), voluntarily complies with the executive order. This rule will apply to some state-chartered credit unions, but it will not have substantial direct effect on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. NCUA has determined that this rule does not constitute a policy that has federalism implications for purposes of the executive order.

NCUA's goal is clear, understandable regulations that impose a minimal regulatory burden. We request your comments on whether the proposed amendments are understandable and minimally intrusive if implemented as proposed.

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) by superseding AD 2000-10-10, Amendment 39-11734 (65 FR 32016, May 22, 2000), which applies to ECF Model AS-350B, BA, B1, B2, and D; and AS-355E, F, F1, F2, and N helicopters, was published in the Federal Register on September 11, 2000 (65 FR 54823). That action proposed to require visually inspecting and dye-penetrant inspecting the cross beam for cracks and replacing the cross beam if a crack is found.

Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. No comments were received on the proposal or the FAA's determination of the cost to the public. The FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed.

The FAA estimates that 454 helicopters of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 0.5 work hour to accomplish each visual inspection, with an estimated average of 150 visual inspections, 3 work hours to accomplish a dye-penetrant inspection, and 6 work hours to replace the cross beam, if necessary, per helicopter. Required parts will cost approximately $6,000 per cross beam. Based on these figures, the total cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $5,012,160 to perform 150 visual inspections, one dye-penetrant inspection, and to replace one cross beam on all 454 helicopters.

The regulations adopted herein will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD for BHTC Model 430 helicopters was published in the Federal Register on August 9, 2000 (65 FR 48645). That action proposed to require implementing the following electrical system changes in accordance with Alert Service Bulletin No. 430-99-10, dated December 16, 1999 (ASB):

• Modify the electrical bus distribution system to include emergency, essential, and nonessential busses. Relocate electrical system circuit breakers accordingly.

• Add a second redundant aircraft DC power supply with associated circuit breaker for each full authority digital engine control electronic control unit.

• Modify AC inverter switching logic to prevent inadvertent loss of AC power.

• Modify electrical bonding of the DC generator ground circuits by increasing the size of the hardware securing the ground shunt bus bar to the airframe structure.

Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. No comments were received on the proposal or the FAA's determination of the cost to the public. However, additional FAA engineering evaluation of the required modification was conducted after publication of the NPRM. That evaluation necessitated an extension of the compliance date from December 31, 2000 to May 1, 2001 to meet the intent of not grounding helicopters when this AD is effective. Except for that change, the FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed. The FAA has determined that changing the compliance date will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.

The FAA estimates that 3 helicopters of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 140 work hours per helicopter to accomplish the required actions, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. The manufacturer states in the ASB that they will provide the 100 percent warranty credit for the parts and will allow a maximum warranty credit of $7700 for labor costs. Based on these figures, the total cost impact of this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $2100, assuming the stated credit for parts and labor.

The regulations adopted herein will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.

We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. The 4th of July fireworks display is no longer being conducted in Crescent Harbor. The fireworks displays are conducted from a ramp on the Northeast shoreline on Japonski Island, which offer a better spectator view with less maritime vessel traffic. Because the Safety Zone was originally created to protect vessels and persons from the specific harm of the fireworks display that was launched in Crescent Harbor from a barge, the cessation of that display makes it unnecessary to continue the Safety Zone. For this reason, comment on the removal of the Safety Zone is unnecessary, as well as impracticable.

Each year on or about the 3rd of July, fireworks display activities are conducted over the navigable waters of Sitka Channel, Sitka, AK. In previous years, this display was launched from a barge, which was located in Crescent Harbor, Sitka, Alaska. The sponsor has requested to change this location and will now conduct this 1-hour activity on the shoreline ramp on the northeast side of Japonski Island, Sitka, AK.

This final rule will remove the annual safety zone in Crescent Harbor associated with the fireworks display, as it is no longer necessary. The sponsor now uses a shoreline ramp on the northeast side of Japonski Island, thus greatly reducing the hazard to vessels and individuals located in the area previously designated as a safety zone.

This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of the Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under sections 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040; February 26, 1979). The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this proposal to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10(e) of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is unnecessary. This is because lifting the safety zone will allow greater access and mobility to vessels located within Crescent Harbor.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we considered whether this rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations less than 50,000. Because the effects of this rule are positive, by allowing greater access and mobility to vessels within Crescent Harbor, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we offer to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. If your small business or organization is affected by this rule and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the office listed in ADDRESSES in this preamble.

This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13132 and have determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism under that Order.

This proposed rule will not have tribal implications; will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments; and will not preempt tribal law. Therefore, it is exempt from the consultation requirements of Executive Order 13175. If tribal implications are identified during the comment period we will undertake appropriate consultations with the affected Indian tribal officials.

This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.

The Coast Guard considered the environmental impact of this rule and concluded that, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of Commandant Instruction M16475.1C, this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation. A “Categorical Exclusion Determination” is available in the docket for inspection or copying where indicated under ADDRESSES.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) governs the issuance of Federal regulations that require unfunded mandates. An unfunded mandate is a regulation that requires a State, local, or tribal government or the private sector to incur direct costs without the Federal Government's having first provided the funds to pay those unfunded mandate costs. This rule will not impose an unfunded mandate.

The following table outlines the regulatory history of this rulemaking project:

The Secretary of Transportation is required to establish a Vessel Identification System (VIS) (46 U.S.C. 12501). VIS is a nationwide system for collecting information on vessels and vessel owners and other information that will assist law enforcement officials in their investigations of stolen vessels or other crimes, such as fraud. It benefits consumers, lenders, insurers, the marine industry, and national boating organizations by increasing the probability of recovering stolen vessels and by decreasing the probability of a person unknowingly purchasing a vessel that is stolen or that has a lien or other claim against it. In turn, VIS should decrease the probability of theft. The responsibility for establishing VIS was delegated by the Secretary of Transportation to the Coast Guard (49 CFR 1.46).

This Final Rule concerns the Coast Guard's regulations in 33 CFR part 187 (Vessel Identification System), which—

(1) Establish minimum requirements for States electing to participate in VIS;

(2) Prescribe guidelines for State vessel titling systems; and

(3) Explain how States may obtain certification of compliance with the vessel titling system guidelines for the purpose of conferring preferred status under 46 U.S.C. 31322(d) on mortgages, instruments, or agreements for State-titled vessels.

State participation in VIS is entirely voluntary; however, to participate, States must comply with certain requirements to ensure the integrity and uniformity of the information provided to VIS.

Most of the information to be included in VIS is already collected by States that number vessels under 33 CFR part 174. This rule amends the requirements in 33 CFR part 187 for States electing to participate in VIS.

This rule also creates a new 33 CFR part 187, subpart D, Guidelines for State Vessel Titling Systems, and clarifies the procedures for obtaining certification of compliance with those guidelines. Under 46 U.S.C. 31322(d)(1), a perfected mortgage covering the whole of a vessel titled in a State that participates in VIS and has a certified vessel titling system will be deemed to be a preferred mortgage. Compliance with the State titling guidelines and requests for certification are entirely voluntary by a State.

We received a total of fifteen comments to this rulemaking. In the following paragraphs, the Coast Guard discusses the comments received and explains any changes made to the regulations. The Coast Guard first discusses general comments, and secondly discusses comments regarding specific sections of the regulations. A significant number of the changes are the result of comments and recommendations developed jointly by the primary stakeholders in VIS. These stakeholders include representatives of State numbering and titling agencies, the marine lending industry, and the maritime law community.

Many of these comments were in response to our proposed changes to the Standard Numbering System (SNS) requirements in 33 CFR part 174. Several commentors believed that the changes to the SNS were more costly than we originally estimated and would potentially impose additional information collection requirements.

The Coast Guard agrees that the issues relating to the SNS should be studied further, prior to making any permanent changes to the regulations in 33 CFR part 174. We have therefore removed this section from the rulemaking and will address those comments in a separate rulemaking. We believe that while VIS is dependent upon the SNS, changes to the SNS can be developed subsequent to this rulemaking without a negative effect on VIS. The comments received regarding the SNS and changes proposed to 33 CFR part 174 will be taken into account and addressed in the SNS rulemaking.

We additionally received several comments regarding VIS and the changes proposed in 33 CFR part 187. All comments received throughout the course of this project were considered in the development of this Final Rule. The issues raised by the comments, and the sections that have been revised or added since the publication of the SNPRM, are discussed.

One comment suggested that the use and acceptance of electronic titles and signatures be considered for the future with VIS.

The Coast Guard believes that the use and acceptance of electronic titles and electronic signatures is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. However, the Coast Guard is committed to utilizing new technology to improve VIS and will consider electronic titles and electronic signatures in any future revisions.

One comment cautioned that there will be redundancy of data created between State databases, and the Coast Guard's database. The comment asked—

• Which agency would be responsible for contacting boat owners with problem certificates of documentation and State titles?

• What will happen to the bank's ship mortgages and/or State liens?

• Who will bear the expense to correct the problems?

VIS will make it easier to detect redundancy across the States' databases. To assist in detecting redundancy, VIS will automatically contact applicable States whenever any redundant data has been detected. This will only happen, however, after a State has submitted the data to VIS. The Coast Guard recommends that States check VIS prior to the issuance of documents to ensure the vessel is not registered in another State and prevent the problems that redundancy can cause. In regards to responsibility, the agency that issues the documentation will continue to be responsible for contacting vessel owners and bearing any expenses incurred with any problems.

The plan to provide for a consolidated builder's certification and certificate of origin is one of the subjects in another rulemaking project. The docket number for that project is USCG 1998-4784. We anticipate that the availability of a single document acceptable to the States for numbering and titling and to the Coast Guard for vessel documentation will encourage manufacturers to use only that document. However, the Coast Guard cautions the commenter that there is no Federal authority to mandate a specific form for the COO. Only the individual States may determine what will be acceptable in their systems.

One comment said that requiring HINs for all recreational vessels seems excessive. A review of the recreational vessels with a Certificate of Number in Connecticut indicates approximately 27,000 vessels have HINs. Recreational vessels constructed before 1972 do not possess a HIN. The State is able to process about 200 HINs annually. The need to process 27,000 is not possible. Therefore, we suggest that only vessels constructed on or after 1972 be required to have a HIN.

The goal is to eventually have a valid HIN on every numbered vessel in the United States without regard to when it may have been built. The Coast Guard agrees that it is not reasonable to expect States to immediately issue HINs to all vessels that currently do not have valid ones. The requirement for a State to assign a HIN to a vessel that does not have a valid one applies only if the vessel is transferred to a new owner (sold within State) or moved into a new State of principal operation. In the meantime, section 187.9(b) provides that the State number or Coast Guard documentation number will be used as the vessel identification number in VIS.

One comment stated there was an issue regarding the resolution of the unique vessel identification number. The National Association of State Boating Law Administrators (NASBLA), and the International Association of Marine Investigators (IAMI) have both gone on record in support of a 17-digit Hull Identification Number (HIN). The rulemaking project to establish that number has dragged on since 1992. The Comment asked—

• What is the Coast Guard's position on the number;

• What does the Coast Guard want; and

• When will the Coast Guard make a final decision?

While the Coast Guard recognizes that the issues are related, the makeup of the HIN is outside the scope of this project. Because of controversy and conflict there is no consensus on the format for an expanded HIN and the Coast Guard lacks sufficient data to demonstrate that the benefits clearly outweigh the costs and burdens, particularly for small entities and builders of high volume, low cost boats. Therefore, the proposal to expand the HIN format was withdrawn on June 29, 2000 (65 FR 40069) and a study was begun to gather data on costs and benefits. We will review the results of the study and decide whether to issue a new regulatory project.

One comment said that this section and § 187.103 would require the redesign of Certificate of Number and Certificate of Decal applications. This process is complicated and will take several years. Another comment stated that building additional computer storage capacity, and extensive programming changes would be needed. To build additional computer storage capacity as well as implement extensive programming changes will also take time.

The Coast Guard understands that some changes will need to be made, however, we reiterate that participation in VIS is voluntary. The SNS Rulemaking will address this further with its proposal to give States four years to change applicable Certificates and forms. This will reduce costs and allow any new forms to be redesigned and purchased as supplies of the old forms are depleted.

One comment stated that the regulation should make clear that the information a State must collect to identify a vessel owner in § 187.101 and the information to identify a vessel in § 187.103 must be made available to VIS as is done in § 187.105.

We agree and have added language to those sections, as well as § 187.107, to make clear that this information must be made available to VIS.

Three comments discussed the question of what information should be made available publicly. Two comments said there should be a charge for this information. One comment proposed the addition of two new sections to address this issue.

The Coast Guard will use these comments in a future project when we establish what exactly will be released, to whom, how it will be released, and how much it will cost.

One comment stated that it would be expensive for them to change their system to collect and store residential address information for an owner and each lien holder and that mailing address information should be sufficient.

The Coast Guard understands that systems will require some change, however the residential address information is required for law enforcement purposes.

One comment stated that using the Social Security Number (SSN) or Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN), as unique vessel owner identifiers, would require clear Federal and State authority.

States have the option to provide another unique owner identifier if they are not able, under State law, to collect the SSN or ITIN. The ITIN should not be a Privacy Act issue for corporate owners.

One comment suggested that the Coast Guard develop a realistic and uniform definition for the term “charter boat” as it relates to the needs of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).

The Coast Guard agrees. According to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1802), “charter fishing” is defined as “fishing from a vessel carrying a passenger for hire (as defined in section 2101(21a) of Title 46 who is engaged in recreational fishing.” The Coast Guard will work closely with stakeholders to develop clear guidance defining the categories and commercial activities identified in VIS.

Another comment stated that the original proposal from NMFS would require several changes to State registration systems. This is unacceptable because it would cost too much.

The only change that is being implemented at the request of NMFS is the addition of “charter fishing” as a category of primary use. Other data requests from NMFS were outside the scope of this rulemaking.

One comment stated that they use the term “homemade” to distinguish between privately constructed vessels from commercially constructed vessels. The commentor requested that they continue to have the ability to use this term.

There is no regulation that defines terms to be used in the manufacture/make field, therefore the term “homemade” is an acceptable term to use.

One comment recommended requiring that a participating State collect and make available to VIS information concerning the discharge of a security interest or the surrender of a certificate of title.

This issue was discussed in previous notices. Again, we disagree because it would impose an additional burden on the States.

One comment asked since their respective State does not require non-mechanical vessels to be registered, will this information be required in VIS? The Coast Guard understands that all vessels may not be registered in a State. Therefore if a vessel is not registered, it does not need to be reported in VIS.

One comment stated that it was understood that much of the information listed in § 187.107(b) is noted in the police report, and could be available by requesting it from the reporting enforcement agency.

This information is strictly optional and not required to be reported to VIS.

One comment stated that a reference was made to States utilizing microfiche or microfilm or other electronic storage to retain information. However, this is limited to a number of years. The States' data storage cannot compare to what is retained by the Coast Guard, in detail and in length of time. The life of a boat is many more years than most State storage systems. The lack of this information being available greatly jeopardizes the history of a boat. VIS should accommodate keeping essential boat information and not depend on States for this. Another comment also expressed concern about the retention of information for a history of transactions involving a vessel.

We believe there is some confusion as to exactly what information VIS will archive. VIS will archive information on a particular vessel only if the vessel's registration has been inactive for ten years. And archived information will be retained for an additional 50 years. Past transactions, including change of vessel ownership as well as change of State of registration, will be recorded and stored with a particular vessel to track and build its history. The reference to microfiche and microfilm in Part 187.201(d) refers specifically to certificates and other evidence that establish the accuracy of the information, not the information itself.

One comment stated that during the months of February, March, and April hundreds of vessel registrations with changes arrive daily. The DMV will not be able to provide to VIS changes in registration information during these three months.

State personnel will process vessel registrations just as they currently do in the normal course of business. The daily summary of registration changes will be generated automatically by the computer program that is developed when a State initially elects to participate in VIS. Personnel processing daily transactions, require no additional effort. If a State falls behind in processing transactions, that would not affect the viability of VIS.

Two comments stated that States were concerned with whether dealers and manufacturers would support the change to regulate boat dealers.

This requirement applies only to States that choose to seek certification to obtain preferred mortgage status for State-titled vessels. The principal stakeholders in this rulemaking process recommended application of this regulation and we agree. The Coast Guard will consider an amendment if, at a later date, it is determined that the State restrictions on boat dealers and manufacturers participation can be deleted without adversely impacting the effectiveness of VIS.

One comment stated that in Subpart D of this section, the amendments included in the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1998 clearly state that Federal statute now prohibits a vessel from being both documented by the Coast Guard and titled by a State (46 U.S.C. 12124). In the section on Federalism, this Federal Law is referred to concluding that States should consider amending their laws and regulations on this issue. The comment asked whether a State would be accepted into VIS if they do not conform to this Federal law.

The answer is no. At the present time there are several States which require titling of documented vessels. Since those laws are in conflict with Federal law, the Coast Guard strongly recommends that States amend their laws and regulations on this issue to alleviate the conflict. The National Vessel Documentation Center is undertaking a separate rulemaking project to provide for the surrender of State titles when a vessel is documented under Federal law.

We received two comments pointing out that States employ different procedures for security interest perfection on State boat titles. Some States deem the perfection to have occurred when the State boat title application and necessary fees are delivered to the proper State filing office; other States deem legal perfection to occur when the secured party is actually noted on the certificate of title. A State may make its own choice as to determination of the date and time of perfection. One comment suggested that this issue could be clarified by replacing the word “Delivery” at the beginning of § 187.323(a)(1) with the word “Submission.”

We agree and have made the recommended change in both § 187.323(a)(1) and in § 187.323(a)(4).

This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget under that Order has not reviewed it. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040, February 26, 1979).

We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is unnecessary. This rule imposes zero mandatory costs. For States that choose to participate in VIS, we expect an average one-time cost of $55,000 per State and an average recurring cost (for correcting inaccurate data entries) equal to $0.75 times 2 percent of the number of annual registration changes per State.

This rule does not impose mandatory costs on States. A State may elect to participate in VIS but is not compelled to do so. Participation is entirely voluntary. In our estimation of hour and cost burdens, we assumed a 100% participation rate in VIS by 2009.

The total cost of this rulemaking to a State participating in VIS is the sum of the one-time costs and recurring costs. Over the 10-year period of analysis, the present-value total cost of this rule to States that elect to participate in VIS is estimated to be $2,917,450.

The only one-time cost is the cost of developing the VIS/State database interface and update programming at the State level. We estimate the average cost of developing VIS at the State level would be $55,000 per participant. Assuming a 100% participation rate by the year 2009, we estimate that the total one-time cost of developing VIS, in present-value terms, would be $2,366,574 in 1999 dollars.

There are two recurring costs. The first is the cost to produce a daily summary update of registration changes, which is transmitted to VIS. The second is the cost of correcting data entry errors of registration changes.

The daily summary update of registration changes will be generated automatically by the computer program that is developed when a State initially elects to participate in VIS. Consequently, the Coast Guard estimates that the cost to a State of producing approximately 250 annual summary updates would be zero. If a State improperly enters the data for a change of registration, an error report is generated from VIS. A State that receives an error report will be required to correct the data entry. We estimate 2 percent of a State's registration changes will be improperly entered and generate error reports. In most cases, we expect the error will be limited to a particular field in the data set, and its correction will be quick.

We estimate it would cost an average of $0.75 to correct a data entry (assuming it takes an average of 3 minutes or 0.05 hours at an average of $15 per hour to correct an entry). The corrected data entry will then be automatically included in that day's summary update. So, if a State has an average of 100,000 registration changes per year, we would expect an average of 2,000 data entry mistakes and a recurring cost of $1,500 per year (100,000 × 0.02 × $0.75 = $1,500).

The present-value total recurring cost of this rule to States is estimated to be $550,876. When added to the estimated present-value total start-up cost to States of $2,366,574, the present-value total cost of this rule to States over the 10-year period of analysis is $2,917,450 ($550,876 + $2,366,574 = $2,917,450).

The present-value total cost of this rule to States and to the Federal government to support and maintain VIS is estimated to be $8,688,439 in 1999 dollars ($2,917,450 to States and $5,770,989 to the Federal government).

The primary benefits of VIS will come from its ability to serve as a tracking device for vessels, with the vessel identifier serving much like the Vehicle Identification Number found in automobiles. As a tracking device, the benefits of VIS will be in the—

(1) Improved odds of recovering a stolen or missing vessel, which benefits boat owners and insurers, and local and State law enforcement agencies;

(2) Decreased odds of unknowingly purchasing a stolen vessel, which can be a financial disaster if the rightful owner shows up to claim it; and

(3) Decreased odds of unknowingly purchasing a vessel that has a lien, unpaid taxes, or other claim(s) lodged against it, which can become the responsibility of the new owner.

VIS establishes penalties for those persons who—

(1) Intentionally provide false information to the issuing authority regarding the identification of a vessel; or

(2) Tamper with, remove, or falsify a unique vessel identification number.

Combining those penalties with its feature as a tracking device, a secondary benefit of VIS will be the reduction in theft of vessels. A third benefit of VIS will be the preferred mortgage status of a perfected mortgage covering the whole of a vessel titled in a State that participates in VIS and has a certified vessel titling system.

This rule calls for a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). We submitted a copy of the rule, as required by 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its review of the collection of information. OMB approved the collection. The section numbers are §§ 187.11, 187.13, 187.101, 187.103, 187.105, 187.107, 187.201, and 187.301 and the corresponding approval number is OMB Control Number 2115-0607. You need not respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number from OMB.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.

This rule affects U.S. States. It imposes zero mandatory costs. According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, none of the States eligible to participate in VIS has a population less than 50,000. Thus, there are no small entities affected and no impact upon small entities.

Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13132 and have determined that it does not have federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment under that Order.

This rule is not expected to infringe upon the rights of States to regulate, or preempt existing State regulations. State participation is entirely voluntary. However, once electing to participate, a State must comply with the requirements to ensure integrity and uniformity of information in both the Standard Numbering System and VIS. Likewise, requesting certification that a State vessel titling system complies with the guidelines is also voluntary. Such certification, for participating States, confers preferred status on mortgages covering the whole of vessels titled in that State.

However, Federal law (46 U.S.C. 12124) prohibits a vessel from being both documented by the Coast Guard and titled by a State. This prohibition applies to all State-titled vessels, whether or not the title-issuing State participates in VIS or follows the titling guidelines. States that require documented vessels to be titled should consider amending their laws and regulations on this issue.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions not specifically required by law. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under E.O. 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not concern an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.

We considered the environmental impact of this rule and concluded that, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34) of Commandant Instruction M16475.1C, this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation. This rule establishes a nationwide information system for identifying vessels and vessel owners, and guidelines for State vessel titling systems. This action clearly will have no environmental consequences. A “Categorical Exclusion Determination” is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

This section provides additional information by addressing the following questions:

The CAA Amendments of 1990 required all state and local permitting authorities to develop operating permit programs that met certain federal criteria. In implementing the operating permit programs, the permitting authorities require certain sources of air pollution to obtain permits that contain all applicable requirements under the CAA. The focus of the operating permit program is to improve enforcement by issuing each source a permit that consolidates all of the applicable CAA requirements into a federally enforceable document. By consolidating all of the applicable requirements for a facility, the source, the public, and the permitting authorities can more easily determine what CAA requirements apply and how compliance with those requirements is determined.

Sources required to obtain an operating permit under this program include “major” sources of air pollution and certain other sources specified in the CAA or in EPA's implementing regulations. For example, all sources regulated under the acid rain program, regardless of size, must obtain permits. Examples of major sources include those that have the potential to emit 100 tons per year or more of volatile organic compounds, carbon monoxide, lead, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides (NOX), or particulate matter (PM10); those that emit 10 tons per year of any single hazardous air pollutant (specifically listed under the CAA); or those that emit 25 tons per year or more of a combination of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). In areas that are not meeting the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, or particulate matter, major sources are defined by the gravity of the nonattainment classification. For example, in ozone nonattainment areas classified as “serious,” major sources include those with the potential of emitting 50 tons per year or more of volatile organic compounds or nitrogen oxides.

Where an operating permit program substantially, but not fully, met the criteria outlined in the implementing regulations codified at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 70, EPA granted interim approval contingent on the state revising its program to correct the deficiencies. Because the Tennessee and Memphis-Shelby County operating permit programs substantially, but not fully, met the requirements of part 70, EPA granted interim approval to each program in a rulemaking published on July 29, 1996 (61 FR 39335). The interim approval notice described the conditions that had to be met in order for the Tennessee and Memphis-Shelby County programs to receive full approval. Since that time, Tennessee has submitted ten revisions to its interimly approved operating permit program; these revisions are dated July 15, 1997, June 16, 1998, February 5, 1999, February 24, 1999, March 5, 1999, June 16, 1999, July 2, 1999, November 30, 1999, December 30, 1999, and August 21, 2000. Memphis-Shelby County has submitted two revisions, dated October 11, 1999 and May 2, 2000, to its interimly approved program. This Federal Register notice describes the changes that have been made to the Tennessee and Memphis-Shelby County operating permit programs since interim approval was granted.

As stipulated in the July 29, 1996 rulemaking, full approval of the Tennessee and Memphis-Shelby County operating permit programs was made contingent upon satisfaction of the following conditions:

(1) Provide a justification for not addressing the requirement in 40 CFR 70.3(b)(3) allowing for a source not subject to the program to apply for and receive an operating permit. Tennessee responded by adding Subparagraph 1200-3-9-.02(11)(a)5. to its rules allowing a source to opt into the operating permit program. The state-effective rule change was submitted to EPA on March 5, 1999. Memphis-Shelby County, which adopts the State's regulations by reference, subsequently adopted the revised rule and submitted documentation of the adoption to EPA on May 2, 2000.

(2) Remove the exemption from permitting requirements for insignificant activities contained in Subparagraph 1200-3-9-.04(5)(f). Tennessee removed the exemption language and submitted the revised rule to EPA on December 30, 1999. Memphis-Shelby County subsequently adopted the revised rule and submitted documentation of the adoption to EPA on May 2, 2000.

(3) Revise Subparagraph 1200-3-9-.04(5) to specify, consistent with 40 CFR 70.5(c), that permit applications may not omit information needed to determine the fee amount. This condition was based on EPA's concern that some facilities may overlook emissions from insignificant emission units, and thereby not be assessed the correct fee amount. However, EPA later determined that this was a nonissue because both Tennessee and Memphis-Shelby County require facilities to pay fees based on actual or allowable emissions of regulated air pollutants; emissions from insignificant activities are not included in the fee schedules that have been approved pursuant to 40 CFR 70.9(b).

(4) Revise Subparagraph 1200-3-9-.04(5)(c)(3) to eliminate the exemption from compliance certification requirements for insignificant activities and to require monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting for insignificant activities, as determined to be necessary. Tennessee revised Subparagraphs 1200-3-9-.04(5)(c)(2) and (3) to eliminate the exemption and to require monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting for insignificant activities, as necessary. The state-effective rule change was submitted to EPA on December 30, 1999. Memphis-Shelby County subsequently adopted the revised rule and submitted documentation of the adoption to EPA on May 2, 2000.

(5) Revise certain insignificant activities listed in Subparagraph 1200-3-9-.04(5) to eliminate potential conflicts with federal applicable requirements. The State responded by eliminating some of the activities and adding specific applicable requirements gatekeeper language to other activities with potential conflicts. The revised rule was submitted to EPA on December 30, 1999 and was determined to be adequate. Memphis-Shelby County subsequently adopted the revised rule and submitted documentation of the adoption to EPA on May 2, 2000.

(6) Provide a sufficient description of the insignificant activities and emission units listed in Subparagraphs 1200-3-9-.04(5)(f) and (g) to demonstrate that exclusion of these activities and units from permit applications would not interfere with identifying and imposing applicable requirements. In the alternative, Tennessee and Memphis-Shelby County were given the option of revising their rules to limit emissions from the listed activities and emission units to levels that truly are insignificant in comparison to the levels required to be permitted. For other operating program approvals, EPA has accepted emission thresholds of no more than 5 tons per year of regulated air pollutants and 1000 pounds per year of HAPs as insignificant. EPA believes that these thresholds are sufficiently below applicability thresholds for many applicable requirements to ensure, in combination with appropriate gatekeeper language, that units potentially subject to applicable requirements are included in permit applications. Tennessee responded by adding language to Subparagraph 1200-3-9-.04(5) that limits potential emissions from the listed activities to 5 tons per year of each regulated air pollutant and 1000 pounds per year of each HAP. Tennessee also replaced the activities listed in Subparagraph 1200-3-9-.04(5)(g) with the list of “trivial” activities and emission units that EPA included in the “White Paper for Streamlined Development of Part 70 Permit Applications” guidance memorandum dated July 10, 1995. EPA has determined that the emission units and activities on the trivial list do not have specific applicable requirements and have extremely small emissions. Tennessee submitted the regulatory revisions to EPA on December 30, 1999. Memphis-Shelby County subsequently adopted the revisions and submitted documentation of the adoption to EPA on May 2, 2000.

(7) Revise Subparagraph 1200-3-9-.04(5)(h) to eliminate language exempting certain emissions increases from permit amendment and modification procedures. The State repealed Subparagraph 1200-3-9-.04(5)(h) in its entirety and submitted the state-effective rule change to EPA on December 30, 1999. The County subsequently adopted the revised rule and submitted documentation of the adoption to EPA on May 2, 2000.

(8) Revise Subparagraph 1200-3-9-.02(11)(b) to remove the language limiting the domain of federal applicable requirements to only those in effect on December 15, 1993. The State removed the limiting language and submitted the state-effective rule change to EPA on March 5, 1999. The County subsequently adopted the State's regulatory change and submitted documentation of the adoption to EPA on May 2, 2000.

(9) Revise Subparagraph 1200-3-9-.02(11)(e)4.(i) to provide that if a facility is granted a general permit and is later determined to not qualify to operate under the general permit, the facility will be subject to an enforcement action for operation without an operating permit. The State revised Subparagraph 1200-3-9-.02(11)(e)4.(i) accordingly and submitted the state-effective rule change to EPA on February 5, 1999. The County subsequently adopted the revised rule and submitted documentation of the adoption to EPA on May 2, 2000.

(10) Revise Paragraph 1200-3-20-.06(5) of the Tennessee SIP to clarify that exceedances of emission limits contained in certain SIP requirements that become operating permit terms or conditions (i.e., New Source Performance Standards (NSPSs) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs)) will be considered by the State as violations. Furthermore, the State must submit the revised rule to EPA for approval into the SIP. In response, the State removed all NSPS and NESHAP provisions from its SIP and now implements these standards through its approved operating permit program by including all applicable requirements in its operating permits. In addition, the State developed a general condition that is included in all of its operating permits stating that the provisions of Chapter 1200-3-20 apply exclusively to rules in the Tennessee SIP.

(11) Revise Subparagraph 1200-3-31-.04(1)(a) for consistency with the permit reopening requirements in 40 CFR 70.7(f)(1)(i), which requires the completion of permit openings not later than 18 months after promulgation of a new applicable requirement in cases of permits with remaining permit terms of three or more years. The State amended Subparagraph 1200-3-31-.04(1)(a) to include the 18-month reopening requirement and submitted the state-effective rule change to EPA on February 24, 1999. The County subsequently adopted the revised rule and submitted documentation of the adoption to EPA on May 2, 2000.

(12) Finish adopting regulations which, at a minimum, satisfy the conflict of interest provisions of sections 128 and 129(e) of the CAA, and submit the state-effective regulations to EPA for approval in the Tennessee SIP. The State submitted a new Chapter 1200-3-17 entitled “Conflict of Interest” to EPA on February 21, 1997. The State also submitted a supplemental Attorney General's Legal Opinion to EPA on June 16, 1999, certifying that the new Chapter 1200-3-17 satisfies the conflict of interest requirements of sections 128 and 129(e) of the CAA. This condition did not apply to Memphis-Shelby County.

The County was, however, required to address the following two additional conditions for full approval of its operating permit program:

(1) Clarify in a supplemental legal opinion that the County's program requires a source submitting an application for a permit to certify its compliance status with regards to all applicable requirements. On May 2, 2000, the County submitted a supplemental legal opinion supporting its application-based approach as a method resulting in a binding, legally enforceable compliance certification.

(2) Revise its regulations to ensure that sufficient operating permit fees are collected to fund the operating permit program and that these fees are used solely for operating permit program costs. The County responded by amending Section 14.5-37 of the Shelby County Air Pollution Code to provide that operating permit fees “shall be used exclusively for and be sufficient to pay the direct and indirect costs of the major stationary source operating permit program * * *” The amended code was submitted to EPA on May 2, 2000.

In addition to the operating permit program submittals that addressed the interim approval conditions, Tennessee submitted revisions to its operating permit fee rule on July 15, 1997, June 16, 1998, July 2, 1999, and August 21, 2000. As discussed in the Federal Register notice proposing interim approval of the Tennessee and Memphis-Shelby County operating permit programs (61 FR 9661, March 11, 1996), both the State and the County elected to assess operating permit fees below the federal presumptive minimum amount. To determine the fee amount each year, the State prepares a workload analysis and then conducts rulemaking if the fee rule needs to be changed. As a result of these workload analyses, the State has been able to reduce its fee amount each year. Copies of the workload analyses for the fiscal years 1996 through 2001 were submitted to EPA to justify the State's annual fee amounts. The State also submitted a fee program update on November 30, 1999, pursuant to 40 CFR 70.9(c), demonstrating the adequacy of its operating permit program. Memphis-Shelby County has not changed its annual fee amount since the operating permit program received interim approval in 1996. The County submitted a fee program update on October 11, 1999, pursuant to 40 CFR 70.9(c), demonstrating that its operating permit program is also being adequately funded.

The Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation and the Memphis-Shelby County Health Department have fulfilled the conditions of the interim approval granted on July 29, 1996, and EPA is taking final action by this notice to fully approve the Tennessee and Memphis-Shelby County operating permit programs. EPA is also taking action to approve other program changes made by Tennessee since the interim approval was granted.

EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to grant final full approval should adverse comments be filed. This action will be effective May 21, 2001 unless the Agency receives adverse comments by April 19, 2001.

If EPA receives such comments, then EPA will withdraw the final rule and inform the public that the rule will not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Parties interested in commenting should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this rule will be effective on May 21, 2001 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule.

The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review.”

As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the Executive Order. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.

This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not an economically significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866, and it does not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks.

Under Executive Order 13084, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects the communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected officials and other representatives of Indian tribal governments “to provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.”

Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal governments. This action does not involve or impose any requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by state and local governments, or EPA consults with state and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts state law unless the Agency consults with state and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.

This final rule will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it merely approves a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.

This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because part 70 approvals under section 502 of the CAA do not create any new requirements but simply approve requirements that the state is already imposing. Therefore, because this approval does not create any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Moreover, due to the nature of the federal-state relationship under the CAA, preparation of a flexibility analysis would constitute federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The CAA forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. (See Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).)

Under sections 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or final rule that includes a federal mandate that may result in estimated costs to state, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any small governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not include a federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to either state, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This federal action approves pre-existing requirements under state or local law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to state, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. section 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 21, 2001. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2) of the CAA).

Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 requires federal agencies to evaluate existing technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with NTTAA, EPA must consider and use “voluntary consensus standards” (VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.

In reviewing operating permit programs, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the state to use VCS, EPA has no authority to disapprove an operating permit program for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews an operating permit program, to use VCS in place of an operating permit program that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of NTTAA do not apply.

The NFIP enables property owners to purchase flood insurance which is generally not otherwise available. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer local floodplain management measures aimed at protecting lives and new construction from future flooding. Since the communities on the attached list have recently entered the NFIP, subsidized flood insurance is now available for property in the community.

In addition, the Associate Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency has identified the special flood hazard areas in some of these communities by publishing a Flood Hazard Boundary Map (FHBM) or Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). The date of the flood map, if one has been published, is indicated in the fourth column of the table. In the communities listed where a flood map has been published, Section 102 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4012(a), requires the purchase of flood insurance as a condition of Federal or federally related financial assistance for acquisition or construction of buildings in the special flood hazard areas shown on the map.

The Associate Director finds that the delayed effective dates would be contrary to the public interest. The Associate Director also finds that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and unnecessary.

This rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR Part 10, Environmental Considerations. No environmental impact assessment has been prepared.

The Associate Director certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., because the rule creates no additional burden, but lists those communities eligible for the sale of flood insurance.

This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735.

This rule does not involve any collection of information for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

This rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 12612, Federalism, October 26, 1987, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 252.

This rule meets the applicable standards of section 2(b)(2) of Executive Order 12778, October 25, 1991, 56 FR 55195, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 309.

The Federal Communications Commission published a document amending part 2 in the Federal Register of February 16, 2001 (66 FR 10601). This document corrects the Federal Register as it appeared. In rule FR Doc. 01-3710 published on February 16, 2001 (66 FR 10601), the Commission is correcting the table in United States (US) Footnote for US 355 to reflect the correct “degree (°), minute (′) , and second (″)” symbols.

In rule FR Doc. 01-3170 published on February 16, 2001 (66 FR 10601), make the following correction:

This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order, MM Docket No. 99-326, adopted February 21, 2001, and released March 2, 2001. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractors, International Transcription Service, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036.

Additionally, Channel 255A can be substituted for vacant Channel 244A at Byrdstown in compliance with the Commission's minimum distance separation requirements with a site restriction of 13.1 kilometers (8.2 miles) southeast at petitioner's requested site. The coordinates for Channel 255A at Byrdstown are 36-30-23 North Latitude and 85-00-32 West Longitude. Channel 297A can be reallotted to Lebanon Junction in compliance with the Commission's minimum distance separation requirement with a site restriction of 13.6 kilometers (8.5 miles) southeast at petitioner's requested site. The coordinates for Channel 297A at Lebanon Junction are 37-47-00 North Latitude and 85-35-28 West Longitude.

On November 24, 1993, Station WBVR-FM filed an application (File No. BPH-931124IE) to downgrade to Channel 244A, which was granted on April 1, 1994. The FM Table of Allotments erroneously still reflects Channel 244C3 at Bowling Green, Kentucky.

The Aleutian Canada goose is a small, island nesting subspecies of Canada goose. Morphologically (in form), it resembles other small Canada goose subspecies, but nearly all Aleutian Canada geese surviving past their first winter have a distinct white neck ring at the base of a black neck. Other distinguishing characteristics include an abrupt forehead, separation of the white cheek patches by black feathering along the throat in most individuals, and a narrow border of dark feathering at the base of the white neck ring. The Aleutian Canada goose is the only subspecies of Canada goose whose range once included both North America and Asia (Amaral 1985). It formerly nested in the northern Kuril and Commander islands, in the Aleutian Archipelago and on islands south of the Alaska Peninsula east to near Kodiak Island. The species formerly wintered in Japan, and in the coastal western United States south to Mexico. Delacour (1954) considered coastal British Columbia within the former wintering range of this subspecies; however, there are no bona fide records of Aleutian Canada geese from this area (P. Springer, pers. comm. 1999).

The decline of the Aleutian Canada goose was primarily the result of the introduction of Arctic foxes (Alopex lagopus) and, to a lesser extent, red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) to its breeding islands for the purpose of developing a fur industry. Between 1750 and 1936, Arctic and red foxes were introduced to more than 190 islands within the breeding range of the Aleutian Canada goose in Alaska (Bailey 1993). Several life-cycle stages of the goose, including eggs, goslings, and flightless, molting geese are vulnerable to predation by foxes. The decrease of Aleutian Canada geese on Agattu Island between 1906, when they were termed the most abundant bird (Clark 1910), and 1937, when only a few pairs were observed (Murie 1959), attests to the precipitous nature of their decline. At the time of its listing as endangered in 1967, its known breeding range was limited to Buldir Island, a small, isolated island in the western Aleutian Islands (Jones 1963). A historical record indicates that Arctic foxes were introduced to Buldir Island in 1924, but this is either incorrect or the introduction failed to establish a population (Bailey 1993).

Hunting throughout its range in the Pacific Flyway, especially on the migration and wintering range in California, and loss and alteration of habitat on its migration and wintering range also contributed to the subspecies' decline. Hunting was likely a limiting factor when populations were low.

In response to reduced population levels, we classified the Aleutian Canada goose as endangered on March 11, 1967 (32 FR 4001). Congress afforded additional protection with passage of the Endangered Species Act of 1973. We approved a recovery plan for the Aleutian Canada goose in 1979 and revised it in 1982 and 1991 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1991). We began recovery activities in 1974. Important features of the recovery program in Alaska and the western United States included: banding of birds on the breeding grounds to identify important wintering and migration areas; closure of principal wintering and migration areas to hunting of all Canada geese; acquisition, protection, and management of important wintering and migration habitat; removal of foxes from potential nesting islands; propagation and release of captive Aleutian Canada geese on fox-free nesting islands in the Aleutians; and translocation of molting family groups of wild geese from Buldir Island to other fox-free islands in the Aleutians.

At the time of its listing, data on which to base a population estimate of Aleutian Canada geese were limited. Boeker (in Kenyon 1963) speculated during a 1963 expedition that only 200-300 birds were on Buldir Island. We believed breeding birds to be confined to that one island, and the migration routes and wintering range were unknown. A spring count at a principal migration stopover near Crescent City, California, in 1975 revealed 790 individuals (Springer et al. 1978).

We subsequently found small breeding groups of Aleutian Canada geese on Kiliktagik Island in the Semidi Islands south of the Alaska Peninsula in 1979 (Hatch and Hatch 1983), and on Chagulak Island in the central Aleutians in 1982 (Bailey and Trapp 1984). Geese from Chagulak Island are morphologically identical to those from the western Aleutians. Semidi Islands geese are morphologically similar to geese from the Aleutian Islands but tend to have darker breasts, more variable neck rings and a less distinct subtending line below the neck ring (D. Pitkin, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, pers. comm. 1999). Genetic studies indicate that geese from both Chagulak Island and the Semidi Islands are more closely related to Aleutian Canada geese than other Canada goose subspecies (Shields and Wilson 1987; Pierson et al. 2000). We consider the Chagulak Island and Semidi Islands geese to be remnant populations of the previously more continuously distributed Aleutian Canada goose.

Marking of Aleutian Canada geese on Buldir Island beginning in 1974, and later on Chagulak Island and Kiliktagik Island, helped reveal their wintering range and migration routes. These marking studies indicate that there are two, relatively discrete breeding segments of Aleutian Canada geese—the Aleutian Islands segment, including birds from Chagulak Island and the western Aleutian Islands, and the Semidi Islands segment. A recent genetic study found that geese from the Semidi Islands are genetically distinct from geese from the western Aleutian Islands, indicating limited contemporary gene flow and/or major shifts in gene frequency through genetic drift (the random change in gene frequencies in small populations due to chance) (Pierson et al. 2000).

Most Aleutian Canada geese that nest in the Aleutian Islands winter in California, primarily on agricultural lands where they feed on grass, waste beans, and grain, including corn and sprouting winter wheat (Woolington et al. 1979, Dahl 1995, Springer and Lowe 1998). They arrive on the wintering grounds in mid-October. Some geese stop in the Crescent City area in coastal northwest California, but most continue on to the vicinities of Colusa in the Sacramento Valley and Modesto in the northern San Joaquin Valley. The lands used by Aleutian Canada geese near Colusa, California, are primarily privately owned farms and Reclamation District (local government) land. The 733-acre Butte Sink National Wildlife Refuge in the Colusa area is actively managed to attract geese and other waterfowl.

By mid-December, nearly all Aleutian Canada geese are near Modesto, where they winter primarily on two privately owned ranches and on the adjacent San Joaquin River National Wildlife Refuge. In previous years, a large proportion of geese from the Modesto area would periodically shift southward to the nearby Grassland Ecological Area near Los Banos and Gustine. The lands in the Grassland Ecological Area are owned by the Fish and Wildlife Service, State of California, and private duck hunting clubs. Recently, up to several thousand geese have been using night roosts on private duck hunting clubs in this area.

Small numbers of Aleutian Canada geese from the Aleutian Islands stop near El Sobrante on lands owned by a public utility in north San Francisco Bay in late fall and early winter before continuing on to Modesto. The number of birds observed at El Sobrante has steadily declined in recent years from a high of 140 geese in 1985 to a low of 8 birds in 1997. Twenty-one Aleutian Canada geese were observed there in early 1998 (Dunne 1998). Small numbers of wintering Aleutian Canada geese have been occasionally observed in northwestern California near Crescent City, on the Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge, and on the Eel River bottoms (P. Springer, pers. comm. 1999). Six hundred Aleutian Canada geese wintered in the Crescent City area in 1997-1998 (Fisher 1998).

Small numbers of Aleutian Canada geese also occasionally appear in other areas, especially during migration. The most frequent of these areas include Willapa Bay in south coastal Washington, the Willamette Valley in Oregon, Humboldt Bay and vicinity in northern California, and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta in San Francisco Bay, California. See Springer and Lowe (1998) for a more thorough discussion of the distribution of Aleutian Canada geese and factors affecting their distribution.

On the northward migration in spring, most Aleutian Canada geese stage near Crescent City, where the birds roost nightly on Castle Rock, an offshore island protected as a National Wildlife Refuge. Some geese also roost on nearby Prince Island, which is owned by the Tolowa Indians, and on Goat Rock, a unit of the Oregon Islands National Wildlife Refuge, just north of the California/Oregon border. During the day birds graze on privately owned farms in the Smith River bottoms and on lands owned and managed by the State of California. In recent years, Aleutian Canada geese have been departing the Crescent City area increasingly early in spring and spending several weeks feeding in privately owned pastures in the New River area in south coastal Oregon near the town of Langlois. These birds roost at night on offshore islands that are part of the Oregon Islands National Wildlife Refuge. In the spring of 1998, about 10,000 Aleutian Canada geese were observed in the Langlois area (Fisher 1998).

The small numbers of geese that breed in the Semidi Islands winter exclusively in coastal Oregon near Pacific City. These birds forage during the day on pastures at two privately owned dairies and roost at night on Haystack Rock in the Oregon Islands National Wildlife Refuge or on the ocean. Since fall 1996, small numbers of geese that nest in the Aleutian Islands have wintered with the Semidi Islands geese in Oregon. In winter 1997-1998, about 20 geese from the Aleutians wintered with the Semidi Islands geese (D. Pitkin, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, pers. comm. 1999).

An important component of the Recovery Plan, establishment of closed areas for hunting Canada geese, has contributed to the recovery of the Aleutian Canada goose. Six closed areas for Aleutian Canada geese currently exist, including: islands in Alaska west of Unimak Island, beginning in 1973; northwestern California, the Modesto area, and the Colusa area, beginning in 1975; and the Pacific City area and central and south coastal Oregon, beginning in 1982. In addition, closures of Canada goose hunting in northwestern Oregon and southwestern Washington beginning in 1985 to protect dusky Canada geese (B. c. occidentalis) have provided protection for Aleutian Canada geese. Occasionally, hunters kill a few Aleutian Canada geese that are using habitats outside of the closed hunting areas.

Initial population increases of Aleutian Canada geese were likely in response to hunting closures in California and Oregon to protect the geese during migration and during winter. However, a substantial increase in numbers was dependent on reestablishing geese on former nesting islands. Release of captive-reared birds on fox-free islands in the Aleutians was largely unsuccessful due to low survival rates. Once the number of geese on Buldir Island was large enough, we initiated translocation of wild geese from Buldir Island to other fox-free islands. This approach was much more successful, and the release of captive-reared birds was phased out.

As new breeding colonies became established in the Aleutian Islands, the number of Aleutian Canada geese increased rapidly. Annual rates of increase between 1975 and 1989 ranged from 6 to 35 percent, and by winter 1989-1990, the peak winter count reached 6,300 geese. We reclassified the Aleutian Canada goose from endangered to threatened in 1990 (55 FR 51106, December 12, 1990).

We first designated the Aleutian Canada goose as an endangered species in the United States on March 11, 1967 (32 FR 4001), under the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-669, 80 Stat. 926). The Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969 (Public Law 91-135, 83 Stat. 275), which replaced the 1967 law, authorized the listing of foreign species; the Aleutian Canada goose was included on the foreign species list (proposed April 14, 1970 (36 FR 6069); final June 2, 1970 (35 FR 8495)). We proposed the reclassification of the species from endangered to threatened status on September 29, 1989 (54 FR 40142), and finalized the reclassification on December 12, 1990 (55 FR 51106). On April 9, 1998 (63 FR 17350), we published a Notice of Status Review on the Aleutian Canada goose and notified the public of our intent to propose the removal of the subspecies from the threatened species list. Our proposed rule to delist the Aleutian Canada goose was published August 3, 1999 (64 FR 42058).

Since the subspecies was reclassified from endangered to threatened in 1990, the overall population of Aleutian Canada geese has sustained a strong increase in numbers. Table 1 summarizes peak counts and indirect population estimates of Aleutian Canada geese on the wintering grounds since the subspecies was reclassified as threatened in 1990. Peak counts are counts of the geese on the wintering grounds near Modesto, California, and during early spring as they arrive at and leave their primary roosts at Castle Rock and Prince Island in northwestern California, and Goat Island in southwestern Washington. Indirect counts are based on a ratio of marked to unmarked birds. (See Other Factors in Support of Delisting for a more detailed discussion of survey techniques). The most recent and highest population estimate of Aleutian Canada geese from the Aleutian Islands is of birds from their staging area near Crescent City in spring 2000. This preliminary estimate suggests that the Aleutian Canada goose population is now about 37,000 individuals (Table 1). Since 1990, the annual rate of growth of the population, based on peak counts of birds in California, has averaged about 20 percent. The overall annual growth rate of the population since recovery activities began in the 1970s has been about 14 percent (M. Fisher, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, pers. comm. 1999).

Despite protection on both the breeding and wintering grounds, the Semidi Islands geese have sustained slower growth than the remainder of the population since 1993 (Table 1). The reasons for this are not clear, although counts from the wintering range in Oregon indicate poor recruitment in recent years.

Predictably, marked increases of geese on the wintering grounds are mirrored by similar increases on most breeding islands, although nesting geese are far more difficult to enumerate than those on wintering and migration habitat. At the time of their listing, we believed Aleutian Canada geese to be nesting only on Buldir Island, but based on later discoveries, they also probably nested on Chagulak Island and in the Semidi Islands. Our earliest estimate of the number of geese on Buldir Island was 200-300 birds in 1963 (see Kenyon 1963). By 1995, the last year we surveyed the breeding islands, we estimated the number of breeding geese on Buldir Island was 7,000. Assuming 40% of the population are breeders (Byrd 1995), and the population on Buldir Island grew at the same rate as that of the entire subspecies, then by 1995 the number of birds on Buldir Island was probably about 17,500. We released geese on Agattu Island periodically from 1974 to 1984 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1991). By 1990, 100 birds were nesting there, and in 1995, we estimated 700 birds were nesting there (total 1,750 geese; Byrd 1995). We found similar increases at Alaid-Nizki. We first released geese on Alaid-Nizki in 1981, and, by 1987, they were nesting there. We estimated the number of breeding geese on Alaid-Nizki in 1995 at 248 (or 620 total geese). Byrd (1995) states that the number of geese breeding at Agattu could approach 2,000 in the future and 500 at Alaid-Nizki. It is unknown how numerous geese on Buldir Island will become. Elsewhere in the Aleutian Islands, we estimate that in 1995 about 10 birds nested in the Rat Islands and about 40 birds nested at Chagulak Island (Byrd 1995).

We have also documented recent breeding of Aleutian Canada geese at Amchitka, Amukta, and Little Kiska Islands. Although the current status of Aleutian Canada geese on these islands is unknown, we believe reestablishment of breeding populations via translocations to Amchitka and Little Kiska Islands and natural recolonization of Amukta Island to have a low probability of success. We believe the presence of bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), a major predator of geese, on islands east of Buldir Island to be a factor that has limited the success of translocations to Amchitka, Little Kiska, and Kiska Islands. We are encouraged, however, by recent reports of several nests and numerous mated pairs sighted on Amchitka Island from 11-21 June, 2000 (M. Murray, Department of Energy, pers. comm. 2000).

We believe the small group of geese nesting on Chagulak Island to be stable in number, but the terrain is steep and nesting habitat is limited. We have removed foxes from most of the islands near Chagulak, and to bolster the population of geese in this portion of the Aleutians, we translocated geese from Buldir Island to Yunaska Island in 1994 and 1995. We also translocated geese from Buldir Island to Skagul Island in the Rat Island group in 1994 and 1995. We have not conducted subsequent surveys on these islands to determine if the translocations have resulted in establishment of breeding populations there. However, in winter 1997-1998, we observed 15 marked, female geese translocated to Yunaska Island and 13 marked, female geese translocated to Skagul Island in California. These sightings indicate that translocated female geese now of reproductive age still survive and may already be breeding on these islands.

In the Semidi Islands, investigators studying Aleutian Canada geese found 14 nests on Kiliktagik Island and 3 nests on Anowik Island in 1995, which is 11 nests (39 percent) fewer than were found on the same islands in 1992 (Beyersdorf and Pfaff 1995). Hatching success and overall nesting success of geese in the Semidi Islands in 1995 were lower than their counterparts in the western Aleutian Islands. In addition, recruitment rates for Semidi Islands geese were low compared with rates we observed among Aleutian Island birds based on censuses of hatching-year birds on the wintering grounds each fall in coastal Oregon (D. Pitkin and R. Lowe, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, pers. comm. 1999). The reason for lower productivity of Aleutian Canada geese in the Semidi Islands is unknown.

In accordance with the Act, we appointed a team of experts to write a plan for recovery of the Aleutian Canada goose. The original recovery plan was approved on August 7, 1979, and later revised on September 8, 1982, and September 30, 1991 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1991). The most recent version of the recovery plan was written after the Aleutian Canada goose was reclassified as threatened in 1990, and established objectives for measuring recovery and indicating when delisting was appropriate. Recovery plans and objectives are intended to guide and measure recovery, but are supposed to be flexible enough to adjust to new information.

The Aleutian Canada Goose Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1991) identified the following recovery objectives: (1) The overall population of Aleutian Canada geese includes at least 7,500 geese, and the long-term trend appears upwards; (2) at least 50 pairs of geese are nesting in each of three geographic parts of the historic range—western Aleutians (other than Buldir Island), central Aleutians, and Semidi Islands, for 3 or more consecutive years; and (3) a total of 25,000-35,000 acres (ac) (10,125-14,175 hectares (ha)) of specific land parcels identified by the recovery team as feeding and roosting habitat needed for migration and wintering are secured and are being managed for Aleutian Canada geese. The recovery plan states that failure to achieve a specific acreage target of migration and wintering habitat would not preclude delisting of the Aleutian Canada goose if otherwise warranted. A discussion of the status of the Aleutian Canada goose relative to the recovery objectives follows:

(1) The most recent estimate of the overall population of Aleutian Canada geese is approximately 37,000 birds (December 1999 peak spring count), nearly 5-times the population objective for delisting. The population trend of Aleutian Canada geese continues upward, and has averaged about 20 percent annual growth since the subspecies was reclassified as threatened in 1990. We believe that the subspecies is no longer threatened or endangered and its population is likely to continue to grow in size in the future.

(2) The objective of 50 or more pairs of Aleutian Canada geese nesting in each of 3 geographic parts of the historic range—western Aleutians (other than Buldir Island), central Aleutians, and Semidi Islands, has not been met. The population of Aleutian Canada geese nesting in the western Aleutians far exceeds the delisting objective, with self-sustaining breeding populations established on three islands—Buldir, Agattu, and Alaid-Nizki. In addition, we have received a recent report of numerous breeding birds on Amchitka Island (M. Murray, Department of Energy, pers. comm. 2000). Primarily on the strength of recovery in the western Aleutian Islands, the Recovery Team recommended delisting the subspecies (Byrd 1995).

We have not surveyed geese nesting in the central Aleutians since 1993, but existing data suggest the size of the breeding group at Chagulak Island has been stable at about 20-25 pairs since the time of their discovery in 1982. Chagulak Island is very steep and has limited nesting habitat. A substantial increase in the number of birds in the central Aleutian Islands likely will require colonization of new islands. Although we discovered nesting by Aleutian Canada geese on nearby Amukta Island, we do not know if they are currently nesting there or if breeding occurs on Yunaska Island as a result of the translocation of geese there in 1994 and 1995. We have also removed foxes from several other nearby islands, including Carlisle, Herbert, Kagamil, Uliaga, and Seguam, and these islands could be colonized by Aleutian Canada geese in the future. We believe that increasing numbers of Aleutian Canada geese in the central Aleutians is desirable. However, we do not view the lack of evidence that there are at least 50 pairs of geese breeding in the central Aleutians as a barrier to delisting because they appear to be from the same breeding segment as the western Aleutian geese. We came to this conclusion based on their similar physical characteristics, some preliminary data on mitochondrial DNA (Shields and Wilson 1987), and their use of the same wintering area. However, limited sightings of birds color-banded at Chagulak Island suggest they follow a northward migration route that is slightly more easterly. This has been most evident in the spring when several birds were seen in the Willamette Valley of Oregon (Springer and Lowe 1998).

The Semidi Islands breeding segment more than doubled in size following closure of the wintering area to hunting in 1982. Since 1990, it has fluctuated moderately in size on its wintering area, averaging about 120 geese. However, the lack of an increase in these birds since 1993, given protection of the birds on the breeding and wintering grounds, and the availability of unexploited breeding and wintering habitat, cannot be fully explained with existing information. Local farmers in Oregon maintain that these geese have used the same local farms for at least 65 years and have never been numerous (R. Lowe, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, pers. comm. 1999). Despite lack of a persistent and positive population response of Semidi Islands geese in recent years, we believe this is not a barrier to delisting the Aleutian Canada goose subspecies because of the health and vigor of the subspecies as a whole. Furthermore, we can continue to protect this breeding segment from various forms of take under provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (see Summary of Factors Affecting the Species below). We will continue to monitor the status of the Semidi Islands breeding segment of Aleutian Canada geese on its wintering grounds.

Although the criteria of 50 or more pairs nesting in each of 3 geographic parts of their historic range has not been fully met, the Recovery Team in 1995 considered the following factors overriding: the population is approximately three times higher (now nearly five times higher) than the minimum suggested for delisting; the population is continuing to increase at a high rate; self-sustaining breeding populations now occur in the western Aleutians on Buldir, Agattu, and Alaid-Nizki Islands and perhaps on Amchitka as well (M. Murray, Department of Energy, pers. comm. 2000); and we have removed foxes from islands in the central Aleutians, and translocations of birds there have bolstered goose numbers.

(3) We have not fully met the recovery objective of conserving and managing 25,000-35,000 ac (10,125-14,175 ha) of migration and wintering habitat; however, the recovery team allowed that not attaining this acreage target would not preclude delisting if this action was otherwise warranted. The original target of greater than 25,000 ac (10,125 ha) was derived by summing the acreage of most parcels of land that have been used by Aleutian Canada geese on their wintering grounds and on principal migration stopovers outside of Alaska since their recovery began. At the time the recovery plan was finalized and the target migration and wintering habitat was identified, much of the information that we know now about the distribution of the bird was unknown. The acreage target reflects inclusion of parcels that are no longer used by Aleutian Canada geese (e.g., in Del Norte County: McLaughlin, Log Pond, Southern Ferguson, Bliss, and Bennett Tracts). The distribution of geese across the landscape shifts somewhat each year depending on weather patterns, the availability of food, and other factors not fully understood by scientists. Detailed maps of lands currently used by this subspecies have been developed by Lyon (2000). It should also be recognized that private landowners have throughout the last 3 decades contributed to the recovery of the Aleutian Canada goose by managing their lands to accommodate the needs of the geese. Thus, we do not believe that all the lands utilized by the Aleutian Canada goose must be held in the public trust to ensure the long-term survival of the species.

Aleutian Canada geese have responded very favorably to management actions taken on the species' behalf by the Service, States, and private landowners throughout the birds' migration and wintering areas. About 7,500 ac (3,038 ha) of currently used winter and migration habitat are secure (Table 2), and we have an active acquisition program for both fee title and perpetual conservation easements in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys. This total secure acreage does not include 33,108 ac (13,409 ha) of National Wildlife Refuge land and 67,000 ac (27,136 ha) of private land protected under perpetual conservation easements within the Grassland Ecological Area located approximately 40 miles south of the main use area for Aleutian Canada geese. Aleutian Canada geese have discovered this vast area of suitable habitat just south of their normal wintering range (D. Woolington, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, pers. comm. 2000), and we anticipate their use of this area to increase. We expect that hazing of geese off private lands to the north will hasten the use of this area. To this end, delisting, with its associated easing of restrictions on hazing of birds, may actually result in relief of some of the winter habitat crowding currently experienced by this rapidly growing population.

We believe that, currently, enough feeding and roosting habitat for both migrating and overwintering geese is publicly held to ensure the continued viability of the subspecies at or near current population levels. If habitat availability were in any way limiting population growth of this subspecies, we would expect to see a leveling off in the population, not the steady high rate of growth that the subspecies has exhibited for many years now.

We acknowledge the existence of one bottleneck in publicly held land that is suitable as goose habitat: spring migration feeding habitat in Northwestern California, particularly in the Smith River bottoms, near Crescent City (P. Springer, pers. comm. 2000). The concentration of relatively large numbers of Aleutian Canada geese on this small area of migration habitat, most of which is in private ownership, has created conflicts between landowners and geese. Such conflicts also occur elsewhere in the subspecies' wintering and migration habitats, but the problem is most acute here. Typically the conflicts occur over sprouting grain or pasture grass that is used by both geese and livestock. This remains an increasingly controversial area for Aleutian Canada geese because only about 750 ac (304 ha) of State land are now actively managed as foraging habitat for geese in this area. Most other public land in that area is not particularly suitable as pasture land.

Many geese forage on intensively managed, privately owned pastures in this area during their brief fall stopover and more extensive spring stopover. Most owners of these pastures are currently willing to support some of the burden resulting from foraging geese, although most of these landowners would like to see more goose management taking place on nearby publicly held lands. However, because the urgency of this situation (geese grazing on private lands) will only increase with increasing goose numbers, we do not see this as a threat to the subspecies. That is, the problem of goose grazing on private lands becomes more acute because there are more geese. If there are more geese, the threat that the subspecies will eventually become extinct is further diminished. But because the burden upon these landowners is rapidly increasing due to the rapid growth of the Aleutian Canada goose population, it is incumbent upon us to continue efforts to secure additional public lands in this area. Such efforts are under way. In addition, the Service in the Modesto area and the State of California in northwestern California are more actively managing their lands to attract geese away from private parcels. We, along with the State of California, also provide technical assistance to willing landowners to help them manage their lands for geese. Given the success of efforts by us, the State of California, and some private landowners to address crop depredation, and the size and growth rate of the Aleutian Canada goose population, we do not believe that the current shortage of publicly held spring migration habitat in this area places this subspecies in danger of extinction now or in the foreseeable future.

A less intense, but increasingly serious problem is developing on private pastures in the Langlois area of southern coastal Oregon where 10,000-20,000 geese concentrate for a week or longer in the spring after leaving the Smith River bottoms. Specifically, the geese are using about 150 acres (61 ha) within the New River Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) designated by the Bureau of Land Management. This habitat is suitable for resting and roosting, but not for feeding. Most suitable goose habitat in the area (about 2,000 acres (810 ha)) occurs on adjacent private lands (S. Richardson, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, pers. comm. 2000). The ACEC 1995 Management Plan provides direction in land management for enhancing goose population recovery. The easing of restrictions on hazing that will come with the delisting of this subspecies will allow those landowners that do not welcome these geese to keep them off their land. Again, we view this as a problem that is only manifesting itself due to the large population size of this goose. Therefore, the fact that the problem even exists attests to the fact that this species is no longer in danger of extinction now or in the foreseeable future.

We acknowledge the important role that private landowners have played in the recovery of the Aleutian Canada goose. Aleutian Canada geese have used and continue to heavily use private lands for feeding, loafing, and roosting. Some landowners actively manage their lands for geese with technical assistance from State and Service wildlife biologists. Other landowners have shown considerable patience as goose numbers have increased and geese have impacted their crops and competed with their livestock for grass. The crop depredation problem will almost certainly intensify as Aleutian Canada goose numbers continue to increase.

In order to facilitate the expected future population growth, we plan to secure additional parcels of migration and wintering habitat. Acquisition of additional goose habitat remains a top priority for the San Joaquin River National Wildlife Refuge for geese that nest in the Aleutian Islands, and for the Nestucca Bay National Wildlife Refuge in coastal Oregon for geese that nest in the Semidi Islands. We intend that acquisition of refuge lands will be accompanied by appropriate increases in refuge operating budgets to facilitate effective management of these new parcels for this subspecies.

Although we describe above future land acquisition activities with regard to Aleutian Canada goose management, we have not based our decision to delist this subspecies based on the anticipated outcome of any of these negotiations. The sustained growth in the population of the Aleutian Canada goose over the last 3 decades has occurred despite a mosaic of landownership patterns within its migratory and wintering habitat. We have no reason to suspect that this population increase will not continue once the species is delisted. Future planned Federal and State acquisition and management activities will likely further enhance future population growth. Land acquisition or conservation activities within and near the San Joaquin River National Wildlife Refuge that are under way are as follows:

(1) We are in the process of acquiring 3,100 ac (1,256 ha) south of Highway 132 and along the San Joaquin River. About a quarter of this parcel is considered to be suitable winter range for Aleutian Canada geese, mostly as roost pond habitat, with some foraging opportunities as well.

(2) We are negotiating a perpetual conservation easement with the owner of a 2,147 ac (870 ha) ranch, 1,548 acres (627 ha) of which is suitable habitat for Aleutian Canada geese. The landowner is currently working with the Service to manage this land for geese. This ranch is included within the authorized boundary of the San Joaquin River National Wildlife Refuge. The negotiations for this parcel are in their final stages.

(3) We are negotiating for fee title acquisition of 423 acres (171 ha) of ranch land, 413 acres (167 ha) of which has a high potential for use by geese. However, whether this parcel will be managed for use by geese, or will be converted to riparian forest, is currently unclear. On a different portion of the same ranch, we are negotiating a perpetual conservation easement on 3,907 acres (1,582 ha), 3,880 acres (1,571 ha) of which is suitable for use by Aleutian Canada geese for feeding, loafing, and roosting. Agricultural practices used on these parcels favor Aleutian Canada geese, although conflicts between the geese and the landowner are intensifying as goose numbers increase. This ranch is also included within the authorized boundary of the San Joaquin River National Wildlife Refuge.

Activities to acquire or conserve other lands within the wintering and migration range of the Aleutian Canada geese include:

(1) Negotiation for purchase of the two dairies on which Aleutian Canada geese from the Semidi Islands winter. These dairies are within the authorized boundary of the Nestucca Bay National Wildlife Refuge. The Service has made offers on both pieces of property, but the owner has declined the offers; and

(2) Evaluation by the State of California of acquisition proposals for additions to the Lake Earl Wildlife Area in northwestern California as suitable goose foraging habitat.

The Aleutian Canada Goose Recovery Team lists three additional factors in support of removing the Aleutian Canada goose from the list of threatened and endangered species (Byrd 1995). First, a program designed to reestablish Aleutian Canada geese in the Asian portion of their range is under way through our cooperation with Japanese and Russian wildlife agencies. Lee (1998) provides a chronological history of this effort, which began in the 1970s through contact between the recovery team and the Japanese Association for Wild Geese Protection. In 1983, we provided 15 captive Aleutian Canada geese for captive breeding in Japan, but subsequent attempts to reintroduce these geese to the wild were largely unsuccessful.

Russian biologists entered the cooperative program in the late 1980s. In 1992, we transported 19 captive Aleutian Canada geese to Petropavlovsk, Kamchatka, Russia to establish a captive population of geese as a nucleus for reintroduction of Aleutian Canada geese in Russia. In 1993, a Japanese/Russian team identified Ekarma Island in the northwest Kuril Islands as a suitable fox-free island for future releases of Aleutian Canada geese. A total of 86 captive-reared geese were released in 1995, 1996, and 1997. In winter 1997-1998, Japanese scientists observed at least 15 Aleutian Canada geese on the wintering grounds in Japan, including 4 marked birds from the 1997 release of 33 geese. Seven of the birds appeared to be a family group, and Gerasimov (1998) speculated that the unmarked Aleutian Canada geese may have been progeny of birds from the earlier releases on Ekarma Island. We are very encouraged by the early successes of the goose restoration efforts in Russia and Japan, and will continue to support and participate in this international phase of the overall restoration program.

The State of California and some cooperating local landowners have implemented a plan to reduce depredation by geese on privately owned pastures in the Smith River bottoms in northwestern California. This plan focuses on providing high-quality forage for geese on about 200 ac (81 ha) of managed pastures owned by the State of California and hazing birds off private pastures. In addition, a multi-agency “Lake Earl Working Group” was formed to address the depredation problem in the vicinity of Lake Earl in northwestern California, and local farmers are working with the State of California to help manage State lands for geese through fertilization of pastures and grazing by livestock. Results are encouraging thus far. In 1995 almost no use by geese occurred on State lands. The amount of time geese spent on State land increased to 12 percent in 1996, 20 percent in 1997, and 44 percent in 1998, but decreased to 37 percent in 1999.

Although intensive management of State lands in northwestern California has provided considerable relief to landowners, a finite amount of forage is available there and these lands must also be managed for other wildlife species and habitat values. Furthermore, most State lands consist of poor soils, which are not as amenable to intensive management for geese as nearby privately owned parcels.

We have developed a new procedure to monitor the population of Aleutian Canada geese wintering in California, enabling us to detect and respond early to any future reversal in population growth. We currently use two procedures to measure population size. The first involves coordinated peak counts of Aleutian Canada geese on the wintering grounds near Modesto, and during early spring as they arrive at and leave their primary roosts at Castle Rock and Prince Island in northwestern California, and Goat Island in southwestern Oregon. This technique has proved extremely reliable in the past; however, because numbers of Aleutian Canada geese are now large, obtaining complete counts is difficult. In addition, Aleutian Canada geese now often winter in mixed flocks with the similar-looking cackling Canada goose (Branta canadensis minima). As a result, we recently developed an indirect survey technique that is based on a ratio of marked to unmarked birds. Comparisons of surveys using the indirect method with “complete” counts of geese suggest a high degree of concordance between the methods. We anticipate that the indirect count method will become more reliable and widely used if the Aleutian Canada goose population continues to grow.

In summary, the Recovery Plan for the Aleutian Canada goose identified three criteria to use for evaluating when recovery had occurred and when delisting was appropriate. To date, only one recovery objective, attainment of a total population of the subspecies of at least 7,500, has been completely achieved, but we believe that the population is of sufficient size, and threats to the subspecies have been sufficiently reduced, to warrant delisting.

Contrary to our expectations, the Aleutian Canada geese in the central Aleutians have not recovered despite protection of these birds both on the breeding and wintering grounds. Similarly, the segment of birds breeding in the Semidi Islands has not increased in number as much as we had hoped, although it is not known how large this group of birds was historically. Nevertheless, the explosive growth of the western Aleutian breeding segment assures the future viability of the Aleutian Canada goose subspecies for the foreseeable future.

We remain concerned about the lack of growth of the Semidi Islands breeding segment. However, in recent history this small group of birds has been relatively stable, and obvious threats have been removed. We believe we can effectively protect this breeding segment from various forms of take under provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (see Summary of Factors Affecting the Species below). With regard to conservation and management of migration and wintering habitat, we believe enough habitat is currently held in public ownership and conservation easements to ensure the continued viability of the subspecies at or near the current population level. However, we encourage additional acquisition and management of appropriate parcels of land, both to secure wintering and migration habitat and to reduce future conflicts between geese and farmers.

In the August 3, 1999, proposed rule (64 FR 42058) and associated notifications, we invited all interested parties to submit comments or information that might contribute to the final delisting determination for this subspecies. The public comment period ended November 1, 1999. We contacted and sent more than 180 announcements of the proposed rule to appropriate Federal and State agencies, borough and county governments, scientific organizations, recovery team members, and other interested parties. We also published announcements of the proposed rule in Alaska in “The Anchorage Daily News” on August 9, 16, and 22, 1999, and in Crescent City, California, in “The Daily Triplicate” on September 9, 1999. We received responses to requests for peer review of the proposed rule to delist the Aleutian Canada goose from three individuals who are experts in Aleutian Canada goose biology.

Including our peer reviewers, we received a total of 11 written comments from individuals and organizations. Three organizations and two individuals supported the delisting proposal. One individual (not a peer reviewer) did not support delisting. Three organizations and two individuals did not clearly state a position.

We grouped and discussed comments of a similar nature under the following issue headings. In addition, we considered and incorporated, as appropriate, into the final rule all biological and commercial information obtained through the public comment period.

Issue 1: Three commenters were concerned about the lack of public lands managed for Aleutian Canada geese on the migration and wintering grounds, and of the potential conflicts with private land owners as the Aleutian goose population continues to increase.

Our response: Although it is not feasible to secure as public land all the migration and wintering habitat used by this growing population, we are continuing a program of habitat protection through a variety of activities as described in the section titled “Summary of Factors Affecting the Species,” including: (1) fee title land acquisition, (2) establishment of conservation easements, (3) habitat management, and (4) implementation of a Disease and Contaminants Hazard Contingency Plan. We intend to continue our work with State agencies, private landowners, and other partners to help alleviate current and future problems associated with Aleutian Canada goose-induced crop depredation. The protection and management of migration and wintering habitat is a high priority in the recently developed Pacific Flyway Management Plan for Aleutian Canada geese (Pacific Flyway Council 1999). However, we believe that enough habitat is currently held in public ownership (mostly Federal and State) and in perpetual conservation easements to ensure the continued viability of the subspecies at or near current population levels. Future habitat acquisition and management efforts will facilitate future growth of this population.

Issue 2: Three commenters were concerned about the status of the geese that nest in the Semidi Islands, and recommended additional study of the factors limiting the growth of this breeding population.

Our response: We believe that the Semidi Islands breeding segment is an important component of the Aleutian Canada goose population, and agree that additional research is necessary to determine what factors have prevented these geese from experiencing the same population growth as their western counterparts. The Pacific Flyway Council (1999) has recommended additional study of the Semidi Islands nesting geese as a high priority. With regard to protection of the existing Semidi Islands-nesting geese, we believe that the protective measures available under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (i.e., continued hunting closures, and regulation of various forms of take) will provide adequate protection.

We rejected the notion of retaining threatened species status for the Semidi Islands subpopulation of Aleutian Canada geese while delisting the remainder of the subspecies. For this particular listing action, the listed entity in question is the entire Aleutian Canada goose subspecies. We have not recognized any distinct vertebrate population segments within this subspecies. Our decision to delist is based upon our analysis of the status of the listed entity: the entire subspecies. Although recent genetic analysis found that geese from the Semidi Islands and the western Aleutian Islands could be considered separate management units (Pierson et al. 2000), we consider the Chagulak Island and Semidi Islands geese remnant populations of the previously more continuously distributed Aleutian Canada goose.

Issue 3: One commenter was concerned that our motivation to delist the Aleutian Canada goose is influenced more by political pressures than biological considerations, as evidenced by the fact that only one of three recovery goals has been completely achieved. The commenter stated that this approach could set a bad precedent for other decisions affecting the status of listed species.

Our response: We are required to base listing decisions on the best available scientific and commercial information. Biological information collected throughout the recovery program, and resulting from our recent public status review, clearly indicate that the Aleutian Canada goose population has reached a sufficient size (nearly five times the delisting threshold set by the recovery team), and that the threats to its continued existence have been eliminated or reduced enough to warrant delisting. Goals identified during the recovery planning process provide a guide for measuring the success of recovery, but are not intended to be absolute prerequisites, and should not preclude a reclassification or delisting action if such action is otherwise warranted.

Issue 4: One commenter recommended that additional genetic analyses of the three breeding segments be conducted to fully identify their relationships within the subspecies, and among other Canada goose subspecies. In particular, the existing evidence is not adequate to fully associate the central Aleutian (Chagulak Island) breeding segment with the western Aleutian geese.

Our response: Our Ecological Services, Anchorage Field Office recently contracted for more extensive genetic analysis of recently rediscovered archived tissue samples of Aleutian Canada geese, including samples of geese that bred on the Semidi Islands. We expect the results of this study to increase our understanding of the genetic relationships within this subspecies.

While we agree that additional genetic analyses could provide information that would help reduce uncertainty regarding the relationships of the three breeding segments of Aleutian Canada geese, we do not believe the information that could be gained would suggest a change in our management strategies for the subspecies. Based on available biological and historical information, we consider the Chagulak Island and Semidi Islands geese to be remnant populations of the previously more continuously distributed Aleutian Canada goose. Accordingly, we determined that the central and western breeding segments were similar enough to warrant translocating western Aleutian geese into the central Aleutians at Yunaska Island in 1994 and 1995 for the purpose of supplementing the existing breeding population.

Issue 5: A cooperator from Russia indicated that the delisting action was premature, apparently because the goal of establishing a breeding population of Aleutian Canada geese in Asia has not been reached.

Our response: Recovery activities in Asia, including captive breeding and reintroduction of geese to the wild, are under way, but it is difficult to predict when a self-sustaining wild population will become established. We intend to continue cooperating with our Asian counterparts as they endeavor to return the Aleutian geese to their historic range in Russia and Japan. In any event, we believe that the North American population alone has progressed to a point where the subspecies no longer requires protection under the Endangered Species Act. Furthermore, because this subspecies had become extirpated from Russia prior to its initial listing, birds breeding in Russia were not considered to be part of the listed entity. Aleutian Canada geese were listed only in the United States and Japan (50 CFR 17.11).

In accordance with the Act and implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 424, a species shall be listed if the Secretary of the Interior determines that one or more of five factors listed in section 4(a)(1) of the Act threatens the continued existence of the species. A species may be delisted according to § 424.11(d) if the best available scientific and commercial data indicate that the species is neither endangered nor threatened for one of the following reasons:

1. Extinction;

2. Recovery; or

3. Original data for classification of the species were in error.

After a thorough review of all available information, we have determined that Aleutian Canada geese are no longer in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of their range, and are not likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future. A substantial recovery has taken place since the mid-1970s, and none of the five factors addressed in section 4(a)(1) of the Act places this subspecies of Canada goose in danger of extinction now or in the foreseeable future. These factors and their relevance to Aleutian Canada geese are discussed below.

Threats to habitat of Aleutian Canada geese still exist in the form of development and modification of wintering and migration habitat, and the continued presence of foxes on former nesting islands in Alaska. Conversion of farmlands used by migrating and wintering geese to other human uses is always a threat, although it does not appear to have been a serious problem in recent years. On the breeding grounds, we have addressed the primary threat to goose habitat through fox trapping and continue with these efforts. On the migration and wintering grounds, we have addressed goose habitat issues through: (1) Fee title acquisition; (2) establishment of conservation easements to protect migration and wintering habitat, and (3) management of migration and wintering habitat for geese.

Habitat improvement of Aleutian Canada goose breeding grounds through fox removal has been and continues to be a high-priority conservation effort. Since 1949, we have restored 33 islands, totaling more than 596,000 ac (241,393 ha), by removing arctic and red foxes. In 1998, 2 additional islands were cleared of foxes, and 11 islands are scheduled for restoration between 1999 and 2004. Initial confirmation surveys indicate we successfully removed foxes from 223,000 ac (90,320 ha) on Attu Island in 1999. Attu Island is close to Agattu Island and to the Alaid-Nizki Island group, all of which have rapidly growing reestablished populations of Aleutian Canada geese. Once colonized by geese, Attu will provide a substantial amount of available nesting habitat. If follow-up surveys confirm that Attu Island is fox-free, transplanting family groups of Aleutian Canada geese will be logistically feasible.

Even if additional fox-free nesting islands are not colonized by Aleutian Canada geese, we believe that the availability of currently unoccupied, but fox-free nesting habitat in the Aleutian Islands is not likely to limit population growth. We do not consider reintroduction of foxes to goose nesting islands in the Aleutians to be a threat to the subspecies. Nearly all Aleutian Canada goose breeding habitat is within the boundaries of the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge. Service policy prohibits introduction of exotic species unless the species would have value as a biological control agent and would be compatible with the objectives of the Refuge. The Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge indicates that the Refuge will be managed to favor indigenous populations, restore endangered species and other species to natural levels, and monitor and eradicate introduced wildlife. The CCP further specifies that wildlife populations management will concentrate on increasing the number and range of the Aleutian Canada goose, and indicates that eradication of introduced arctic and red foxes on the refuge is essential to allow natural populations of birds to reestablish themselves. Accordingly, we cannot imagine a scenario in which the Refuge would permit the reintroduction of foxes. Doing so would be counter to nearly all of the Refuge's goals. Parties caught conducting such reintroductions without a permit would be acting illegally, and would likely be prosecuted.

Despite the availability of suitable but unoccupied nesting habitat, natural expansion to unoccupied islands east of Buldir is not expected to occur rapidly. Bald eagles, a predator of Aleutian Canada geese, are common on these islands and may limit population expansion. However, based on our knowledge of the interactions between eagles and geese, we do not anticipate that eagles would ever cause population level effects on this subspecies.

On the migration and wintering grounds, threats to goose habitat have been substantially reduced through: (1) Fee title acquisition; (2) establishment of conservation easements to protect migration and wintering habitat, and (3) management of migration and wintering habitat for geese. About 7,500 ac (3,038) of winter and migration habitat are now securely in the public ownership (Table 2) and are being used by Aleutian Canada geese. In addition, 33,108 ac (13,409 ha) of National Wildlife Refuge land and 67,000 ac (27,136 ha) of private land protected under perpetual conservation easements within the Grassland Ecological Area are located approximately 40 miles south of the main use area for Aleutian Canada geese and have recently been used by Aleutian Canada geese. Efforts to manage these lands and conservation easements for the benefit of Aleutian Canada geese and to assist willing private landowners in managing their land for geese, have been described above.

We believe that enough migration and wintering habitat is currently held in public ownership or conservation easements to ensure the continued viability of the subspecies at or near current numbers. If habitat availability were in any way limiting population growth of this subspecies, we would expect to see a leveling off in the population. Instead, as described earlier in this rule, the subspecies annual population growth rate has averaged about 20% since 1990.

We acknowledge that the amount of public land in the spring migration areas in the Smith River bottoms area is not currently sufficient to accommodate all the geese that stop there, forcing them to also graze on nearby private land for a short period of time each year. Private landowners have throughout the last 3 decades contributed to the recovery of the Aleutian Canada goose by managing their lands so as to accommodate the needs of the geese. We do not believe that the current shortage of publicly held spring migration habitat in this area places this subspecies in danger of extinction now or in the foreseeable future given the population size and growth rate of the Aleutian Canada goose population and the success of efforts to address crop depredation by us, the State of California, and some private landowners.

The concentration of relatively large numbers of Aleutian Canada geese on small areas of wintering and migration habitat, most of which is in private ownership, has created conflicts between landowners and geese. Typically the conflicts occur over sprouting grain or pasture grass that is used by both geese and livestock. The problem is most acute in northwestern California, particularly in the Smith River bottoms, because only about 750 ac (304 ha) of State land are now actively managed as foraging habitat for geese in this area. An increasingly serious problem is developing on private pastures in the Langlois area of southern coastal Oregon where 10,000-20,000 geese concentrate for a week or longer in the spring after leaving the Smith River bottoms.

The crop depredation problem will almost certainly intensify as Aleutian Canada goose numbers continue to increase. As goose numbers increase, goose use of private lands may also increase, and the resulting crop depredation is likely to increase. Consequently, requests for permits allowing for lethal hazing under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act are likely to increase. We do not view this as a threat to the survival of the subspecies, because the problem (geese grazing on private lands) becomes more acute directly as a result of increasing goose populations. If the goose population increases, the threat that the subspecies will eventually become extinct is further diminished. Thus, we do not believe that crop depredation and subsequent lethal hazing will ever be a factor that affects this subspecies at the population scale. To the contrary, an increased need for lethal hazing will serve as an indicator of an increasing goose population. In the San Joaquin Valley and Modesto area of California, delisting, with its associated easing of restrictions on hazing of birds, may actually result in relief of some of the winter habitat crowding as hazing of geese off private lands will hasten use of nearby public lands within the Grasslands Ecological Area. Finally, as discussed further in the section on regulatory mechanisms, we can control the amount of lethal hazing because permits are required under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

The size of the current population and the management practices on currently used goose habitats also lead us to believe that potential threats such as development, variable market conditions, changing agricultural practices, and adverse climactic conditions do not currently threaten the continued survival of the Aleutian Canada goose now or in the foreseeable future. We believe that the size of the population is such that we would have time to intervene on behalf of the subspecies should any of these become threats to the continued survival of the subspecies.

Further improvements to Aleutian Canada goose habitat are ongoing through fee title acquisition of land, and establishment of conservation easements. Efforts are also under way to increase the amount of public land that can be managed for feeding, loafing, and roosting by Aleutian Canada geese and to explore the possibilities of developing programs with private landowners that will provide additional foraging grounds for the geese in the Smith River bottoms area. These efforts were described earlier in this document. The intent is to provide attractive, high-quality habitat for geese on managed lands to reduce crop depredation on neighboring private farms and ranches. These future habitat acquisition and management efforts are not necessary to assure the viability of the subspecies, but rather to accommodate its future growth.

Historically, Aleuts residing in the Aleutian Islands harvested Aleutian Canada geese for food. In addition, market hunters on the wintering grounds, and more recently, sport hunters, harvested Aleutian Canada geese in the Pacific Flyway. After introduced foxes had reduced the breeding range and production of the Aleutian Canada goose and prior to the identification of the goose's wintering range, sport hunting also limited population growth. Therefore, establishment of areas closed to hunting was an effective conservation measure and was shown to be responsible for early increases in goose numbers.

Delisting of the Aleutian Canada goose will not result in overutilization of the subspecies because take will still be governed by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and corresponding regulations codified in 50 CFR part 20. After the Aleutian Canada goose is delisted, we must decide if, and when, they can be taken for recreational hunting and for other purposes. A regulatory framework already exists for managing migratory waterfowl in the United States (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1988). (See discussion of existing regulatory mechanisms under factor D.)

Other than sport hunting, no appreciable demand for Aleutian Canada geese for commercial or recreational purposes is anticipated. There may be a small demand for birds for scientific purposes. As with hunting, we will regulate take for scientific purposes through the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

Because many waterfowl species in the Pacific Flyway are now highly concentrated on the greatly reduced wetland acres of their wintering grounds, they are vulnerable to disease. Disease and other health factors accounted for 28 percent of the known mortality of Aleutian Canada geese on wintering and migration areas between 1975 and 1991 (n = 583 birds; Springer and Lowe 1998). Avian cholera, a highly infectious disease caused by the bacterium Pasteurella multocida, has been identified as the cause of mortality of most of the Aleutian Canada geese found dead on the wintering grounds near Modesto. From 1983 to 1998, the number of Aleutian Canada geese that are known to have died annually from avian cholera has ranged from none to 155. However, an exceptional cold period during December 1998 in California set the stage for an extensive and intense avian cholera outbreak during January 1999. Approximately 809 Aleutian Canada geese died of avian cholera during that month. Additional birds probably died that are not included in this mortality count; coyotes (Canis latrans) likely carried off and scavenged some of the goose carcasses before we could find them. Although this avian cholera outbreak was the worst known for Aleutian Canada geese, it claimed only about 2.5 percent of the total population. Rapid response to the outbreak and effective management of afflicted wetlands minimized the disease toll on the subspecies.

Based on these data, we conclude that disease is a chronic, low-level problem on the wintering grounds, which may occasionally flare up into a severe outbreak. However, even the most severe outbreak did not result in population level impacts (i.e., during the year of the most severe avian cholera outbreak ever known, the Aleutian Canada goose population still increased substantially). In addition, effective land management should prevent future outbreaks from having serious consequences at the population level. The Aleutian Canada Goose Recovery Team has prepared and revised a Disease and Contamination Hazard Contingency Plan that provides information and direction to reduce the incidence and severity of both disease and contamination hazards (Byrd et al. 1996). We implement this plan through an active program of collecting and disposing of dead and diseased waterfowl to reduce exposure of healthy geese.

Currently, we employ seasonal biologists to monitor Aleutian Canada geese and other geese in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys and in the Crescent City area. Much of this effort is focused on the San Joaquin River National Wildlife Refuge and neighboring areas and includes monitoring for disease outbreaks. When a disease outbreak occurs, these employees and other Refuge staff begin an intensive effort of carcass retrieval and disposal to break the cycle of cholera infection. Refuge staff also have the ability to manage disease by managing water levels at roost sites and wetland basins to avoid concentrating bacteria in those waters. Such efforts will continue even with the delisting of the Aleutian Canada goose.

Besides disease, other sources of mortality of Aleutian Canada geese include shooting (49 percent), drowning (see Factor E below), collisions and predation (12 percent), and trapping accidents (2 percent) (Springer and Lowe 1998). Collectively, they account for only a small amount of annual mortality. Shooting of Aleutian Canada geese occurred prior to establishment of hunting closures, but declined after closures were established. Occasionally, Aleutian Canada geese are shot outside the closed areas (Springer and Lowe 1998).

On the breeding grounds, predators still prevent breeding on many islands. As mentioned above, we continue to implement an aggressive program to eradicate introduced foxes from islands within the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge. However, on islands east of Buldir, predation by bald eagles, in concert with the high degree of site fidelity exhibited by geese, may limit colonization of new nesting islands. Nonnative rats, ground squirrels, and voles have also been introduced on a variety of islands within the nesting range of the Aleutian Canada goose and will be difficult, if not impossible, to eradicate. These species may prey on Aleutian Canada goose eggs, hatchlings, or goslings if they have the opportunity, although a study completed in the Semidi Islands suggests that ground squirrels were not a predator of goose eggs (Beyersdorf and Pfaff 1995). Predation of goslings in the Semidi Islands by ground squirrels and Glaucous-winged gulls (Larus glaucescens) may be a factor limiting production of this breeding segment, although it has not been quantified (Beyersdorf and Pfaff 1995).

Upon being delisted, the Aleutian Canada goose will also be taken off the State lists in Washington and Oregon (B. Bortner, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, pers. comm. 2000). This species has never been listed on California's endangered species list, so no change in State status will result from this rule (D. Yparraguirre, California Department of Fish and Game, pers. comm. 2000). In Alaska, the Aleutian Canada goose is a species of special concern, and will likely remain so after Federal delisting (T. Rothe, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, pers. comm. 2000).

Aleutian Canada geese will remain protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which regulates taking of all migratory birds in the United States. Soon after delisting this subspecies, we will evaluate, with cooperation from the States through the Pacific Flyway Council, and with public comment, whether protections should be relaxed to allow some take through sport hunting and other means, and to manage current and future depredation problems on the wintering grounds and along migration routes. Thus this rulemaking may affect the status of waterfowl hunting seasons, which undergo annual formal section 7 consultation. An effective regulatory framework is in place to manage waterfowl (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1988). This annual rulemaking process provides for participation by the States through the Flyway Councils and opportunity for public input.

The Pacific Flyway Council, which is composed of wildlife agency directors from each of the western States and Canadian provinces in the Pacific Flyway, including Alaska, will participate in the formulation of any regulations regarding future hunting of Aleutian Canada geese. An Aleutian Canada Goose Subcommittee of the Pacific Flyway Study Committee (waterfowl experts from the Flyway States) has undertaken the drafting of a management plan for the Aleutian Canada goose that will ensure that overutilization does not occur (T. Rothe, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, pers. comm. 2000). Continued closure of Canada goose hunting in the wintering area of the Semidi Islands geese will be a part of any regulatory framework for Aleutian Canada geese.

Two recent case histories provide good examples of the effectiveness of waterfowl management under the provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. By the mid-1980s, populations of the cackling Canada goose and Pacific white-fronted goose (Anser albifrons frontalis) had plummeted from 400,000 and 500,000 to 25,800 birds and 91,700 birds, respectively. As a result of reductions in sport hunting bag limits, establishment of areas closed to hunting on the wintering grounds, and voluntary reductions in take by Alaska Natives on the breeding grounds, the population of cackling Canada geese has increased to more than 200,000 birds and, Pacific white-fronted geese, to more than 300,000 birds (R. Oates, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, pers. comm. 2000).

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act does not prevent habitat modification or destruction; however, we believe that sufficient habitat is currently held in public trust and conservation easements to allow for the continued existence of this subspecies at current population levels. We also believe the provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act will allow sufficient protection of the Aleutian Canada goose, including the small group of birds that breeds in the Semidi Islands and winters near Pacific City, Oregon, to prevent the need to relist it.

Three incidences of drowning of Aleutian Canada geese in ocean surf have occurred in recent years (Springer et al. 1989, Pitkin and Lowe 1994): 43 geese near Crescent City, California, in 1984; 23 geese near Pacific City, Oregon, in 1987; and 10 geese near Pacific City, Oregon, in 1993. All drowning incidents were related to storms. Because the number of birds in the Semidi Islands breeding segment is small, we are concerned about these drowning incidents, but little can be done to prevent their reoccurrence. Although these drowning incidents contributed to the decline of this breeding segment to just 97 birds in 1995, the Semidi Islands breeding segment grew to about 129 birds by 2000. As stated earlier, in making our decision of whether to delist this subspecies, we considered the status of the listed entity: the subspecies as a whole. We considered the status of the various breeding segments only to the extent that they affected the status of the subspecies. It is possible that future studies and analysis may cause us to consider a subpopulation of this subspecies to be a listable entity (e.g., a distinct vertebrate population segment). If this is the case, and if the status of any subpopulation of this subspecies warrants the protections afforded by the Act, then we will make efforts to provide these protections by listing the entity.

At their lowest population level, Aleutian Canada geese may have numbered in the low hundreds (see Kenyon 1963) and were distributed on three widely separated remnant nesting islands. Populations that go through small population bottlenecks may exhibit reduced genetic variability and suffer from inbreeding depression. Such populations may not be able to successfully adapt to changes in the environment or to random events. The lack of recent growth of the Semidi Islands breeding segment of Aleutian Canada geese has led to speculation that this breeding segment was inbred and lacked genetic variability. A recent genetic study showed several potential indicators of a recent genetic bottleneck, including the fact that the Semidi Islands geese have fewer alleles per loci, as well as a lower haplotype and nucleotide diversity when compared to Buldir Island birds, indicating lower overall genetic diversity. However, statistical tests were inconclusive (Pierson et al. 1998).

In summary, we have carefully reviewed all available scientific and commercial data and conclude the threats that caused the population of Aleutian Canada geese to decline no longer pose a risk to the continued survival of the listed entity: the entire subspecies. This determination is based on available data indicating that the population of Aleutian Canada goose in North America has recovered, primarily as a result of four activities: the removal of introduced arctic fox and red fox from some of its nesting islands; the release of captive-reared and wild, translocated family groups of geese to fox-free islands to establish new breeding colonies; protection of the Aleutian Canada goose throughout its range from mortality due to hunting and disease; and protection and management of migration and wintering habitat. This recovery indicates that the subspecies as a whole is no longer endangered or likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Therefore, the subspecies no longer meets the Act's definitions of endangered or threatened. Under these circumstances, removal from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife is appropriate.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d), we have determined that this rule relieves an existing restriction and good cause exists to make the effective date of this rule immediate. Delay in implementation of this delisting would cost government agencies staff time and monies conducting formal section 7 consultation on actions that may affect a species no longer in need of the protections under the Act. Relieving the existing restriction associated with this listed species will enable Federal agencies to minimize any further delays in project planning and implementation for actions that may affect Aleutian Canada geese.

This final rule will remove the protections afforded to the Aleutian Canada goose in North America under the Act. Removal of protections for the Aleutian Canada goose in North America under the Act does not alter the protections provided to the Aleutian Canada goose under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act regulates the taking of migratory birds for educational, scientific, and recreational purposes. It also states that the Secretary of the Interior is authorized and directed to determine, if, and by what means, the take of migratory birds should be allowed, and to adopt suitable regulations permitting and governing the take. In adopting regulations, the Secretary is to consider such factors as distribution and abundance to ensure that take is compatible with the protection of the species.

Some protections of the Act provided to the Aleutian Canada goose through incidental take permits associated with Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) issued under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act will continue by virtue of the Aleutian Canada goose remaining as a covered species in HCPs that continue to cover other listed species. Because many HCPs contain an implementing agreement (IA), and such agreements form a legally binding contract, all signatories must fulfill their responsibilities under the IA, even if the permittee chooses to surrender the permit. The term of the IA typically is the same as the term of the permit.

Although the Aleutian Canada goose in North America will be delisted, it will still continue to be covered by existing HCPs. Eight multi-species HCPs include the Aleutian Canada goose. The Aleutian Canada goose will no longer be a covered listed species under these existing multi-species HCPs; instead the Aleutian Canada goose becomes a covered non-listed species under the same HCP as of the effective date of this final rule. In order to receive No Surprises assurances, as well as a promise that the Service will not pursue prosecution under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the permit holder must continue to abide by all of the original conditions of the permit (50 CFR 17.22(b)(5) and 17.32(b)(5)) after the Aleutian Canada goose is delisted. If the permittee's actions violate the terms of the permit, then the permittee is outside the safety net of No Surprises and would therefore also be subject to permit revocation and possible prosecution for illegal take under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

HCP regulations at 50 CFR 17.22(b)(5) state: “The assurances in this paragraph (b)(5) apply only to incidental take permits issued in accordance with paragraph (b)(2) of this section [issuance criteria for HCPs] where the conservation plan is being properly implemented, and apply only with respect to species adequately covered by the conservation plan.” The definition of “adequately covered” can be found at 50 CFR 17.3, which states: “* * * with respect to unlisted species, that a proposed conservation plan has satisfied the permit issuance criteria under 10(a)(2)(B) of the ESA that would otherwise apply if the unlisted species covered by the plan were actually listed. For the Service to cover a species under a conservation plan, it must be listed on the section 10(a)(1)(B) permit.”

After the effective date of this rule, Federal agencies will no longer be required to consult with the Service under section 7 of the ESA if activities they authorize, fund, or carry out may affect the Aleutian Canada goose. For actions covered by completed consultations where incidental take was anticipated, we will not refer those actions for prosecution under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, provided that the Federal agency and permittee/designee continue to comply with the Reasonable and Prudent Measures (50 CFR 402.02), and implementing Terms and Conditions (50 CFR 402.14(i)(1)(iv)), of our biological opinion. However, the Aleutian Canada goose will still be afforded protection under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

This rule will not affect the Aleutian Canada goose's Appendix I status under CITES, and CITES permits will still be required to import and export Aleutian Canada geese to and from the United States. CITES permits will not be granted if the export will be detrimental to the survival of the subspecies or if a goose was not legally acquired.

Delisting of the Aleutian Canada goose under the Act will not affect ongoing negotiations to secure habitat in the migration and wintering grounds (see discussion under factor A). We will continue to acquire or conserve additional lands for Aleutian Canada geese and other migratory waterfowl through fee title acquisition of land or establishment of conservation easements.

Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires that we monitor species for at least 5 years after delisting. If evidence acquired during this monitoring period shows that endangered or threatened status should be reinstated to prevent a significant risk to the subspecies, we may use the emergency listing authority provided by the Act to do so. At the end of the 5-year monitoring period, we will decide if relisting, continued monitoring, or an end to monitoring activities is appropriate. We have developed the following plan for monitoring Aleutian Canada geese following delisting.

This monitoring plan is designed to detect changes in the status of the Aleutian Canada goose primarily by: (1) monitoring population size on wintering and migration areas; (2) monitoring productivity of the Semidi Islands population segment on the wintering grounds; and (3) monitoring the status of breeding birds on nesting islands in Alaska.

(1) Monitoring population size on wintering and migration areas: We plan to monitor the population of Aleutian Canada geese by using either or both the indirect population estimation procedure based on a marked to unmarked ratio of birds on their wintering grounds in the Modesto area, or direct counts of geese as they leave their roosts while staging in northwestern California in spring. Aleutian Canada geese nesting in the Semidi Islands will be most effectively monitored by conducting counts of foraging birds on their wintering grounds near Pacific City, Oregon.

(2) Monitoring productivity of the Semidi Islands breeding segment on its wintering range: Lack of productivity on Kiliktagik and Anowik Islands appears to be the principal factor in the lack of growth in the Semidi Islands breeding segment. The reasons for this lack of productivity are not understood. Because it is possible to distinguish hatching year birds from older birds on their winter range, we plan to monitor production of the Semidi Islands geese by making direct counts of birds on their winter range in Oregon.

(3) Monitoring the status of breeding birds on nesting islands in Alaska: The status of Aleutian Canada geese on their nesting islands was last summarized in 1995 (Beyersdorf and Pfaff 1995, Byrd 1995). At least once during the 5-year monitoring period we plan to determine the status of nesting Aleutian Canada geese on all the known nesting islands (Agattu, Alaid-Nizki, Buldir, Chagulak, Amukta, Kiliktagik, Anowik), and islands on which transplants of geese have occurred but for which the current breeding status is unknown (Little Kiska, Amchitka, Skagul, Yunaska). Although we have not recently surveyed Amchitka Island, we have reliable reports of breeding there (M. Murray, Department of Energy, pers. comm. 2000).

In addition, monitoring on the migration and wintering areas will attempt to determine the survival of birds translocated to fox-free islands, the success of the program to reduce the number of geese grazing on private land, and the incidence of avian cholera and other sources of mortality.

We will conduct a status review if during, or after, the 5-year monitoring period, it appears that a reversal of the recent recovery has taken place. We have not established any firm thresholds that if reached will trigger a status review, but the following factors will be considered:

(1) The overall population of Aleutian Canada geese declines by 25 percent below the current level, and there is a negative population trend for 2 or more years based on either direct or indirect population estimates of birds in migration and wintering areas; and if

(2) Through disease or other random events, Aleutian Canada geese decline appreciably and may be extirpated from one or more of their principal nesting islands (Agattu, Alaid-Nizki, or Buldir Islands).

We may determine that monitoring is no longer warranted if data indicate that the overall population of Aleutian Canada geese is stable at current levels or increasing and that no known factors threaten the subspecies. If we identify one or more factors that are believed to have the potential to cause a decline, monitoring will be continued beyond the 5-year period. Consistent with all other flyway management plans, the Pacific Flyway Management Plan for the Aleutian Canada Goose (Pacific Flyway Council 1999) includes a population objective and monitoring activities to assess the effects of management activities.

We remain committed to monitoring the status of the Aleutian Canada geese associated with the Semidi Islands as long as necessary. Consequently, we will continue to monitor this breeding segment beyond the 5-year period on an annual basis on the wintering grounds and occasionally on the breeding grounds. The Pacific Flyway Council (1999) recommends that additional research of the limiting factors affecting the Semidi Islands geese be initiated within the 5-year monitoring period.

In addition to monitoring the status of the Aleutian goose in the United States, we also intend to actively support and participate in the ongoing efforts to restore Aleutian Canada geese in Russia and Japan.

This rule was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866.

The OMB regulations at 5 CFR part 1320, which implement provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, require that Federal agencies obtain approval from OMB before collecting information from the public. The OMB regulations at 5 CFR 1320.3(c) define a collection of information as the obtaining of information by or for an agency by means of identical questions posed to, or identical reporting, record keeping, or disclosure requirements imposed on ten or more persons. Furthermore, 5 CFR 1320.3(c)(4) specifies that “ten or more persons” refers to the persons to whom a collection of information is addressed by the agency within any 12-month period. For purposes of this definition, employees of the Federal Government are not included.

This rule does not include any collections of information that require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act. The information needed to monitor the status of the Aleutian Canada goose following delisting will be collected primarily by our personnel. We do not anticipate a need to request data or other information from ten or more persons during any 12-month period to satisfy monitoring information needs. If it becomes necessary to collect information from 10 or more non-Federal individuals, groups, or organizations per year, we will first obtain information collection approval from OMB.

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

A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon request from the Ecological Services Field Office—Anchorage (see ADDRESSES section).

The primary authors of this rule are Brian Anderson and Anthony DeGange (see ADDRESSES section).

This document corrects text and tables in the preamble and regulatory text to 50 CFR part 679 of the emergency interim rule implementing Steller sea lion protection measures and announcing final 2001 harvest specifications for the groundfish fisheries of the BSAI and GOA that was published in the Federal Register on January 22, 2001 (66 FR 7276). Also, in the regulatory text of the emergency interim rule, Table 21 is reprinted in its entirety because it was sent incorrectly for publication.

In the emergency interim rule implementing Steller sea lion protection measures and announcing final 2001 harvest specifications for the groundfish fisheries of the BSAI and GOA, published on January 22, 2001 (66 FR 7276), FR Doc. 01-1744, corrections are made as follows:

1. On page 7283, column 1, correct the first complete paragraph to read as follows: “In the GOA, three of the haulout sites that qualify for closure to 10 nm under criteria in the 1998-1 BiOp, Point Elrington, The Needles, and Glacier Island, lie entirely within Alaska State waters. The State of Alaska has developed temporal and spatial Steller sea lion protection measures for pollock harvests. Because these sites are located in waters under State jurisdiction and the State has implemented Steller sea lion protection measures, these sites are not established as pollock trawl exclusion zones under this emergency rule.”

2. On page 7287, column 1, in the first paragraph after Table 5 to the preamble, line 17, the reference to “§ 679.22(a)(8)” is corrected to read “§ 679.22(a)(12)”.

3. On page 7287, column 2, line 11 of the incomplete paragraph, the reference to “(§ 679.22(a)(8)(iii)(B))” is corrected to read “(§ 679.22(a)(12)(iii)(B))”.

4. On page 7292, Table 11 to the preamble is reprinted to read as follows:

5. On page 7300, footnote 2 to Table 19 to the preamble is corrected to read as follows:

“2Pollock is apportioned in the Western/Central Regulatory areas to the Shelikof Strait conservation area (defined at § 679.22(b)(3)(iii)(B)) in the A and B seasons only (§ 679.22(b)(3)(iii)(A)) in accordance with § 679.22(b)(3)(iii)(C) and the remainder to the three statistical areas in the combined Western/Central Regulatory Area outside the Shelikof Strait based on the relative distribution of pollock biomass at 56 percent, 4 percent, and 40 percent in Regulatory areas 610, 620, and 630 respectively. During the C and D seasons, pollock is apportioned based on the relative distribution of pollock biomass at 42 percent, 25 percent, and 33 percent in Regulatory Areas 610, 620, and 630 respectively. These seasonal apportionments are shown in Tables 21 and 22. In the West Yakutat and Southeast Outside Districts of the Eastern Regulatory Area, pollock is not divided into seasonal allowances.”

6. On page 7301, in column 1, paragraph 1 after Table 20 to the preamble, line 12, the reference “§ 679.23(d)(2)” is corrected to read “§ 679.23(d)(3)” and in paragraph 2, line 4, the reference “§ 679.22(b)(2)(iii)(B)” is corrected to read “§ 679.22(b)(3)(iii)(B)”.

7. On page 7301, in column 2, in the last line of the incomplete paragraph after Table 20 to the preamble, the reference “(§ 679.22(b)(2)(iii)(C))” is corrected to read “(§ 679.22(b)(3)(iii)(C))”.

8. On page 7302, in footnote 1 to Table 22 to the preamble, the expiration date for pollock is corrected from “June 10, 2001” to read “July 17, 2001 ”.

9. On page 7303, in Table 23 to the preamble, under the TAC column for Central B Season (40%), correct “12,250 ” to read “12,100 ”;

9a. On page 7316, column 3, amendatory instruction 8 is corrected to read as follows:

“8. In § 679.22, paragraphs (a)(7), (a)(8), and (b)(2) are suspended until July 17, 2001, and paragraphs (a)(11), (a)(12), (a)(13), (b)(3), and (b)(6) are added to read as follows:”

10. Under § 679.22:

a. On page 7317, columns 1-3, the table under paragraph (a)(11)(iv)(D)(1) is correctly revised to read as follows:

(a) * * *

(11) * * *

(iv) * * *

(D) * * *

(1) * * *

b. On page 7317, column 1, paragraph (a)(11)(iv)(D)(2) is corrected to read as follows:

(a) * * *

(11) * * *

(iv) * * *

(D) * * *

(2) Inshore catcher vessels greater than 99 ft (30.2 m) LOA. The Regional Administrator will prohibit directed fishing for pollock by vessels greater than 99 ft (30.2 m) LOA, catching pollock for processing by the inshore component before reaching the inshore SCA harvest limit during the A and D seasons to accommodate fishing by vessels less than or equal to 99 ft (30.2 m) inside the SCA for the duration of the inshore seasonal opening. The Regional Administrator will estimate how much of the inshore seasonal allowance is likely to be harvested by catcher vessels less than or equal to 99 ft (30.2 m) LOA and reserve a sufficient amount of the inshore SCA allowance to accommodate fishing by such vessels after the closure of the SCA to inshore vessels greater than 99 ft (30.2 m) LOA. The Regional Administrator will prohibit directed fishing for all inshore catcher vessels within the SCA when the inshore limit specified in paragraph (a)(11)(iv)(D)(1) of this section has been met.

c. On page 7317, column 2, paragraphs (a)(11)(v)(A)(2), (a)(11)(v)(A)(3) and (a)(11)(v)(C) are corrected to read as follows:

(a) * * *

(11) * * *

(v) * * *

(A) * * *

(2) Area 8. All waters within the SCA, as defined in 50 CFR 679.22(a)(11)(iv)(B), east to a line connecting the point 55° 30′ N lat./166° W long. with the point 54° 51′ N lat./164° 33′ 33″ W long., and west to the eastern boundary of area 518, as described in figure 1 of this part, and including 20 nm seaward of selected sites. These sites are listed in Table 21 to this part and are identifiable by “Bering Sea” in column 2 and “8 ” in column 16.

(3) Area 9. All waters within the SCA, as defined in 50 CFR 679.22(a)(11)(iv)(B), east to the eastern boundary of area 518, as described in figure 1 of this part, west to the western boundary of area 518, as described in figure 1 of this part, and north to 55° N lat., and including 20 nm seaward of selected sites. These sites are listed in Table 21 to this part and are identifiable by “Bering Sea” in column 2 and “9” in column 16.