Comments Invited

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2011-0909; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-027-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

We received reports of cracks on Model MD-80 series airplanes and on Model MD-90-30 airplanes. The cracks were found on the aft face of the center section left and right hinge bearing lugs on either the left or right, or in two cases, on both sides of the center section ribs of the horizontal stabilizer. Cracks were reported on Model MD-80 airplanes that had accumulated 23,700 to 41,963 total flight hours, and 23,300 to 35,294 total flight cycles. The cause of the cracking has not been determined. Undetected cracking in the hinge bearing lugs of the center section of the left and right ribs, if not corrected, could result in failure of the hinge bearing lugs and consequent inability of the horizontal stabilizer to sustain required limit loads and loss of control of the airplane.

The proposed AD affects Model MD-80 series airplanes. We issued AD 2011-01-11, Amendment 39-16565 (76 FR 430, January 5, 2011) to address the identified unsafe condition on Model MD-90-30 airplanes, on December 22, 2010. AD 2011-01-11 requires similar actions as proposed in this NPRM.

We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-55A069, dated January 19, 2011. That service bulletin describes procedures for repetitive high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections for cracking of the left and right rib hinge bearing lugs of the aft face of the center section of the horizontal stabilizer; measuring crack length and blending out cracks; and replacement of the horizontal stabilizer center section rib, if necessary.

We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of these same type designs. This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between the Proposed AD and the Service Information.”

Although Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-55A069, dated January 19, 2011, specifies to send the inspection results to the manufacturer, this proposed AD would not require any report.

We consider this proposed AD interim action since investigation is ongoing and no terminating action has been developed yet. The manufacturer is currently developing a modification that will address the unsafe condition identified in this AD. Once this modification is developed, approved, and available, we may consider additional rulemaking.

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 668 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide labor cost estimates for the on-condition actions (blend-out repair(s) or replacement of center section rib(s)) specified in this proposed AD. However, we have been advised that replacement parts would be $14,500 per horizontal stabilizer rib crack repair kit.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(4) 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.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

Comments Invited

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2011-0908; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-251-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

On May 3, 2010, we issued AD 2010-10-22, Amendment 39-16301 (75 FR 28463, May 21, 2010). That AD required actions intended to address an unsafe condition on the products listed above.

Since we issued AD 2010-10-22, we have determined that new life limits on certain main landing gear components are necessary. The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2010-0166, dated August 6, 2010 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

BAE SYSTEMS (Operations) Limited has issued Subject 05-10-15, “Aircraft Equipment Airworthiness Limitations,” of Chapter 05, “Time Limits/Maintenance Checks,” of BAe 146 Series/AVRO 146-RJ Series Aircraft Maintenance Manual, Revision 104, dated April 15, 2011. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information.

We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD.

Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 2 products of U.S. registry.

The actions that are required by AD 2010-10-22 and retained in this proposed AD take about 2 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work hour. Required parts cost about $0 per product. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the currently required actions is $170 per product.

We estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the new basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $170, or $85 per product.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),

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.

We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

Comments Invited

Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2011-0498/Airspace Docket No. 11-ASW-5.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the office of the Central Service Center, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137.

Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking (202) 267-9677, to request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.

This action proposes to amend Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), Part 71 by modifying Class E airspace in the Alice, TX, area. Controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface is being removed at Old Hoppe Place Airport, Aqua Dulce, TX, due to the cancellation of all standard instrument approach procedures at the airport. This action is necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations in the Alice, TX, area. Geographic coordinates for Alice International Airport, Orange Grove NALF, and the Kleberg County non-directional radio beacon (NDB) would also be updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

Class E airspace areas are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9U, dated August 18, 2010, and effective September 15, 2010, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document would be published subsequently in the Order.

The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore, (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) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would modify controlled airspace in the Alice, TX, area.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2011-0845/Airspace Docket No. 11-ACE-19.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9 a.m and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the office of the Central Service Center, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137.

Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking (202) 267-9677, to request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.

This action proposes to amend Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), part 71 by modifying Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface for standard instrument approach procedures at Arthur N. Neu Airport, Carroll, IA. Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Carroll NDB and cancellation of the NDB approach. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.

Class E airspace areas are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9U, dated August 18, 2010, and effective September 15, 2010, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document would be published subsequently in the Order.

The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore, (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) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would modify controlled airspace at Arthur N. Neu Airport, Carroll, IA.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2011-0608/Airspace Docket No. 11-ASW-7.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the office of the Central Service Center, 2601 Meacham Blvd, Fort Worth, TX 76137.

Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking (202) 267-9677, to request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.

This action proposes to amend Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), part 71 by amending Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Winters Municipal Airport, Winters, TX. Decommissioning of the Winters RBN and cancellation of the NDB standard instrument approach procedure, as well as creation of new RNAV standard instrument approach procedures, have made this amendment necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.

Class E airspace areas are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9U, dated August 18, 2010 and effective September 15, 2010, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document would be published subsequently in the Order.

The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore, (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) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, part A, subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend controlled airspace at Winters Municipal Airport, Winters, TX.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2011-0851/Airspace Docket No. 11-ASW-10.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov . Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http:// www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the office of the Central Service Center, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137.

Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking (202) 267-9677, to request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.

This action proposes to amend Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), Part 71 by amending Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class D surface area, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, to accommodate new standard instrument approach procedures at Ardmore Municipal Airport, Ardmore, OK. Decommissioning of the Arbuckle NDB and cancellation of the NDB approach at Ardmore Downtown Executive Airport has made it necessary for airspace reconfiguration for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport. Also, this action would update the geographic coordinates to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

Class E airspace areas are published in Paragraphs 6004 and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9U, dated August 18, 2010 and effective September 15, 2010, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document would be published subsequently in the Order.

The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore, (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) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend controlled airspace at Ardmore Municipal Airport, Ardmore, OK.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2011-0846/Airspace Docket No. 11-ACE-18.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the office of the Central Service Center, 2601 Meacham Blvd, Fort Worth, TX 76137.

Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking (202) 267-9677, to request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.

This action proposes to amend Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), part 71 by modifying Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface for standard instrument approach procedures at Greenfield Municipal Airport Airport, Greenfield, IA. Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Greenfield NDB and the cancellation of the NDB approach. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.

Class E airspace areas are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9U, dated August 18, 2010, and effective September 15, 2010, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document would be published subsequently in the Order.

The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore, (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) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would modify controlled airspace at Greenfield Municipal Airport Airport, Greenfield, IA.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2011-0830/Airspace Docket No. 11-ACE-16.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the office of the Central Service Center, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137.

Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking (202) 267-9677, to request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.

This action proposes to amend Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), Part 71 by amending Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Centerville Municipal Airport, Centerville, IA. Decommissioning of the Centerville NDB and cancellation of the NDB approach has made it necessary to reconfigure the airspace. Also, new COPTER RNAV standard instrument approach procedures at Mercy Medical Center-Centerville Heliport, has made this amendment necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations in the Centerville, IA, area.

Class E airspace areas are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9U, dated August 18, 2010 and effective September 15, 2010, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document would be published subsequently in the Order.

The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore, (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) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend controlled airspace in the Centerville, IA, area.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

Comments Invited

Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2011-0497/Airspace Docket No. 11-ASW-4.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the office of the Central Service Center, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137.

Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking (202) 267-9677, to request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.

This action proposes to amend Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface for new standard instrument approach procedures at Howard County Airport, Nashville, AR. Controlled airspace is needed for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.

Class E airspace areas are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9U, dated August 18, 2010 and effective September 15, 2010, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document would be published subsequently in the Order.

The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore, (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) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would establish controlled airspace at Howard County Airport, Nashville, AR.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2011-0831/Airspace Docket No. 11-ACE-17.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the office of the Central Service Center, 2601 Meacham Blvd, Fort Worth, TX 76137.

Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking (202) 267-9677, to request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.

This action proposes to amend Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface for new standard instrument approach procedures at the City of Stuart Helistop, Stuart, IA. Controlled airspace is needed for the safety and management of IFR operations at the heliport.

Class E airspace areas are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9U, dated August 18, 2010 and effective September 15, 2010, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document would be published subsequently in the Order.

The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore, (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) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would establish controlled airspace at the City of Stuart Helistop, Stuart, IA.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

Comments Invited

Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2011-0748/Airspace Docket No. 11-ACE-13.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the office of the Central Service Center, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137.

Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking (202) 267-9677, to request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.

This action proposes to amend Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), part 71 by removing Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class D or E surface area, and modifying Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, for standard instrument approach procedures at Johnson County Executive Airport, Olathe, KS. Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Johnson County VOR/DME and cancellation of the VOR approach. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.

Class E airspace areas are published in Paragraphs 6004 and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9U, dated August 18, 2010, and effective September 15, 2010, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document would be published subsequently in the Order.

The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore, (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) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would modify controlled airspace at Johnson County Executive Airport, Olathe, KS.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

I. Background

Section 203(b)(1) of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1709(b)(1)) (NHA) provides that in order for a mortgage to be eligible for Federal Housing Administration (FHA) mortgage insurance under Title II of the NHA, the mortgage shall “* * * have been made to, and held by, a mortgagee approved by the Secretary as responsible and able to service the mortgage properly.” Similar approval provisions for lenders are contained in Title I, section 2 of the NHA (12 U.S.C. 1703), which authorizes FHA insurance of lending institutions. Specifically, section 2(a) of the NHA provides that the Secretary of HUD is authorized to insure lenders “which the Secretary finds to be qualified by experience of facilities. * * *” The regulations that implement these statutory mandates are codified at 24 CFR part 202 (entitled “Approval of Lending Institutions and Mortgagees”). The regulations establish several categories of mortgagees and lenders, based upon government association or supervision, capital net worth, and the mortgage or lending functions in which the applicants for FHA approval intend to engage.

The part 202 regulations do not currently provide for FHA approval of lending institutions that are part of the Farm Credit System. The Farm Credit System is a federally chartered network of borrower-owned lending institutions composed of cooperatives and related service organizations. The mission of the Farm Credit System is to provide sound and dependable credit to American farmers, ranchers, producers, or harvesters of aquatic products, their cooperatives, and farm-related businesses. The lending institutions that comprise the Farm Credit System make appropriately structured loans (including loans for the purchase of moderately priced homes in rural areas) to qualified individuals and businesses at competitive rates, and provide financial services and advice to those persons and businesses. Federal oversight by the Farm Credit Administration provides for the safety and soundness of participating lending institutions.

The four farm credit banks, one agricultural credit bank (hereinafter collectively referred to as the Farm Credit banks), and their direct lender associations (the Agricultural Credit Associations) comprise the major functional entities of the Farm Credit System. The Farm Credit banks are government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) and must operate within limits established by the Farm Credit Act of 1971, as amended (12 U.S.C. 2001 et seq. ). In general, the Farm Credit banks provide services and funds to local Agricultural Credit Associations that, in turn, provide short-, intermediate-, and long-term credit to farmers, ranchers, producers, and harvesters of aquatic products, and to rural residents for moderately priced housing. The Agricultural Credit Associations also make loans for basic agricultural processing and marketing activities, and to farm-related businesses.

The Farm Credit banks collectively issue debt securities in the national and international money markets through the Federal Farm Credit Banks Funding Corporation and use this capital to provide borrowers with access to reliable and competitive credit. The full financial strength of all of the Farm Credit banks stands behind the debt issued on behalf of the Farm Credit System. In addition, investors in Farm Credit System debt are protected by the assets of the self-funded Farm Credit System Insurance Fund, which is administered by the Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation. Additional information regarding the Farm Credit System is available on the Farm Credit Administration Web site at http://www.fca.gov/index.html.

This proposed rule would amend HUD's mortgagee and lender approval regulations at 24 CFR part 202 to enable the direct lending institutions of the Farm Credit System to seek approval to participate in the mortgage insurance programs under the NHA as FHA-approved mortgagees and lenders. At the time HUD originally published its part 202 regulations in 1997, given the then-ready availability of mortgage credit and the existence of other mortgage assistance programs for rural housing, there was little need to include the Farm Credit Banks and Agricultural Credit Associations. However, the downturn in the mortgage lending market has prompted HUD to reconsider this omission. As lenders strive to increase capital reserves and tighten underwriting standards, and as private mortgage insurers retreat from some markets, the availability of financing for housing is reduced, particularly in rural areas. HUD proposes to extend FHA mortgagee and lender eligibility to the Farm Credit System to provide an additional avenue for mortgage financing in rural areas. Participation in FHA programs incentivizes lenders to make mortgage credit available by insuring them against potential losses in the event of defaults. Further, FHA-insured mortgage loans can be securitized by Ginnie Mae and sold in the secondary market, which can significantly improve the availability of funds and permit more favorable interest rates than would otherwise be likely.

FHA proposes to amend 24 CFR 202.10, which lists the governmental institutions and GSEs eligible to participate in FHA programs, by adding the Agricultural Credit Associations as eligible for FHA approval as Government mortgagees and lenders. Approval of Farm Credit System direct-lending institutions would be based on the same requirements applicable to other GSEs under § 202.10. HUD believes the proposed extension of FHA program eligibility will better enable the direct-lending institutions of the Farm Credit System to provide sound and dependable mortgage credit to rural communities.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reviewed this proposed rule under Executive Order 12866 (entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review”). The proposed rule has been determined to be a “significant regulatory action,” as defined in section 3(f) of the Order, but not economically significant, as provided in section 3(f)(1) of the Order.

Based on Farm Credit Administration (FCA) data, HUD determined it is reasonable to assume a 5 percent increase in the origination of FHA-insured mortgages by Farm Credit System institutions as a result of this proposed rule. Based on the approximately 44,000 rural FCA home loans originated in 2010, FHA could expect an additional 2,200 loans annually. Given this loan volume, the effects of this rule will not in any year exceed the $100 million threshold for an economically significant action as set forth by Executive Order 12866.

The docket file for this proposed rule is available for public inspection in the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500. Due to security measures at the HUD Headquarters building, please schedule an appointment to review the docket file by calling the Regulations Division at 202-402-3055 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with speech or hearing impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Information Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) 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.

This proposed rule would not impose any new regulatory requirements or economic burdens on small entities. Indeed, the rule imposes no new requirements on any entities. Rather, the proposed rule would merely provide an option for direct lending institutions of the Farm Credit System to participate in HUD's mortgage insurance programs under the NHA as FHA-approved supervised lenders and mortgagees. Farm Credit System institutions wishing to participate in the programs would be required to comply with FHA mortgagee and lender approval requirements; however, participation in the mortgage insurance programs is voluntary. Accordingly, to the extent that the proposed rule has any economic impact, it would be to confer the economic benefit of participating in the FHA mortgage insurance programs to those financial institutions of the Farm Credit System that voluntarily elect to seek approval as FHA-approved mortgagees or lenders.

For the above reasons, the undersigned has determined that the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Notwithstanding HUD's determination that this rule will not have a significant effect on a substantial number of small entities, HUD specifically invites comments regarding any less burdensome alternatives to this rule that will meet HUD's objectives as described in the preamble to this rule.

This rule does not direct, provide for assistance or loan and mortgage insurance for, or otherwise govern or regulate, real property acquisition, disposition, leasing, rehabilitation, alteration, demolition, or new construction, or establish, revise, or provide for standards for construction or construction materials, manufactured housing, or occupancy. This rule is limited to the eligibility of those entities that may be approved as FHA-approved lenders. Accordingly, under 24 CFR 50.19(c)(1), this rule is categorically excluded from environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321).

Executive Order 13132 (entitled “Federalism”) prohibits an agency from publishing any rule that has federalism implications if the rule either imposes substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments and is not required by statute, or the rule preempts state law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order. This rule would not have federalism implications and would not impose substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments or preempt state law within the meaning of the Executive Order.

The information collection requirements contained in this notice have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) and assigned OMB Control Number 2502-0005. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless the collection displays a currently valid OMB control number.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) (UMRA) establishes requirements for federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal governments, and on the private sector. This rule would not impose any federal mandates on any state, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector, within the meaning of the UMRA.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the preamble above, HUD proposes to amend 24 CFR part 202 as follows:

We encourage you to respond to this advance notice of proposed rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided.

If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2011-0497), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an e-mail address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.

To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and type “USCG-2011-0497” in the “Keyword” box. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.

To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov and click on the “Read Comments” box, which will then become highlighted in blue. In the “Keyword” box type “USCG-2011-0497” and click “Search.” Click the “Open Docket Folder” in the “Actions” column. If you do not have access to the Internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We have an agreement with the Department of Transportation to use the Docket Management Facility.

Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc. ). You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. However, you may submit a public meeting request to the docket using one of the methods specified under ADDRESSES . In your request, explain why you believe a public meeting would be beneficial. If we determine that holding a public meeting would aid us in determining how best to prevent recreational boating casualties caused by propeller strikes and carbon monoxide (CO) poisoning, we will hold a meeting at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register .

In a recent five year period, approximately 82.1 million people annually participated in recreational boating as an outdoor recreation activity in the United States. 1 Of that population, approximately 53.8 million people enjoyed recreational boating on a motorized recreational vessel. Unfortunately, motorized recreational boating poses risks, including property damage, human injury, and even death. One of these risks is boating casualties caused by persons being struck by a recreational vessel propeller. An additional, more recently discovered risk is boating casualties caused by carbon monoxide (CO) poisoning. The Coast Guard is interested in measures to reduce these two specific risks, both of which involve persons near the rear of a motorized recreational vessel.

Under 46 U.S.C. chapter 43 (Recreational Vessels), the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security is responsible for establishing minimum safety standards for recreational vessels and associated equipment, and for requiring installation, carrying, or use of associated equipment. See 46 U.S.C. 4302(a). The Coast Guard, on behalf of the Secretary, carries out this responsibility.

Since the mid-1990s, the Coast Guard has investigated the appropriate course of action to address propeller strike-related casualties, to understand the causes of these casualties, and to determine the best way to prevent casualties from occurring. The Coast Guard has solicited requests for comments on various proposals to reduce propeller strike-related casualties, and proposed and then withdrew two separate rulemakings addressing this issue. The first rulemaking sought public input on the use of swimming ladders, warning notices, clear aft vision, propeller-shaft engagement alarms, engine cut-off switches, and education to address recreational vessel and propeller strike-related casualties. See 60 FR 25191 (May 11, 1995) (Request for comments); 61 FR 13123 (Mar. 26, 1996) (Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking); 62 FR 22991 (Apr. 28, 1997) (Request for comments). The Coast Guard withdrew this rulemaking because of a lack of sufficient data for the proposals at that time. See 66 FR 63650 (Dec. 10, 2001) (Notice of Withdrawal).

At the same time the Coast Guard withdrew the first rulemaking, it initiated the second rulemaking, which focused on propeller injury mitigation devices commonly referred to as “propeller guards.” The notice of proposed rulemaking proposed requiring owners of certain recreational houseboats to either install a propeller guard or to use all of the following propeller injury avoidance measures: a swim ladder interlock, an aft visibility device, and an engine cut-off switch. See 66 FR 63645 (Dec. 10, 2001). The Coast Guard withdrew this rulemaking after public comments raised several issues, including the lack of a practical definition of a houseboat and straightforward performance requirements, and the potential costs of installing propeller guards. See 72 FR 59064 (Oct. 18, 2007) (Notice of Withdrawal). In the Notice of Withdrawal, the Coast Guard stated that it is still “exploring options that would more effectively prevent propeller injuries and impose a smaller burden on the economy,” and specifically noted engine cut-off switches and boating safety education as two of those options. Id. at 59065.

In 2006, the National Boating Safety Advisory Council (NBSAC) established a Propeller Injury Working Group to consider the development of educational formats, review of technologies, risk management techniques, accident scenarios, cost benefit analysis, and high-risk recreational vessel definitions and determinations. See NBSAC Resolution # 2005-76-04, available at http://homeport.uscg.mil/NBSAC. The working group proposed four recommendations: (1) Develop a rental vessel education kit, (2) require the installation of engine cut-off switches, (3) require operators to use installed engine cut-off switches, and (4) require operators of vessels to shut off the engine when individuals in the water are within an unsafe distance from the vessel. NBSAC endorsed these recommendations and forwarded them to the Coast Guard for further consideration. See NBSAC Resolution ## 2006-77-01, 2006-77-02, 2006-77-03 and 2006-77-04, available at http://homeport.uscg.mil/NBSAC.

To address NSBAC's second and third recommendations (NBSAC Resolution ## 2006-77-02 and 2006-77-03) involving the installation, maintenance, and use of engine cut-off switches  2 and to follow-up on the discussion of engine cut-off switches in the Notice of Withdrawal of the propeller guard rulemaking, the Coast Guard initiated a separate rulemaking titled “Installation and Use of Engine Cut-Off Switches” (ECOS) (RIN 1625-AB34). In the ECOS rulemaking, the Coast Guard seeks to prevent recreational boating casualties caused by persons being struck by a recreational vessel or propeller when the vessel operator is separated from the operating controls ( e.g., falls overboard or is ejected). The ECOS rulemaking, however, only addresses one cause of propeller-strikes. Recreational boaters in the water near the rear of a recreational vessel also face the possibility of being inadvertently struck by a vessel's propeller even when the vessel operator is in control of the vessel.

The Coast Guard is initiating this rulemaking to seek public input on NSBAC's fourth recommendation in NBSAC Resolution # 2006-77-04, as well as other options to prevent casualties caused when persons in the water near the rear of a recreational vessel are inadvertently struck by a vessel's propeller. For example, a person may be struck by a propeller when using the lower unit of the recreational vessel's propulsion system as a step to reboard the vessel. If the propeller is spinning while a person is attempting to use the lower unit as a step, the person may either step directly onto the spinning propeller or slip off the lower unit of the propulsion system and fall onto the spinning propeller resulting in severe injuries and possibly death.

Over the last decade, boating-related activities that require participants to be near the rear of a recreational vessel in close proximity to a vessel's engine exhaust emissions have increased in popularity. With an increase in the prevalence of these activities, casualties associated with these activities have also increased, and investigations of these casualties have led to an increased understanding of CO concentrations near the rear of recreational vessels.

A potentially deadly gas that is odorless, colorless, and tasteless, CO occurs as a component of internal combustion engine exhaust. When inhaled, CO enters the bloodstream through the lungs and displaces the oxygen needed by the body, resulting in hypoxia (suffocation) of body tissues.

In 2000, the National Park Service, in coordination with the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and the Coast Guard, initiated a study to evaluate CO exposure from generators and propulsion engines on houseboats. 3 This study revealed high concentrations of CO on and around houseboats using gasoline-powered generators. In 2002, the National Park Service, NIOSH, and the Coast Guard began working to measure CO levels on other types of recreational vessels and to evaluate new engineering technologies designed to reduce CO poisonings related to the vessels' operation.

In 2008, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated exhaust emission standards for marine engines, including first-time EPA standards for sterndrive and inboard engines. See 73 FR 59034 (“Control of Emissions from Nonroad Spark-Ignition Engines and Equipment”). The EPA standards apply to new marine engines, and the Coast Guard expects these EPA standards to have a dramatic effect on the levels of CO in the exhaust emissions of new sterndrive and inboard engines and thus reduce CO levels on recreational vessels with such engines.

In response to the EPA standards, as well as to address CO poisoning-related casualties, manufacturers have developed new catalyst-based low CO sterndrive and inboard engines. These EPA standards and resulting new technology, however, apply only to newly manufactured engines, and do not affect potentially dangerous levels of CO on recreational vessels with older engines.

The National Association of State Boating Law Administrators (NASBLA), as well as some States, are also concerned with the issue of CO poisoning-related casualties, and efforts to address this issue cover both new as well as existing recreational engines by focusing on recreational vessel operation rather than on technology. NASBLA has been engaged in addressing this issue since 2003 and has developed a consensus model act prohibiting persons from operating any recreational vessel or having the engine idle while someone is in the water and holding onto the rear of the recreational vessel. See NASBLA Model Act for “Safe Practices for Boat-Towed Watersports” (September 10, 2007), available at http://nasbla.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3290. At least five States have enacted laws addressing CO poisoning-related casualties based on this model act.

• California and Washington have prohibited operating a recreational vessel or having the engine of the vessel idle while an individual is “teak surfing, platform dragging, or bodysurfing behind”  4 or “occupying or holding onto the swim platform, swim deck, swim step, or swim ladder of the vessel,” except “when an individual is occupying the swim platform, swim deck, swim step, or swim ladder for a very brief period of time while assisting with the docking or departure of the vessel, while exiting or entering the vessel, or while the vessel is engaged in law enforcement or emergency rescue activity.” See Cal. Harb. & Nav. Code § 681 (West); Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 79A.60.660 (West).

• Nevada has prohibited operation of a recreational vessel while any person is hanging onto, or sitting, standing or riding on, a swim platform or a swim ladder that is attached to the vessel as a form of reckless or negligent operation of a vessel. See Nev. Rev. Stat. § 488.400; Nev. Admin. Code § 488.435.

• Oregon prohibits operating a recreational vessel or having the vessel's engine idle while any person holds onto or occupies any portion of the vessel located aft of the transom, including a step, ladder, platform or deck, in order to ride on that portion of the vessel while the vessel is under way at any speed or to be pulled by the vessel, except when assisting in the docking or departure of the vessel, exiting or entering the vessel, or engaging in law enforcement activities. See Or. Rev. Stat. § 830.362.

• Pennsylvania prohibits operation of a recreational vessel at any speed with a person or persons sitting, riding, or hanging on a swim platform or swim ladder attached to the vessel, except when launching, retrieving, docking or anchoring the vessel. See 58 Pa. Code § 105.3.

The Coast Guard is initiating this rulemaking to consider options to prevent CO poisoning-related casualties on all recreational vessels, especially existing recreational vessels that are not affected by the 2008 EPA exhaust emission standards or by new technology for marine engines.

In addition to any general information, data, ideas, and comments that the public would like to provide, the Coast Guard requests comments on specific measures outlined below to prevent propeller strike-related and CO poisoning-related casualties. The Coast Guard also seeks specific information regarding certain data and other facts related to these measures, as listed below. Please provide as much quantitative data as possible, including data sources and complete citations.

When responding to the general questions below, please provide quantitative data on costs, benefits, and other relevant information, specifying sources of information and citations.

1. Recreational boating accidents can cause a variety of negative impacts, including loss of life, injuries, and property damage. What sources of data or information exist detailing benefits or avoided damages which may result from the use of measures to avoid propeller strike-related and CO poisoning-related casualties?

2. What vessel types should be considered for mandatory measures to reduce or eliminate propeller strike-related and CO poisoning-related casualties ( e.g., all motorized vessels, motorized vessels with certain engine configurations, certain types of motorized vessels ( e.g., houseboats)?

3. Some vessels have measures already installed to reduce or eliminate propeller strike-related and CO poisoning-related casualties. What data exists to estimate the percentage of recreational vessels that have measures to reduce or eliminate propeller strike-related and CO poisoning-related casualties?

4. How many and what types of recreational vessels or engines do not have measures to reduce or eliminate propeller strike-related and CO poisoning-related casualties?

5. What is the average amount of time it would take for a vessel operator to use each measure to reduce or eliminate propeller strike-related and CO poisoning-related casualties?

6. How would operators and passengers be impacted by the number of times each measure to reduce or eliminate propeller strike-related and CO poisoning-related casualties is used by the vessel operator? How should the Coast Guard consider the potential “hassle factor” associated with using each measure to reduce or eliminate propeller strike-related and CO poisoning-related casualties?

7. If a vessel or engine currently does not have any measures to reduce or eliminate propeller strike-related and CO poisoning-related casualties installed, what are the installation costs, separated out into parts and labor categories, for each such measure?

8. What is the average lifespan of each measure used to reduce or eliminate propeller strike-related and CO poisoning-related casualties?

9. What are the associated maintenance and replacement costs of each measure used to reduce or eliminate propeller strike-related and CO poisoning-related casualties?

10. What is the recommended replacement schedule of each measure used to reduce or eliminate propeller strike-related and CO poisoning-related casualties? How often are pieces of equipment replaced? What is the average cost of replacement per piece of equipment? What is the average cost of purchasing any required spare equipment?

11. How would individual measures change boater preference for different measures used to reduce or eliminate propeller strike-related and CO poisoning-related casualties? Would boaters choose more expensive systems over standard systems? If so, why?

12. What is the risk of unintended activations of each measure used to reduce or eliminate propeller strike-related and CO poisoning-related casualties? What is the current estimated rate of unintended activations? What are the impacts of unintended activations? Are there any injuries or fatalities associated with unintended activations?

13. What is the risk of each measure used to reduce or eliminate propeller strike-related and CO poisoning-related casualties ( i.e., engine does not cut off when interlock device is engaged)? What is the current estimated rate of device failures? What are the impacts of device failures? Are there any injuries or fatalities associated with such device failures?

14. What data or information exists that could be used to estimate compliance rates for measures used to reduce or eliminate propeller strike-related and CO poisoning-related casualties? What data exists to estimate how compliance will change from initial phase-in to full implementation of possible mandatory measures?

15. How would the Coast Guard or other law enforcement officers enforce required measures used to reduce or eliminate propeller strike-related and CO poisoning-related casualties? What would be the challenges with such enforcement? What would be the training costs and other impacts on law enforcement agencies of implementing measures used to reduce or eliminate propeller strike-related and CO poisoning-related casualties?

16. Would any of the different measures designed to reduce or eliminate propeller strike-related and CO poisoning-related casualties have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? What sources of data or information exist detailing the economic impact on small entities which may result from the use of measures to avoid propeller strike-related and CO poisoning-related casualties?

17. What are the compliance rates with State laws intended prevent propeller strike-related casualties for recreational boaters?

18. What are the compliance rates with State laws intended to prevent CO poisoning-related casualties for recreational boaters?

19. What is the voluntary use rate of measures designed to reduce or eliminate propeller strike-related and CO poisoning-related casualties in States without such laws?

20. Five States (California, Washington, Nevada, Oregon and Pennsylvania) currently require measures to reduce or prevent propeller strike-related and CO poisoning-related casualties. What other State laws or regulations are being developed with measures to reduce or prevent propeller strike-related and CO poisoning-related casualties? Please provide any data or information from the implementation or development of these State regulations to assist the Coast Guard as it considers whether to require measures to reduce or eliminate propeller strike-related and CO poisoning-related casualties.

21. What are the costs associated with implementation of the aforementioned State laws?

1. A possible requirement that operators of recreational vessels turn off the recreational vessel's engine while persons are in the water in close proximity to the rear of the vessel. If an operator turned off a vessel's engine, persons in the water behind the vessel would not come into contact with a spinning propeller or inhale CO emitted from a running engine. “Close proximity” would be defined as when a person is either touching any part of the vessel or is close enough to touch any part of the vessel.

2. A possible requirement to use longer boarding ladders on new recreational vessels. A longer boarding ladder than what is currently used on most recreational vessels would make it less likely that the person boarding the vessel would use the lower unit in order to reach the ladder. As discussed above, if the propeller is spinning while a person is attempting to use the lower unit as a step, the person may either step directly onto the spinning propeller or slip off the lower unit of the propulsion system and fall onto the spinning propeller resulting in severe injuries and possibly death.

3. A possible requirement to use boarding ladder or swim platform entrance gate “interlocks” on new recreational vessels. Ladder or swim platform entrance gate “interlocks” would prevent a recreational vessel engine from starting if the boarding ladder was deployed or the swim platform entrance gate was not closed, thus preventing a person using a boarding ladder or swim platform from coming into contact with a spinning propeller.

When responding to the questions below, please explain the reasoning behind your comment and provide data sources and citations.

1. We seek comments on measure number 1 described above that would require operators of recreational vessels to turn off the recreational vessel's engine while persons are in the water in close proximity to the rear of the vessel. We also seek comments regarding the potential meaning of “close proximity” for this proposal and whether there should be exemptions to any such proposed requirement to turn the vessel off. Should such a proposal closely mirror the State laws discussed above?

2. Are there scenarios, other than a person in the water in close proximity to the rear of the vessel, in which turning off the vessel's engine would similarly protect recreational boaters?

3. Would there be any adverse impacts to recreational vessels, recreational boaters, or the recreational boating experience by turning off the vessel's engine when a person is in the water in close proximity to the rear of the vessel or in other similar scenarios?

4. How should the Coast Guard consider the potential “hassle factor” associated with turning off the vessel's engine when a person is in the water in close proximity to the vessel?

5. What is the average number of times per trip a recreational vessel's engine would have to be turned off because of a person in close proximity to the vessel?

6. How effective would measure number 1 be in preventing accidents related to both propeller strikes and CO poisoning?

7. How would the challenge to visually inspect at a distance whether a person is in close proximity to a vessel affect compliance with any turn-the-vessel-off requirements?

8. What data or information exists that could be used to estimate compliance rates of measure number 1? What data exists to estimate how such compliance will change during full implementation?

9. We seek comments on measure number 2 described above to require use of longer reboarding ladders. We understand that the American Boat and Yacht Council (ABYC) has a proposed revision to ABYC Standard H-41—Reboarding Means, Ladders, Handholds, Rails, and Lifelines, that would address longer ladders. Are there other consensus industry standards addressing longer ladders?

10. What percentage of new recreational vessels are sold with a swim ladder installed? What percentage of existing recreational vessels currently have a swim ladder installed? What is the typical length of a swim ladder that recreational vessel manufacturers currently install?

11. What are the costs for installation of a reboarding ladder?

12. What data or information exists that could be used to estimate compliance rates of measure number 2? What data exists to estimate how such compliance will change during full implementation?

13. We seek comments on measure number 3 described above to require use of boarding ladder or swim platform entrance gate “interlocks” on new recreational vessels. Are there any consensus industry standards addressing interlocks or any such standards in development?

14. What are the costs for installation of a boarding ladder or swim platform entrance gate interlock system? What are the costs associated with maintenance of these systems?

15. What data or information exists that could be used to estimate compliance rates of measure number 3? What data exists to estimate how such compliance will change during full implementation?

16. What is the risk of device failures or unintended activations of the boarding ladder or swim platform entrance gate interlocks? What is the current estimated rate of unintended activations? What are the impacts of unintended activations? Are there any injuries or fatalities associated with unintended activations?

17. What other measures or strategies would prevent propeller strike-related or CO poisoning-related casualties?

18. Since the enactment of the aforementioned State laws (CA, NV, OR, PA, WA), has there been a change in the count and rate of CO poisoning-related casualties in these States? Is there any quantitative data, measures, metrics, studies, or other related evidence on the effectiveness of these State laws?

19. Should any of the above-listed measures, or other measures or strategies to prevent propeller strike-related and CO poisoning-related casualties, be limited to specific recreational vessel types or lengths, or to some other criteria?

20. Would any of the above-listed specific measures have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? What sources of data or information exist detailing the economic impact on small entities which may result from the use of these specific measures to avoid propeller strike-related and CO poisoning-related casualties?

On January 12, 2011, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) submitted a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP. The SIP revision consists of Pennsylvania's amendments to 25 Pa. Code Chapters 121, 129, and 130 relating to general provisions, standards for sources, and standards for products. The amendments are part of Pennsylvania's strategy to achieve and maintain the 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) throughout the Commonwealth.

The SIP revision consists of the following amendments:

The amendments to section 121.1—Definitions, add definitions for 53 new terms, including those that relate to the adhesive, sealant, primer, and solvent product categories regulated under section 129.77 and Chapter 130, Subchapter D and amends definitions for 9 existing terms for clarity, style, and format or to explain new product categories.

The revision amends section 129.51(a)—Equivalency, in order to include adhesives, sealants, primers, and solvents covered by section 129.77, entitled “Control of emissions from the use or application of adhesives, sealants, primers and solvents.” Section 129.51(a) provides an alternative method for owners and operators of facilities to achieve compliance with air emission limits.

The Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) states developed a model rule “OTC Model Rule For Adhesives and Sealants” dated 2006 which was based on the 1998 California Air Resources Board (CARB) reasonably available control technology (RACT) determination. This RACT determination applied to both the manufacture and use of adhesives, sealants, adhesive primers, or sealant primers, in both industrial and manufacturing facilities and in the field. California Air Districts used this determination to develop regulations for this category. EPA addressed this source category with a Control Techniques Guideline (CTG) document for Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives dated September 2008. This CTG was developed in response to section 183(e) of the CAA requirement for EPA to study and regulate consumer and commercial products, which is included in EPA's Report to Congress, “Study of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Consumer and Commercial Products—Comprehensive Emissions Inventory.”

The miscellaneous industrial adhesives category was limited to adhesives and adhesive primers used in industrial and manufacturing operations and did not include products applied in the field. Therefore, the OTC model rule and state efforts in developing individual regulations preceded EPA's CTG for this source category and were broader in applicability.

The new section 129.77 adds regulations that: (a) Set standards for the application of adhesives, sealants, adhesive primers, and sealant primers by providing options for appliers either to use a product with a VOC content equal to or less than a specified limit or to use add-on controls; (b) establish that owners or operators may not use or apply at the facility an adhesive, sealant, adhesive primer, sealant primer, surface preparation, or cleanup solvent that exceeds the VOC content limits; (c) specify requirements for owners or operators of a facility that uses or applies a surface preparation solvent or cleanup solvent or removes an adhesive, sealant, adhesive primer, and sealant primer from the parts of spray application equipment; (d) provide for an alternative add-on control system requirement of at least 85 percent overall control efficiency (capture and destruction), by weight; (e) specify requirements for proper storage and disposal, work practices, surface preparation, and cleanup solvent composition; and (f) specify exemptions, as well as registration and product labeling requirements, recordkeeping requirements, and test methods and compliance procedures.

The new 25 Pa. Code Chapter 130 Subchapter D adds regulations that: (a) Set emission standards and VOC content limits for the sale, supply, offer for sale, manufacture, use, or application of adhesive, sealant, adhesive primer, and sealant primer products; (b) set emission standards and VOC content limits for the sale, supply, offer for sale, manufacture, use, or application sealant products applied to certain substrates, surface preparation solvents, and cleanup solvents; (c) establish requirements for surface preparation solvent or cleanup solvent, removal methods, and proper storage and disposal; (d) establish that a person may not solicit the use of a product if application would result in a violation of the applicable VOC content limit; (e) specify exemptions for an adhesive, sealant, adhesive primer, or sealant primer product; and (f) specify recordkeeping requirements, test methods, registration, and product labeling requirements and compliance procedures.

A detailed summary of EPA's review of and rationale for proposing to approve this SIP revision may be found in the Technical Support Document (TSD) for this action which is available on-line at http://www.regulations.gov, Docket number EPA-R03-OAR-2011-0617.

EPA is proposing to approve the Pennsylvania SIP revision amending section 121.1 “Definitions” and section 129.51(a) “Equivalency” of 25 Pa. Code Chapter 129. EPA is also proposing to approve the Pennsylvania SIP revisions adding section 129.77 “Control of emissions from the use or application of adhesives, sealants, primers, and solvents” of 25 Pa. Code Chapter 129 and 25 Pa. Code Chapter 130 Subchapter D “Adhesives, Sealants, Primers, and Solvents General Provisions.” EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action.

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:

• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. );

• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. );

• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and

• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this proposed rule, pertaining to Pennsylvania's control of VOCs from adhesives and sealants, does not have Tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:

• Crop production (NAICS code 111).

• Animal production (NAICS code 112).

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed at the end of the pesticide petition summary of interest.

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments, remember to:

i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).

ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.

iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.

iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.

v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.

vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives.

vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.

viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.

3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group, including minority and/or low-income populations, in the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticides discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

EPA is announcing its receipt of several pesticide petitions filed under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, requesting the establishment or modification of regulations in 40 CFR part 174 or part 180 for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various food commodities. The Agency is taking public comment on the requests before responding to the petitioners. EPA is not proposing any particular action at this time. EPA has determined that the pesticide petitions described in this document contain the data or information prescribed in FFDCA section 408(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the pesticide petitions. After considering the public comments, EPA intends to evaluate whether and what action may be warranted. Additional data may be needed before EPA can make a final determination on these pesticide petitions.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of each of the petitions that are the subject of this document, prepared by the petitioner, is included in a docket EPA has created for each rulemaking. The docket for each of the petitions is available on-line at http://www.regulations.gov.

As specified in FFDCA section 408(d)(3), (21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3)), EPA is publishing notice of the petition so that the public has an opportunity to comment on this request for the establishment or modification of regulations for residues of pesticides in or on food commodities. Further information on the petition may be obtained through the petition summary referenced in this unit.

1. PP 1E7823. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0113). Taminco, Inc., Two Windsor Plaza, Suite 411, Allentown, PA, requests to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the fungicide thiram, in or on avocado at 8 parts per million (ppm). Detection and quantitation for thiram (as carbon disulfide (CS2)) were conducted using a gas chromatograph (GC) equipped with a mass spectral detector for determination of CS2. The limit of quantitation (LOQ) was 0.05 ppm reported CS2 evolved. Contact: Shaunta Hill, (703) 347-8961, e-mail address: hill.shaunta@ epa.gov.

2. PP 1E7882. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0569). Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College Rd. East, Suite 201W, Princeton, NJ 08540, requests to establish tolerances in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the herbicide clopyralid: (3,6-dichloro-2-pyrindinecarboxylic acid), in or on apple at 0.05 ppm; brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 5B at 5.0 ppm; rapeseed subgroup 20A, except gold of pleasure, seed at 3.0 ppm; rapeseed subgroup 20A, except gold of pleasure, meal at 6.0 ppm; and rapeseed subgroup 20A, except gold of pleasure, forage at 3.0 ppm. An adequate analytical method is available for enforcement of the tolerance expression in or on these commodities. Dow AgroSciences Method No. ACR 79.5 was utilized to determine residues of clopyralid in apples, fruits and apple fractions in support of the proposed tolerance. This method determines clopyralid as the methyl ester by gas chromatography using electron capture detection (GC/ECD). This method has been successfully validated by EPA and has been published in FDA's Pesticide Analytical Manual, Volume II (PAM II). Contact: Laura Nollen, (703) 305-7390, e-mail address: nollen.laura@epa.gov.

3. PP 1E7883. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0563). Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College Rd. East, Suite 201W, Princeton, NJ 08540, requests to establish tolerances in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the herbicide rimsulfuron: N -((4,6-dimethoxypyrimidin-2-yl) aminocarbonyl)-3-(ethylsulfonyl)-2-pyridinesulfonamide, in or on chicory, roots at 0.01 ppm and chicory, tops at 0.01 ppm. Adequate analytical methodology, high-pressure liquid chromatography (HPLC) with electrospray ionization-tandem mass spectrometry (ESI-MS/MS) detection, is available for enforcement purposes. Contact: Andrew Ertman, (703) 308-9367, e-mail address: ertman.andrew@epa.gov.

4. PP 1E7885. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0564). Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College Rd. East, Suite 201W, Princeton, NJ 08540, requests to establish tolerances in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the herbicide thifensulfuron methyl [Methyl-3-[[[[(4-methoxy-6-methyl-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl) amino]carbonyl]amino] sulfonyl]-2-thiophenecarboxylate], in or on chicory, roots at 0.01 ppm and chicory, tops at 0.01 ppm, for each analyte. Adequate analytical methodology, HPLC with ESI-MS/MS detection, is available for enforcement purposes. Contact: Andrew Ertman, (703) 308-9367, e-mail address: ertman.andrew@epa.gov.

5. PP 0F7805. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-1079). Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419, requests to establish tolerances in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the insecticide thiamethoxam [3-[(2-chloro-5-thiazolyl)methyl]tetrahydro-5-methyl- N -nitro-4 H -1,3,5-oxadiazin-4-imine] (CAS Reg. No. 153719-23-4) and its metabolite [ N -(2-chloro-thiazol-5-ylmethyl)- N' -methyl- N' -nitro-guanidine], in or on buckwheat, grain at 0.02 ppm; buckwheat, forage at 0.50 ppm; buckwheat, hay at 0.02 ppm; buckwheat, straw at 0.02 ppm; oat, grain at 0.02 ppm; oat, forage at 0.50 ppm, oat, hay at 0.02 ppm; oat, straw at 0.02 ppm; pearl millet, grain at 0.02 ppm; pearl millet, forage at 0.02 ppm; pearl millet, stover at 0.02 ppm; proso millet, grain at 0.02 ppm; proso millet, forage at 0.02 ppm; proso millet, stover at 0.02 ppm; proso millet, straw at 0.02 ppm; rye, grain at 0.02 ppm; rye, forage at 0.50 ppm; rye, straw at 0.02 ppm; teosinte, grain at 0.02 ppm; teosinte, forage at 0.10 ppm; teosinte, stover at 0.05 ppm; triticale, grain at 0.02 ppm; triticale, forage at 0.05 ppm; triticale, hay at 0.02 ppm; triticale, straw at 0.02 ppm; wild rice, grain at 0.02 ppm. This revised Notice of Filing is an amendment to reflect specific proposed grain tolerance and their respective animal feed commodities listed in the revised Section F of the tolerance petition, PP0F7805. Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. has submitted practical analytical methodology for detecting and measuring levels of thiamethoxam in or on raw agricultural commodities. This method is based on crop specific cleanup procedures and determination by liquid chromatography with either ultraviolet (UV) or MS detections. Contact: Gene Benbow, (703) 347-0235, e-mail address: benbow.gene@epa.gov.

6. PP 1F7873. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0578). E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, 1007 Market St., Wilmington, DE 19898-0001, requests to establish tolerances in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the combined residues of the insecticide indoxacarb, [(S)-methyl-7-chloro-2,5-dihydro-2-[[(methoxycarbonyl) [4-(trifluoromethoxy)-phenyl]amino]carbonyl]indeno[1,2e] [1,3,4]oxadiazine-4a(3H)-carboxylate], its R-enantiomer [(R)-methyl 7-chloro-2,5-dihydro-2-[[(methoxycarbonyl) [4-(trifluoromethoxy) phenyl]amino]carbonyl]indeno [1,2-e] [1,3,4] oxadiazine-4a(3H)-carboxylate] and the metabolites:

• IN-JT333: Methyl 7-chloro-2,5-dihydro-2-[[[4-(trifluoromethoxy)phenyl]-amino]carbonyl]indeno[1,2-e][1,3,4]oxadiazine-4a(3H)-carboxylate

• IN-KT319: (E)-methyl 5-chloro-2,3,-dihydro-2-hydroxy-1-[[[(methoxycarbonyl)[4-(trifluoromethoxy)phenyl]amino]-carbonyl]hydrazono]-1H-indene-2-carboxylate

• IN-JU873: Methyl 5-chloro-2,3-dihydro-2-hydroxy-1-[[[[4-(triflurormethoxy)-phenyl]amino]carbonyl]hydrazono]-1H-indene-2-carboxylate

• IN-KG433: Methyl 5-chloro-2,3,-dihydro-2-hydroxy-1-[[[(methoxycarbonyl)[4-(trifluoromethoxy)phenyl]amino]carbonyl]-hydrazono]-1H-indene-2-carboxylate, and

• IN-KB687: Methyl [4-(trifluoromethoxy)phenyl]carbamate, in or on egg at 0.2 ppm; poultry, fat at 0.2 ppm; poultry, meat at 0.06 ppm; and poultry, meat byproducts at 0.06 ppm. The plant residue enforcement method detects and quantitates indoxacarb in various matrices including sweet corn, lettuce, tomato, broccoli, apple, grape, cottonseed, tomato, peanut, and soybean commodity samples by HPLC UV. The limit of quantitation in the method allows monitoring of crops with indoxacarb residues at or above the levels proposed in these tolerances. Contact: Julie Chao, (703) 308-8735, e-mail address: chao.julie@ epa.gov.

7. PP 1F7886. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0593). Valent U.S.A. Corporation, 1600 Riviera Ave., Suite 200, Walnut Creek, CA 94596, requests to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the herbicide flumioxazin, 2-[7-fluoro-3,4-dihydro-3-oxo-4-(2-propynyl)-2H-1,4-benzoxazin-6-yl]-4,5,6,7-tetrahydro-1H-isoindole-1,3(2H)-dione, in or on pea and bean (except soybean), dried shelled, crop subgroup 6C at 0.1 ppm for seed; rapeseed, crop subgroup 20A at 0.35 ppm for seed; rapeseed, crop subgroup 20A at 0.04 ppm for meal; and rapeseed, crop subgroup 20A at 0.02 ppm for refined oil; sunflower, crop subgroup 20B at 0.5 ppm for seed; sunflower, crop subgroup 20B at 0.03 ppm for meal; sunflower, crop subgroup 20B at 0.02 ppm for refined oil; wheat at 0.35 ppm for grain; wheat at 5 ppm for straw; wheat at 0.02 ppm for forage (pre-emergence); wheat at 0.02 ppm for hay (pre-emergence); wheat at 0.35 ppm for bran; wheat at 0.05 ppm for flour; wheat at 0.35 ppm for germ; wheat at 0.08 ppm for middlings; wheat at 0.11 ppm for shorts; and wheat at 110 ppm for aspirated grain fractions. Practical analytical methods for detecting and measuring levels of flumioxazin have been developed and validated in/on all appropriate agricultural commodities and respective processing fractions. The LOQ of flumioxazin in the methods is 0.02 ppm which will allow monitoring of food with residues at the levels proposed for the tolerances. Contact: Bethany Benbow, (703) 347-8072, e-mail address: benbow.bethany@epa.gov.

1. PP 1E7882. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0569). Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College Rd. East, Suite 201W, Princeton, NJ 08540, requests to remove the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.431 for residues of the herbicide clopyralid: (3,6-dichloro-2-pyrindinecarboxylic acid), in or on canola, seed at 3.0 ppm; canola, meal at 6.0 ppm; flax, seed at 3.0 ppm; flax, meal at 6.0 ppm; rapeseed, seed at 3.0 ppm; rapeseed, forage at 3.0 ppm; and mustard greens at 5.0 ppm upon the approval of the aforementioned tolerances under “New Tolerance”. Contact: Laura Nollen, (703) 305-7390, e-mail address: nollen.laura@ epa.gov.

2. PP 1F7886. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0593). Valent U.S.A. Corporation, 1600 Riviera Ave., Suite 200, Walnut Creek, CA 94596, requests to remove the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.568 for residues of the herbicide flumioxazin, 2-[7-fluoro-3,4dihydro-3-oxo-4-(2-propynyl)-2H-1,4-benzoxazin-6-yl]-4,5,6,7-tetrahydro-1H-isoindole1,3(2H)-dione, in or on beans, dry seed at 0.05 ppm upon the approval of the tolerance on Crop Subgroup 6C under “New Tolerance”. Contact: Bethany Benbow, (703) 347-8072, e-mail address: benbow.bethany@epa.gov.

1. PP 1E7858. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0525). Joint Inerts Task Force, Cluster Support Team 5, EPA Company Number 84941, c/o CropLife America, 1156 15th St., NW., Suite 400, Washington, DC 20005, requests to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of following descriptor and compounds under 40 CFR 180.910 pre- and post-harvest uses not to exceed 7% in pesticide formulations when used as a pesticide inert: [[α]-[p-(1,1,3,3-Tetramethylbutyl)phenyl]-[ω]-hydroxypoly (oxyethylene) produced by the condensation of 1 mole of p-(1,1,3,3- tetramethylbutyl) phenol with a range of 1-14 or 30-70 moles of ethylene oxide: If a blend of products is used, the average range number of moles of ethylene oxide reacted to produce any product that is a component of the blend shall be in the range of 1-14 or 30-70 (Chemical Name (CAS No.)): Poly (oxy-1, 2-ethanediyl), α-[4-(1,1,3,3-tetramethylbutyl) phenyl]-ω-hydroxy- (9036-19-5); Poly (oxy-1, 2-ethanediyl), α-[4-(1,1,3,3-tetramethylbutyl) phenyl]-ω-hydroxy-] (9002-93-1). The petitioner believes no analytical method is needed because this information is not required for the establishment of a tolerance exemption. Contact: Kerry Leifer, (703) 308-8811, e-mail address: leifer.kerry@ epa.gov.

2. PP 1E7860. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0526). Joint Inerts Task Force, Cluster Support Team 9, EPA Company Number 84943, c/o CropLife America, 1156 15th St., NW., Suite 400, Washington, DC 20005, requests to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of Nonylphenol Ethoxylate Phosphate and Sulfate Derivatives (NPEPSD) under the following descriptors and compounds under 40 CFR 180.910 (pre- and post-harvest uses) and 40 CFR 180.930 (animal uses) not to exceed 7% in pesticide formulations when used as a pesticide inert ingredient:

NPE Phosphate Derivatives (NPEPD): α-(p-Nonylphenyl)-ω-hydroxypoly(oxyethylene) mixture of dihydrogen phosphate and mono hydrogen phosphate esters and the corresponding ammonium, calcium, magnesium, monoethanolamine, potassium, sodium, and zinc salts of the phosphate esters; the nonyl group is a propylene trimer isomer and the poly(oxyethylene) content averages 4-14 moles or 30 moles (Chemical Name (CAS No.)): Poly (oxy-1, 2-ethanediyl), α-(nonylphenyl)-ω-hydroxy-, phosphate (51811-79-1); Ethanol, 2-amino-, compd. with α-(nonylphenyl)-ω-hydroxypoly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl) phosphate (59139-23-0); Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), α-(nonylphenyl)-ω-hydroxy-, phosphate, magnesium salt Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), α-(nonylphnyl)-ω-hydroxy-, phosphate, magnesium salt (67922-57-0); Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), α-(4-nonylphenyl)-ω-hydroxy-, phosphate, sodium salt (68412-53-3); Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), α-(4-nonylphenyl)-ω-hydroxy-, phosphate, sodium salt (68553-97-9); Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), α-(4-nonylphenyl)-ω-hydroxy-, phosphate, sodium salt (68553-97-9); Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), α-(nonylphenyl)-ω-hydroxy-, branched, phosphate, sodium salt (68954-84-7); Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), α-(nonylphenyl)-ω-hydroxy-, phosphate, calcium salt (99821-14-4); Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), α-(4-nonylphenyl)-ω-hydroxy-, branched, phosphates (152143-22-1); Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), α-(4-nonylphenyl)-ω-hydroxy-, phosphate (51609-41-7); Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), α-(nonylphenyl)-ω-hydroxy-, phosphate, sodium salt (37340-60-6); Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), α-phosphono-ω-(4-nonylphenoxy)-, dipotassium salt (106151-63-7); Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), α-(nonylphenyl)-ω-hydroxy-, branched, phosphates, potassium salts (68584-47-4); Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), α-(nonylphenyl)-ω-hydroxy-, phosphate-, potassium salt (52503-15-8); Polyphosphoric acids, esters with polyethylene glycol nonylphenyl ether (68458-49-1).

NPE Sulfate Derivatives (NPESD): α-(p-nonylphenol)-ω-hydroxypoly(oxyethylene) sulfate, ammonium, calcium, magnesium, potassium, sodium, and zinc salts the nonyl group is propylene trimer isomer and the poly(oxyethylene) content averages 4 moles (Chemical Name (CAS No.)): Poly (oxy-1, 2-ethanediyl), α-sulfo-ω-(nonylphenoxy), sodium salt (9014-90-8); Poly (oxy-1, 2-ethanediyl), α-sulfo-ω-(nonylphenoxy), ammonium salt (9051-57-4); Poly (oxy-1, 2-ethanediyl), α-sulfo-ω-(nonylphenoxy), acid (9081-17-8); Poly (oxy-1, 2-ethanediyl), α-sulfo-ω-(nonylphenoxy), branched, ammonium salt (68649-55-8); Poly (oxy-1, 2-ethanediyl), α-sulfo-ω-(nonylphenoxy), branched (68891-33-8).

The petitioner believes no analytical method is needed because this information is not required for the establishment of a tolerance exemption. Contact: Kerry Leifer, (703) 308-8811, e-mail address: leifer.kerry@ epa.gov.

3. PP 1E7875. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0583). Akzo Nobel Surface Chemistry, LLC, 909 Mueller Ave., Chattanooga, TN 37406, requests to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of 2-propanoic acid, 2-methyl-, polymer with methyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate and alpha-(2-methyl-1-oxo-2-propen-1-yl)-omega-methoxypoly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl, graft (CAS No. 111740-36-4) when used as a pesticide inert ingredient as a dispersant in pesticide formulations under 40 CFR 180.960. This petition requests the elimination of the need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of methacrylic acid-methyl methacrylate-polyethylene glycol monomethyl ether methacrylate graft copolymer in or on all raw agricultural commodities. The petitioner believes no analytical method is needed because this information is generally not required when all criteria for polymer exemption per 40 CFR 723.250 are met. Akzo Nobel is petitioning for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without any numerical limitations. Contact: Alganesh Debesai, (703) 308-8353, e-mail address: debesai.alganesh@ epa.gov.

4. PP 1E7879. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0587). Loveland Products, Inc., 3005 Rocky Mountain Ave., Loveland, CO 80538, requests to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of 2-hydroxy-4-methoxybenzophenone (common name) (HMB), (CAS nomenclature: methanone, (2-hydroxy-4-methoxyphenyl) phenyl-; CAS No. 131-57-7) when used as a pesticide inert ingredient as a UV-stabilizer at no more than 25% in pesticide formulations under 40 CFR 180.920 (pre-harvest uses). This petition proposes to establish exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of 2-hydroxy-4-methoxybenzophenone (HMB) in or on all raw agricultural commodities. The petitioner believes no analytical method is needed because the petition proposes to establish exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance and no analytical method is generally required for establishment of a tolerance exemption. Contact: Deirdre Sunderland, (703) 603-0851, e-mail address: sunderland.deirdre@ epa.gov.

5. PP 1E7880. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0606). Clariant Corporation, 4000 Monroe Rd., Charlotte, NC 28205, requests to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), α-hydro-ω-hydroxy-, Mn 17000 amu and CAS No. 25322-68-3 under 40 CFR 180.960 when used as a pesticide inert ingredient in pesticide formulations as a solubilizer without limitations. Clariant Corporation is petitioning that Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), α-hydro-ω-hydroxy- be exempt from the requirement of a tolerance based upon the definition of a low-risk polymer under 40 CFR 723.250. Therefore, an analytical method to determine residues on treated crops is not relevant. Contact: Elizabeth Fertich, (703) 347-8560, e-mail address: fertich.elizabeth@ epa.gov.

This document extends the public comment period established in the Federal Register for 30 days from September 20, 2011 to October 20, 2011. In that Federal Register notice, EPA proposed revising certain exclusions from the definition of solid waste for hazardous secondary materials intended for reclamation that would otherwise be regulated under subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (76 FR 44094). The purpose of these proposed revisions is to ensure that the recycling regulations, as implemented, encourage reclamation in a way that does not result in increased risk to human health and the environment from discarded hazardous secondary material. Several requests were received from potential commentors, to extend the comment period. EPA is hereby extending the comment period, which was set to end on September 20, 2011, to October 20, 2011.

To submit comments, or access the docket, please follow the detailed instructions as provided under ADDRESSES . If you have questions, consult the individuals listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

Status: The meeting will be open to the public.

Purpose: The purpose of the Negotiated Rulemaking Committee on Designation of Medically Underserved Populations and Health Professional Shortage Areas is to establish criteria and a comprehensive methodology for designation of Medically Underserved Populations (MUPs) and Primary Care Health Professional Shortage Areas (HPSAs), using a Negotiated Rulemaking (NR) process. It is hoped that use of the NR process will yield a consensus among technical experts and stakeholders on a new rule for designation of MUPs and Primary Care HPSAs, which would be published as an Interim Final Rule in accordance with Section 5602 of the Affordable Care Act, Public Law 111-148.

Agenda: The meeting will include a discussion of various components of a possible methodology for identifying areas of shortage and underservice, based on the recommendations of the Committee in the previous meeting. The agenda will be available on the Committee's Web site ( http://www.hrsa.gov/advisorycommittees/shortage/ ) one day prior to the meeting. Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.

For members of the public interested in participating in the webinar, please contact LaCrystal McNair by e-mail at lmcnair@hrsa.gov. Requests to attend can be made up to two days prior to the meeting. Participants will receive an e-mail response containing the link to the webinar. Requests to provide written comments should be sent to LaCrystal McNair by e-mail at least 10 days prior to the meeting. Members of the public will have the opportunity to provide written comments before and after the meeting.

The Committee is working under tight timeframes to meet the reporting requirement in the Affordable Care Act. Due to the complexity of the issue, the Committee has been granted additional time to meet its final report deadline. As a result, meetings were added to the Committee schedule. The logistical challenges of expanding the meeting schedule hindered an earlier publication of this meeting notice.

A. Regulatory Process

Rules, Regulations and Standards issued by the Cost Accounting Standards (Board) are codified at 48 CFR chapter 99. The Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act, at 41 U.S.C. 1502(c) [formerly, 41 U.S.C. 422(g)], requires the Board, prior to the establishment of any new or revised Cost Accounting Standard, to complete a prescribed rulemaking process. The process generally consists of four steps.

The CAS Board has completed step one of the statutory rulemaking process, which required the Board to consult with interested persons concerning the advantages, disadvantages, and improvements anticipated in the pricing and administration of Government contracts as a result of the adoption of a proposed Standard. This notice announces the discontinuation of the rulemaking after completing step one of the four-step process in accordance with the requirements at 41 U.S.C. 1502(c).

The CAS Board opened a review of the CAS 403 operating revenue thresholds at the urging of interested parties, an industry group and a Federal agency. They recommended revisions to the CAS operating revenue thresholds for determining whether a contractor is required to use the three factor formula to allocate residual home office expenses to the segments. To update the thresholds to reflect the changed economic and business environment since they were initially established, the parties took different approaches to revising the thresholds. One party advocated that the operating revenue thresholds be raised by 400 percent to reflect the changes in the consumer price index (CPI) from 1973 to 2003. The other party urged the Board to conduct a Staff Study, similar to that performed by the Board to establish the current thresholds. On February 13, 2008, the CAS Board published a Staff Discussion Paper (SDP) on the Allocation of Home Office Expenses to Segments as the first step in its review to determine whether the current CAS 403 thresholds should be revised (73 FR 8260).

Three respondents submitted comments in response to the SDP. Two respondents supported a comprehensive study to determine the appropriate operating revenue thresholds at 48 CFR 9904.403-40(c)(2) for the application of the three factor formula described at 48 CFR 9904.403-50(c)(1), while another respondent supported adjusting the current thresholds by the change in the CPI. The arguments for the comprehensive study included the development of objective data to understand the impact of adjusting the operating revenue thresholds upon contractors subject to the three factor formula, and the possibility to measure the relationship of residual expenses to operating revenue for a representative contractor population. An impediment to conducting the comprehensive study is the time and effort required to compile and evaluate the data. In support of adjusting the current operating revenue thresholds by the change in the CPI, a respondent argued that the CPI is readily available and an independent, objective measure, while the Staff Study will require significant time and effort to accomplish without any certainty that the results would materially differ or be demonstrably superior to a CPI indexing approach. The other respondents noted that increasing the current thresholds by the change in the CPI was arbitrary and would risk exposing the acquisition community to the same underlying conditions which caused the CAS Board to promulgate CAS 403 originally.

Response: The CAS Board noted the arguments provided by the respondents.

After reviewing the comments and regulatory history of CAS 403, the CAS Board believes that it would be prudent to discontinue the review of the CAS 403 three factor formula operating revenue thresholds at this time. No evidence has been presented to the Board that the current thresholds are creating an inequity, or that adjusting the thresholds would substantially change the outcome, i.e., the pool of contractors required to use the three factor formula to allocate residual home office expenses to the segments would not change significantly. The Board will revisit the issue in the future if circumstances warrant doing so.

A. Regulatory Process

Rules, Regulations and Standards issued by the Cost Accounting Standards Board (Board) are codified at 48 CFR chapter 99. The Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act, at 41 U.S.C. 1502(c) [formerly, 41 U.S.C. 422(g)], requires the Board, prior to the establishment of any new or revised Cost Accounting Standard, to complete a prescribed rulemaking process. The process generally consists of four steps.

The Board has already completed step one of the statutory rulemaking process, which requires the Board to consult with interested persons concerning the advantages, disadvantages, and improvements anticipated in the pricing and administration of government contracts as a result of the adoption of a proposed Standard. This notice announces the discontinuation of the rulemaking after completing step one of the four-step process in accordance with the requirements at 41 U.S.C. 1502(c).

In a letter dated September 26, 2000, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics requested that the Board consider whether the word “catastrophic” in the term “catastrophic losses” should be replaced with a term such as “significant” or “very large” in 9904.416-50(b)(1) in order to (a) more closely align the Standard with what was intended by its original promulgators and (b) eliminate any confusion between 9904.416-50(b)(1) and FAR 31.205-19, Insurance cost. At its May 13, 2005 meeting, the CAS Board directed the staff to begin work on a Staff Discussion Paper (SDP). On January 26, 2006, the Board published the SDP, “Accounting for Insurance Costs” (71 FR 4335) which in particular, addressed the use of the term “catastrophic losses” in CAS 416.

The Board received public comments from two respondents to the SDP. One respondent was concerned whether the term “catastrophic losses” is intended to create a classification of event characterized by rare occurrence and significant loss, or whether it is only the magnitude of a given loss that is defining as “catastrophic.” This respondent believed that self-insurance should be an acceptable method to cover catastrophic losses, such as earthquakes and wind damage, as well as “other significant and non-recurring losses such as unusually large medical claims, major fires, or other losses that are significantly higher than might normally be expected.” A primary concern was that “the FAR, however, does not definitively address their allowability and CAS is unclear how costs for such significant actual self insured losses are to be measured and reflected in projected annual average losses.”

The other respondent recommended that the CAS Board take no further action and close this case. This respondent referred to the observation in the SDP that FAR 31.205-19 and CAS 416 both use the word “catastrophic” to refer to infrequent and unpredictable events involving major losses. The respondent believed there is no conflict between allocability under CAS 416 and allowability under FAR 31.205-19(e), explaining his belief as follows:

In deciding to discontinue rulemaking on this case, the Board reviewed the history of the development of the CAS and the FAR provisions on the term “catastrophic losses.” The CAS Board was clearly addressing the allocation of large losses from infrequent and unpredictable events in paragraph (6) of the preamble to CAS 416 (43 FR 42239, September 20, 1978), which stated:

After reviewing the comments and the history of the CAS rules, the Board believes use of the term “catastrophic losses” in CAS 416 is consistent with the intent of its original promulgators that a “catastrophic loss” is “very large in relation to the average loss per occurrence for that exposure,” is “expected to occur infrequently,” and is dependent “on the individual circumstances of each contractor.” The original promulgators intended the definition of what constitutes a “catastrophic loss” be part of the contractor's cost accounting practice where the determination of what constitutes a catastrophic loss “should be made at the time the internal loss-sharing policy is established and should be revised, as necessary, for changes in future circumstances.” (See Preamble to CAS 416 (43 FR 42239, Sept. 20, 1978).)

Although CAS 416 has been in effect for over 30 years, the respondents provided no data on problems or disputes related to the meaning of the term “catastrophic losses.” At this time, the Board believes that no amendments to CAS 416 regarding the use of the term “catastrophic losses” are necessary and is hereby discontinuing further rulemaking in this case.

Background

In our May 5, 2011, proposed rule (76 FR 26086), we specifically recognized the eastern wolf (Canis lycaon) as a full species. Within the proposed rule, we recognized three wolf species with ranges in the conterminous United States: Canis lupus (gray wolf), Canis lycaon (eastern wolf), and Canis rufus (red wolf). We also recognized that the ranges of C. lupus and C. lycaon overlap in the Western Great Lakes region, and the population of wolves in the Western Great Lakes region includes both gray wolf and eastern wolf. However, the available evidence suggested the range of C. lupus did not otherwise historically overlap with the ranges of C. lycaon or C. rufus in the eastern United States. Thus, the May 5, 2011, proposed rule reflected our understanding that the wolf species that historically occupied the northeastern United States was the eastern wolf and the wolf species that historically occupied the southeastern United States was the red wolf. Accordingly, we proposed to revise the gray wolf listing to remove those States.

The comment period for that proposed rule closed on July 5, 2011. We received significant comments from States and other stakeholders highlighting the controversy in North American wolf taxonomy. As such, we are reopening the comment period to provide further information regarding the taxonomic interpretation recognized in the May 5, 2011, proposed rule and seek comment as to the best scientific and commercial data available regarding the recognition of Canis lycaon as a full species. In part, this conclusion was based on information summarized in a manuscript prepared by Service employees that is currently undergoing review for publication (Chambers et al., in prep.).

On May 5, 2011, we simultaneously reissued our April 2, 2009, final rule that identified the Northern Rocky Mountain (NRM) population of gray wolf as a distinct population segment (DPS) and revised the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife by removing most of the gray wolves in the DPS (76 FR 25590). This action became effective upon publication in the Federal Register . The May 5, 2011, proposed rule did not reflect language from our separate May 5, 2011, final rule delisting most of the NRM DPS. The proposed rule language below corrects this to reflect the current status of those wolves. Finally, it is also worth noting that we received several comments on our May 5, 2011, proposal requesting that we further subdivide the proposal into regional pieces. Thus, we are hereby providing notice that we are considering issuing separate final rules for our final determinations on the delisting of the Western Great Lakes DPS and the delisting of all or portions of the 29 States outside the historical range of the gray wolf, which may itself be split into separate rules for the Northeast and the Southeast.

We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal will be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we hereby request data, comments, new information, or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, Tribes, industry, or any other interested party concerning this proposed rule. We particularly seek comments concerning:

(1) The taxonomic classification of wolves in the midwestern and northeastern United States as described in a Service manuscript prepared by Chambers et al., in particular the recognition of the eastern wolf (Canis lycaon) as a full species.

(2) Any other relevant information regarding wolves in eastern North America.

You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES . We request that you send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES . Comments must be submitted to http://www.regulations.gov before midnight (Eastern Daylight Time) on the date specified in DATES. All comments that were submitted during the earlier public comment period will be included as part of the administrative record for this action and need not be resubmitted.

We will post your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—on http://www.regulations.gov. If you provide personal identifying information, such as your street address, phone number, or e-mail address, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule including the Chambers et al. manuscript (in prep), will be available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R3-ES-2011-0029; on the Service's Internet site at http://www.fws.gov/midwest/wolf/; or by appointment, during normal business hours at the following Ecological Services offices:

• Twin Cities, Minnesota Ecological Services Field Office, 4101 American Blvd. E., Bloomington, MN; 612-725-3548.

• Green Bay, Wisconsin Ecological Services Field Office, 2661 Scott Tower Dr., New Franken, WI; 920-866-1717.

• East Lansing, Michigan Ecological Services Field Office, 2651 Coolidge Road, Suite 101, East Lansing, MI; 517-351-2555.

• New England Ecological Services Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 70 Commercial St., Suite 300, Concord, NH; 603-223-2541.

Accordingly, we propose to further amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as proposed to be amended at 76 FR 26086, May 5, 2011, as follows:

We wish to ensure that any final action resulting from this proposed rule will be based on information that is as accurate as possible. Therefore, we invite tribal and governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, and other interested parties to submit comments or recommendations concerning any aspect of this proposed rule, the revised draft SEIS, or the IFRA. Comments should be as specific as possible. In addition, please include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to authenticate any scientific or commercial data you reference or provide. In particular, we seek comments concerning the following:

(1) The reasons why the southern sea otter translocation program, including the management and translocation zones and associated regulations, should or should not be terminated, including information that supports the need for any changes to the proposed rule;

(2) Current or planned activities in the subject area and their possible effects on southern sea otters that have not been adequately considered in the proposed rule, revised draft SEIS, and IRFA;

(3) Any foreseeable economic or other impacts resulting from the proposed termination of the southern sea otter translocation program that have not been adequately considered in the proposed rule, revised draft SEIS, and IRFA;

(4) Any substantive information on real or potential effects on southern sea otters of the proposed termination of the southern sea otter translocation program that have not been adequately considered in the proposed rule, revised draft SEIS, and IRFA; and

(5) Any actions that could be considered in lieu of, or in conjunction with, the proposed rule that would provide equivalent opportunity for the recovery of the southern sea otter.

Prior to issuing a final rule on this proposed action, we will take into consideration all comments and any additional information we receive. Such information may lead to a final rule that differs from this proposal. All comments and recommendations, including names and addresses, will become part of the supporting record.

You may submit your comments and materials concerning the proposed rule, revised draft SEIS, or IRFA by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will not accept comments sent by e-mail or fax or to an address not listed in the ADDRESSES section. Finally, we will not consider hand-delivered comments that we do not receive, or mailed comments that are not postmarked, by the date specified in the DATES section. Comments must be submitted to http://www.regula-tions.gov before midnight (Eastern Time) on the date specified in the DATES section.

We will post your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—at http://www.regulations.gov. If your written comment includes your street address, phone number, or e-mail address, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post hardcopy submissions at http://www.regulations.gov. Please note that comments submitted to this Web site are not immediately viewable. When you submit a comment, the system receives it immediately. However, the comment will not be publicly viewable until we post it, which might not occur until several days after submission.

Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be available for public inspection at http://www.regulations.gov, or by appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ).

We have scheduled two formal public hearings to afford the general public and all interested parties with an opportunity to make formal oral comments or to submit written comments in person on the proposed rule, revised draft SEIS, or IRFA.

We will hold the public hearings at the locations listed in ADDRESSES on the dates listed in DATES . The public hearings will last from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. We will hold a public informational open house prior to each hearing from 5 pm to 6 pm to provide an additional opportunity for the public to gain information and ask questions about the proposed rule. This open house session should assist interested parties in preparing substantive comments on the proposed rule.

Persons needing reasonable accommodations in order to attend and participate in a public hearing should contact the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, at the address or phone number listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section as soon as possible. In order to allow sufficient time to process requests, please contact us for assistance no later than one week before the hearing.

Written comments submitted during the comment period receive equal consideration with comments presented at a public hearing. All comments we receive at the public hearing, both verbal and written, will be considered in making our final decision.

On January 14, 1977, we listed the southern sea otter as a threatened species under the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ), on the basis of its small population size, its greatly reduced range, and the potential risk from oil spills (42 FR 2965). We established a recovery team for the species in 1980, and approved a recovery plan on February 3, 1982. In the recovery plan, we identified the translocation of southern sea otters as an effective and reasonable recovery action, acknowledging that a translocated southern sea otter colony could impact shellfish fisheries that had developed in areas formerly occupied by southern sea otters. The objectives of southern sea otter translocation, as stated in the 1982 recovery plan, included: (1) Establishing a second colony (or colonies) sufficiently distant from the parent population such that a smaller portion of the southern sea otter range would be affected in the event of a large-scale oil spill; and (2) establishing a database for identifying the optimal sustainable population level for the southern sea otter. We anticipated that translocation would ultimately result in a larger population size and a more continuous distribution of animals throughout the southern sea otter's historic range.

Under the ESA, the Secretary has inherent authority to establish new or translocated populations of listed species. Section 10(j) of the ESA provides the Secretary with additional flexibility to relax the protective provisions of the ESA when translocating a population of a listed species by allowing the Secretary to designate the translocated population as an experimental population. However, the southern sea otter is protected under both the ESA and the MMPA, and at the time, the MMPA did not contain similar provisions. This inconsistency was resolved in the case of the southern sea otter translocation program by the passage of Public Law (Pub. L.) 99-625 (Fish and Wildlife Programs: Improvement; Section 1. Translocation of California Sea Otters) on November 7, 1986, which specifically authorized development of a translocation plan for southern sea otters administered in cooperation with the affected State.

If the Secretary of the Interior chose to develop a translocation plan under Pub. L. 99-625, the plan was required to include: (1) The number, age, and sex of southern sea otters proposed to be relocated; (2) the manner in which southern sea otters were to be captured, translocated, released, monitored, and protected; (3) specification of a zone into which the experimental population would be introduced (translocation zone); (4) specification of a zone surrounding the translocation zone that did not include the range of the parent population or adjacent range necessary for the recovery of the species (management zone); (5) measures, including an adequate funding mechanism, to isolate and contain the experimental population; and (6) a description of the relationship of the implementation of the plan to the status of the species under the ESA and determinations under section 7 of the ESA. The purposes of the management zone were to: (1) Facilitate the management of southern sea otters and the containment of the experimental population within the translocation zone; and (2) prevent, to the maximum extent feasible, conflicts between the experimental population and fishery resources within the management zone. Any southern sea otter found within the management zone was to be treated as a member of the experimental population. We were required to use all feasible, nonlethal means to capture southern sea otters in the management zone and to return them to the translocation zone or to the range of the parent population.

On August 15, 1986, we published a proposed rule to establish an experimental population of southern sea otters at San Nicolas Island, Ventura County, California, in conjunction with a management zone from which sea otters would be excluded (51 FR 29362). Concurrently, we released a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) that analyzed the impacts of six alternatives, which included establishing a program to translocate southern sea otters from their then-current range along the central coast of California to areas of the northern coast of California, the southern coast of Oregon, or San Nicolas Island off the coast of southern California. We identified translocation to San Nicolas Island as our preferred alternative, with the management zone including the coastline from Point Conception to the Mexican border and all of the offshore islands except San Nicolas Island. On May 8, 1987, we made available our final EIS (52 FR 17486). A detailed translocation plan meeting the requirements of Public Law 99-625 was included as an appendix to the final EIS. On August 11, 1987, we published a final rule providing implementing regulations for the translocation program (52 FR 29754); these regulations are codified at 50 CFR 17.84(d). These regulations define the boundaries of the translocation and management zones, provide the framework for the program, and include a set of criteria for determining if the translocation should be considered a failure.

The purpose of the southern sea otter translocation program was to: (1) Implement a primary recovery action for the southern sea otter; and (2) obtain data for assessing southern sea otter translocation and containment techniques, population dynamics, ecological relationships with the nearshore community, and effects on the donor population of removing individual southern sea otters for translocation (52 FR 29754; August 11, 1987). The translocation of southern sea otters was intended to advance southern sea otter recovery, with the ultimate goal of delisting the species under the ESA. Through translocation, we hoped to establish a self-sustaining southern sea otter population (experimental population) that would provide a safeguard in the event that the parent southern sea otter population was adversely affected by a catastrophic event, such as an oil spill. We expected that, to achieve this aim, the colony at San Nicolas Island would need to grow to a size such that it could remain viable while furnishing up to 25 sea otters per year for up to 3 years to repopulate affected areas of the parent range. Based on the magnitude of oil spills that had occurred up to that time, San Nicolas Island appeared to be sufficiently distant from the parent range to provide a reasonable safeguard in the event of such a catastrophic occurrence.

On August 24, 1987, we began to implement the translocation plan by moving groups of southern sea otters from the coast of central California to San Nicolas Island. The translocation plan allowed for a maximum of 70 southern sea otters to be moved to San Nicolas Island during the first year of the program (USFWS 1987). This number could be supplemented with up to 70 animals annually (up to 250 total) in subsequent years, if necessary, to ensure the success of the translocation and to prevent the colony from declining into an irreversible downward trend. Assuming that a core population of 70 southern sea otters could be maintained through translocation, we anticipated that the experimental population could be established within as few as 5 or 6 years. In this context, the term “established” had a specific meaning: When at least 150 southern sea otters resided at the island and the population had a minimum annual recruitment of 20 animals (52 FR 29754; August 11, 1987).

Between August 1987 and March 1990, we captured 252 southern sea otters along the central California coast and released 140 at San Nicolas Island. More than 100 of the captured sea otters were deemed unsuitable for translocation and released near their capture sites, and 6 of the 252 animals died of stress-related conditions before translocation to San Nicolas Island. Some sea otters died as a result of translocation, many swam back to the parent population, and some moved into the management zone. As of March 1991, approximately 14 independent (non-pup) southern sea otters (10 percent of those translocated) were thought to remain at the island.

Because of the unexpected mortalities and high emigration encountered during the first year, we amended our regulations for the translocation program in 1988 (53 FR 37577; September 27, 1988). The amendments were intended to minimize stress on captured sea otters, to improve the survival of translocated animals, and to minimize the dispersal of translocated sea otters from the translocation zone. Specifically, we provided more flexibility in selecting the ages of sea otters for translocation, eliminated the restriction to capture them only within an August to mid-October timeframe, eliminated the requirement to move a specified number of sea otters previously implanted with transmitters, provided the flexibility either to transport them immediately or to hold them on the mainland before releasing them at San Nicolas Island, and eliminated the requirement to translocate a minimum of 20 animals at a time.

The fate of approximately half the sea otters taken to San Nicolas Island was never determined, although an intense effort was made to locate translocated animals at San Nicolas Island, in the management zone, and in the parent range. In 1991, we stopped translocating sea otters to San Nicolas Island due to high rates of dispersal and poor survival. However, we continued monitoring the sea otters remaining in the translocation zone.

In December 1987, in coordination with the California Department of Fish and Game, we began capturing and moving southern sea otters that entered the designated management zone. Containment efforts were intended to keep the management zone free of otters, in accordance with Public Law 99-625 and our implementing regulations. Containment operations consisted of three interdependent activities: (1) Surveillance of the management zone; (2) capture of southern sea otters in the management zone; and (3) relocation of captured animals to the parent range or San Nicolas Island.

Between December 1987 and February 1993, 24 southern sea otters were captured, removed from the management zone, and released in the parent range. Of these, two sea otters were captured twice in the management zone, despite being released at the northern end of the parent range after their first removal. In February 1993, two sea otters that had been recently captured in the management zone were found dead shortly after their release in the range of the parent population. In total, four sea otters were known or suspected to have died within 2 weeks of being moved from the management zone. We were concerned that sea otters were dying as a result of our containment efforts; therefore, in 1993, we suspended all sea otter capture activities in the management zone to evaluate capture and transport methods. We recognized that available capture techniques, which had proven to be less effective and more labor-intensive than originally predicted, were not an efficient means of containing sea otters. From 1993 to 1997, few sea otters were reported in the management zone, and there appeared to be no immediate need to address sea otter containment. In 1997, the California Department of Fish and Game notified us that it intended to end its sea otter research project and would no longer be able to assist if we resumed capturing sea otters in the management zone.

In 1998, a group of approximately 100 southern sea otters moved from the parent range into the northern end of the management zone, inaugurating a pattern of seasonal movements of large numbers of sea otters into and out of the management zone. Subsequent radio-telemetry studies have determined that these animals are moving great distances throughout their range and are an important component of the population ( i.e, the same territorial males that hold territories and sire pups within the center of the range may be found seasonally aggregated in “male areas,” often at the range ends) (Tinker et al. 2006). At the same time, rangewide counts of the southern sea otter population indicated a decline of approximately 10 percent between 1995 and 1998. In light of the decline in the southern sea otter population, we were concerned about the potential effects on the parent population of moving the large number of southern sea otters that had moved into the management zone. We asked the Southern Sea Otter Recovery Team, a team of biologists with expertise pertinent to southern sea otter recovery, for their recommendation regarding the capture and removal of southern sea otters in the management zone. The recovery team recommended that we not move southern sea otters from the management zone to the parent population because moving large groups of southern sea otters and releasing them within the parent range would be disruptive to the social structure of the parent population. We agreed with their recommendation.

In order to notify stakeholders of our intended course of action, we held two public meetings in August 1998. At these meetings, we provided information on the status of the translocation program, solicited general comments and recommendations, and announced that we intended to reinitiate consultation under section 7 of the ESA for the containment program and to begin the process of evaluating the failure criteria established for the translocation program. Subsequent to these meetings, the group of technical consultants (a body composed of representatives from the fishery and environmental communities, as well as State and Federal agencies) to the Southern Sea Otter Recovery Team was expanded to assist in evaluating the translocation program. We provided updates on the translocation program and the status of the southern sea otter population to the California Coastal Commission, the Marine Mammal Commission, and the California Fish and Game Commission in 1998 and 1999.

In March 1999, we distributed a draft evaluation of the translocation program to interested parties for their comment. The draft document included the recommendation that we declare the translocation program a failure because fewer than 25 sea otters remained in the translocation zone, and reasons for the translocated sea otters' emigration or mortality could not be identified or remedied. We received comments from State and Federal agencies and the public following release of the draft for review. Some comments supported declaring the translocation program a failure, while others opposed it. The majority of respondents cited new information that became available after publication of our 1987 EIS and record of decision for the program. Many respondents encouraged us to look at new alternatives that were not identified in our 1987 EIS or corresponding implementing regulations.

During the same period, we prepared a draft biological opinion, pursuant to section 7 of the ESA, evaluating the containment aspects of the southern sea otter translocation program. We distributed the draft to interested parties for comment on March 19, 1999, and issued a final biological opinion on July 19, 2000. Our reinitiation of consultation was prompted by the receipt of substantial new information on the population status, behavior, and ecology of the southern sea otter that revealed adverse effects of containment that were not previously considered. In the biological opinion, we cited the following information and circumstances as prompting reinitiation:

(1) In 1998 and 1999, southern sea otters moved into the management zone in much greater numbers than in previous years;

(2) Analysis of carcasses indicated that southern sea otters were being exposed to environmental contaminants and diseases that could be affecting the health of the population throughout California;

(3) Rangewide counts of southern sea otters indicated that numbers were declining;

(4) Recent information, in particular the observed effects of the Exxon Valdez oil spill, indicated that southern sea otters at San Nicolas Island would not be isolated from the potential effects of a single large oil spill; and

(5) The capture and release of large groups of southern sea otters could result in substantial adverse effects on the parent population.

The biological opinion concluded with our assessment that continuation of the containment program would likely jeopardize the continued existence of the species on the grounds that: (1) Reversal of the southern sea otter's population decline is essential to the survival and recovery of the species, whereas continuation of containment could cause the direct deaths of individuals and disrupt social behavior in the parent range, thereby exacerbating population declines; and (2) expansion of the southern sea otter's distribution is essential to the survival and recovery of the species, whereas continuation of the containment program would artificially restrict the range to the area north of Point Conception, thereby increasing the vulnerability of the species to oil spills, disease, and stochastic events.

On July 27, 2000, we published in the Federal Register a notice of intent to prepare a supplement to our 1987 EIS on the southern sea otter translocation program (65 FR 46172), and on January 22, 2001, we issued a policy statement regarding the capture and removal of southern sea otters in the designated management zone (66 FR 6649). Based on our July 2000 biological opinion, we determined that the containment of southern sea otters was not consistent with the requirement of the ESA to avoid jeopardy to the species. The notice advised the public that we would not capture and remove southern sea otters from the management zone pending completion of our reevaluation of the southern sea otter translocation program, which would include the preparation of a supplement to our 1987 EIS and release of a final evaluation of the translocation program that contains an analysis of failure criteria.

Public scoping meetings were announced in the July 27, 2000, issue of the Federal Register (65 FR 46172) and were held in Santa Barbara, California, on August 15, 2000, and in Monterey, California, on August 17, 2000. We also convened the technical consultants to the Southern Sea Otter Recovery Team on September 26, 2000, to discuss scoping of the supplement. In April 2001, we published a scoping report that identified alternatives we would consider in the supplement and summarized comments received during the scoping period.

On April 3, 2003, we made available our Final Revised Recovery Plan for the Southern Sea Otter (68 FR 16305; USFWS 2003, http://www.fws.gov/ventura/ ). This document updated the original recovery plan published in 1982. The revised recovery plan incorporated significant revisions, including a shift in focus from translocation as a primary recovery action to efforts to reduce the mortality of prime-aged animals. Based on the recommendations of the recovery team, the revised recovery plan concluded that additional translocations were not the best way to accomplish the objective of increasing the range and number of southern sea otters in California. According to the revised plan, range expansion of sea otters in California would occur more rapidly if the existing population were allowed to recover autonomously than it would under a recovery program that included actively translocating sea otters. The revised plan also recommended that it would be in the best interest of southern sea otter recovery to declare the translocation program a failure, to discontinue maintenance of an otter-free zone, and to allow the sea otters currently at San Nicolas Island to remain there.

On October 7, 2005, we made available a draft SEIS on the translocation program (70 FR 58737). A draft evaluation of the translocation program was included as Appendix C. We solicited comments on both the draft SEIS and the draft evaluation during the public comment period, which began October 7, 2005 (70 FR 58737), and ended March 6, 2006 (70 FR 77380). Comments we received during the 5-month comment period, including those addressing the translocation program evaluation, are summarized in Appendix G to the revised draft SEIS.

As of December 2010, up to 46 independent southern sea otters have been counted at San Nicolas Island. Dependent pups are frequently observed with these animals. Data from quarterly counts indicate that the population has fluctuated between 13 and 46 individuals since July 1990. One sea otter pup was born at San Nicolas Island during the first year of the translocation program (1987-88), and new pups have been observed in each subsequent year. At least 151 pups are known to have been born at the island since the program's inception.

At present, it is likely that most, if not all, of the southern sea otters at San Nicolas Island are offspring of those originally translocated to the island. This is because the original animals were translocated more than 2 decades ago, and the average life expectancy of southern sea otters in the wild is 10 to 15 years. Although it is possible that sea otters could disperse from the mainland range to San Nicolas Island, we have no information to indicate that any exchange of animals between these two locations has occurred subsequent to the return of many of the translocated sea otters to the mainland range in the early years of the program. To date, we have gathered a significant amount of data to assess capture, transport, reintroduction, and containment techniques. However, the goal of implementing a primary recovery action for the southern sea otter remains unfulfilled. The original intention, to create a colony that would provide a safeguard in the event that the parent southern sea otter population was adversely affected by a catastrophic event, such as an oil spill, has not been accomplished.

Concurrent with publication of this proposed rule, we are releasing a revised draft SEIS. The revised draft SEIS updates and responds to comments received on the draft SEIS released in 2005, discusses details of the events of the translocation program from 1982 to the present, analyzes a range of alternatives for the southern sea otter translocation program, and includes a detailed draft evaluation of the program as Appendix C. The preferred alternative in the revised draft SEIS is to terminate the southern sea otter translocation program and, further, to allow southern sea otters in the former translocation and management zones to remain there upon termination of the program. Allowing sea otters to remain at San Nicolas Island and in the management zone upon termination of the translocation program is contrary to 50 CFR 17.84(d)(8)(vi) of the current regulations, which requires removal of sea otters from both locations if the translocation program is terminated. This proposed rule would implement the recommendations of the Final Revised Recovery Plan for the Southern Sea Otter, which is also the preferred alternative in the revised draft SEIS. This proposed rule would terminate the southern sea otter translocation program through removal of the regulations at 50 CFR 17.84(d) that established and govern implementation of the translocation program. Among the regulatory requirements that would be eliminated by the removal of 50 CFR 17.84(d), in its entirety, is the current requirement to remove sea otters from San Nicolas Island and from the management zone if the translocation program is terminated.

Public Law 99-625 authorized southern sea otter translocation and provided requirements for a southern sea otter translocation plan should we pursue such a plan. It did not address the possibility of the program's failure. As a consequence, it did not specify criteria that would be used to determine whether the program had failed, nor did it recommend actions that should be taken in the case of failure. When we developed the translocation plan and implementing regulations for the program, we received public comment asking us to define what constituted failure of the program and what actions we would take if the program failed. We responded by delineating specific failure criteria in the 1987 Translocation Plan (52 FR 29754; August 11, 1987).

The purpose of the failure criteria was to identify circumstances under which we would generally consider the translocation program to have failed. The five failure criteria were defined before any translocations of southern sea otters were undertaken and without the benefit of what we know today about the translocation, containment, and recovery needs of southern sea otters. The criteria focus on the status of the translocated population and, in hindsight, do not address all the circumstances that are relevant to a complete evaluation of the program. For example, the failure criteria do not address the possibility that containment might not be successfully accomplished because of southern sea otters entering the management zone from the mainland range rather than from the population at San Nicolas Island, the possibility that the founding population of the San Nicolas Island colony might be fewer than 70 animals, or even the possibility that an “established” population at San Nicolas Island (as defined at 52 FR 29754; August 11, 1987) may be insufficient to attain the recovery goals established for the program. Similarly, the failure criteria do not anticipate the possibility that the capture and relocation of sea otters from the management zone could result in the deaths of some animals. Ultimately, failure is determined by our inability to attain the objectives of the translocation program, which are clearly set out in the final rule for the establishment of an experimental population of southern sea otters (52 FR 29754; August 11, 1987).

In the draft translocation program evaluation (Appendix C to the revised draft SEIS), we find that the translocation program meets failure criterion 2. A summary of our analysis of each failure criterion in the draft translocation program evaluation is given below.

Criterion 1: If, after the first year following initiation of translocation or any subsequent year, no translocated southern sea otters remain within the translocation zone, and the reasons for emigration or mortality cannot be identified and/or remedied.

Criterion 1 has not been met. Southern sea otters have been observed in the translocation zone at San Nicolas Island every year since the beginning of the program.

Criterion 2: If, within 3 years from the initial transplant, fewer than 25 southern sea otters remain in the translocation zone and the reason for emigration or mortality cannot be identified and/or remedied.

Criterion 2 has been met. The initial transplant occurred in August 1987. Within 3 years of the initial transplant (August 1990), a maximum of 17 sea otters (14 independent animals and 3 pups) resided in the translocation zone.

We chose to delay declaring the translocation program a failure in 1990 because southern sea otters were reproducing, dispersal into the management zone had abated, and the California Department of Fish and Game expressed a desire to continue zonal management of southern sea otters. Although sea otters at the island continue to reproduce, the colony remains small to this day; dispersal of sea otters from the parent range into the management zone is now regularly occurring; and the California Department of Fish and Game informed us in 1997 that it would no longer be able to assist us if we resumed capturing sea otters in the management zone.

We consider emigration from San Nicolas Island to be the primary reason for the small size of the population (17 sea otters, including pups) remaining at the island within 3 years of the initial transplant. Fifty-four (54) translocated sea otters were later detected elsewhere (either back in the mainland range or in southern California waters). The number of sea otters resighted in the mainland range (36), despite the absence of a focused effort to identify them there (efforts were focused instead at San Nicolas Island and in the management zone), suggests that additional sea otters may have returned without being detected. There is some evidence of sea otter mortality at San Nicolas Island (three sea otters were found dead at San Nicolas Island within days of being translocated), but no additional deaths of translocated sea otters at San Nicolas Island were verified. Of the animals that remain unaccounted for, it seems likely that most either emigrated successfully and escaped further detection or attempted to emigrate but died before reaching suitable habitat.

Although high rates of dispersal had been seen in all earlier sea otter translocations (Estes et al. 1989), we believed that the translocation to San Nicolas Island would not result in the significant dispersal of animals because of the abundance of prey items, the apparent suitability of the habitat, and the perceived barrier imposed by the surrounding deep water. After the first year of translocation, we made significant changes to the program with the intent of minimizing or eliminating emigration (53 FR 37577; September 27, 1988). These changes were implemented during the second year of the program, when we selected younger sea otters for translocation, transported sea otters more quickly and in smaller groups, abandoned the use of holding pens at the island, and released newly translocated sea otters in the vicinity of sea otters already residing at the island. Despite our efforts, none of these changes appeared to result in a decrease in emigration. In the final year of the translocation effort, we attempted to gain more information on sea otter movements by implanting radio transmitters in sea otters immediately prior to their transport to San Nicolas Island. Two of the initial three southern sea otters that received implants died before they could be transported to the island, causing us to abandon this effort.

We conclude that the translocation program has failed under criterion 2. We believe that emigration from San Nicolas Island is the primary reason that substantially fewer than 25 otters remained in the translocation zone within 3 years of the initial transplant. Although we modified the program significantly after the first year in an attempt to reduce emigration and otherwise reduce sea otter mortality associated with the program, we were unable to remedy the situation. Therefore, failure criterion 2 has been met.

The fact that the translocation program has failed under criterion 2 does not necessarily mean that the sea otter colony at San Nicolas Island is destined to disappear. In fact, it appears to have a low cumulative probability of extinction (Carswell 2008). However, the final rule establishing the program clearly states, “The Service does not consider the mere presence of sea otters in the translocation zone as an indication that a new population is established” (52 FR 29754 at 29774; August 11, 1987). The colony would be considered “established” when at least 150 southern sea otters resided at the island and the population had a minimum annual recruitment of 20 animals (52 FR 29754 at 29774; August 11, 1987). The initial high rate of dispersal of translocated sea otters from San Nicolas Island is the primary cause of failure under this criterion not only because of its direct effect on the subsequent size of the San Nicolas Island colony, but also because of its implications for the recovery strategy at the heart of the program: the intended function of the San Nicolas Island population as a self-sustaining “reserve colony for providing stock to restore subsequently damaged areas” in the southern sea otter's range (52 FR 29754 at 29774; August 11, 1987). The high rate of dispersal of translocated sea otters suggests it is unlikely that the colony will ever be large enough to supply the numbers of sea otters necessary to perform a successful translocation and re-establishment of population in the mainland range if the parent population were reduced or eliminated by a catastrophic event.

Criterion 3: If, after 2 years following the completion of the transplant phase, the experimental population is declining at a significant rate, and the translocated southern sea otters are not showing signs of successful reproduction ( i.e., no pupping is observed); however, termination of the project under this and the previous criterion may be delayed, if reproduction is occurring and the degree of dispersal into the management zone is small enough that the effort to remove southern sea otters from the management or no-otter zone would be acceptable to us and the affected State.

We are unable to evaluate whether the program has failed under criterion 3 because we never reached the minimum number of sea otters at San Nicolas Island required to complete the transplant phase of the program. The translocation plan defines the transplant phase as ending when there are at least 70 healthy southern sea otters of mixed ages and sexes within the translocation zone and we determine that the population is increasing due to natural reproduction. Although we translocated twice this number, we never achieved the requisite core population of 70 animals.

From a practical perspective, however, the transplant phase ended when the last sea otter was translocated to the island in 1990. The population declined at a significant rate from the program's inception in 1987 to 1993, at which time the number of independent sea otters at the island was 12. Although pups were observed from 1987 to 1993, there appeared to be little or no recruitment into the population. The 15 sea otters at the island in 1993 (12 independent animals and 3 pups) were fewer than the minimum number (25) required to avoid a declaration of failure under failure criterion 2; however, under provisions of failure criterion 3 we could delay termination of the program because pupping was occurring and dispersal of translocated sea otters into the management zone had abated.

The experimental population has fluctuated in number since 1993, and now appears to be increasing overall; reproduction continues to occur. Although pupping is occurring, it is not certain that the San Nicolas colony will persist. If it does persist, it will have been founded on a small subset of the core number of 70 healthy sea otters of mixed ages and sexes that were intended to found the population, a fact that has implications for the genetic makeup of the resulting population. The current rate of emigration from the island is unknown, but we now know that the deep ocean channels surrounding the island do not present the anticipated barrier to dispersal.

Criterion 4: If we determine, in consultation with the affected State and the Marine Mammal Commission, that southern sea otters are dispersing from the translocation zone and becoming established within the management zone in sufficient numbers to demonstrate that containment cannot be successfully accomplished. This standard is not intended to apply to situations in which individuals or small numbers of southern sea otters are sighted within the management zone or temporarily manage to elude capture. Instead it is meant to be applied when it becomes apparent that, over time (1 year or more), southern sea otters are relocating from the translocation zone to the management zone in such numbers that: (1) An independent breeding colony is likely to become established within the management zone; or (2) they could cause economic damage to fishery resources within the management zone. It is expected that we could make this determination within a year, provided that sufficient information is available.

Technically, criterion 4 has not been met. This criterion clearly specifies that the program would be declared a failure if sea otters moved from the translocation zone and became established in the management zone. The criterion does not strictly apply if animals immigrate into the management zone from the parent range. Nevertheless, beginning in 1998, large groups (50 to 150 individuals) of sea otters have seasonally moved into the management zone from the parent range. Since 2006, monthly surveys have counted an average of 40 otters with considerable variation over time (standard deviation of +/− 19) (K.D. Lafferty, USGS, pers. comm. 2011). In January 2011, three pups were detected, suggesting that a permanent breeding colony may be establishing itself in the management zone. Commercial fishing interests contend that local shellfish populations available to the fishery have been reduced by the presence of these sea otters.

The difficulties associated with sea otter capture and transport, our concern for the welfare of animals removed from the management zone, the adverse effects of sea otter containment on the parent population, and the adverse effects on fisheries are concerns regardless of whether sea otters enter the management zone from the parent range or from San Nicolas Island. Although criterion 4 is specific and applies only to sea otters originating from San Nicolas Island, our experience with sea otters entering the management zone from either the parent range or the translocation zone indicates that successful containment of sea otters, or maintenance of an “otter-free” management zone, cannot be accomplished by simply capturing animals in the management zone and moving them to another location.

Criterion 5: If the health and well-being of the experimental population should become threatened to the point that the colony's continued survival is unlikely, despite Federal and State laws. An example would be if an overriding military action for national security was proposed that would threaten to devastate the colony and the removal of southern sea otters was determined to be the only viable way of preventing loss of the colony.

Criterion 5 has not been met. The experimental population at San Nicolas Island, although small and vulnerable, has persisted. There are no proposed Federal, State, or local actions that threaten to devastate the colony. The Department of Defense is responsible for the majority of human activity at San Nicolas Island. They have conferred with us and given consideration to southern sea otters when developing projects at San Nicolas Island. To date, no projects have posed a threat to the colony.

We therefore conclude that the translocation program has failed under Criterion 2. Criterion 3 cannot be evaluated. Criteria 1, 4, and 5 have not been met.

The primary purpose of the southern sea otter translocation program was to advance southern sea otter recovery, with the ultimate goal of delisting the species. Based on a broader evaluation of the translocation program against the goals for which it was undertaken and current recovery goals, in concert with the failure criteria established for the program's assessment, we again conclude that the translocation program has failed. It has failed to fulfill its purpose, and our recovery and management goals for the species cannot be met by continuing the program.

The San Nicolas Island sea otter colony remains small, and its future is uncertain. Even if the colony were to become established, the resulting population would not likely be sufficient to ensure survival of the species should the parent population be adversely affected by a widespread catastrophic event. Recovery of the southern sea otter will ultimately depend on the growth and expansion of the southern sea otter's range. Although we recognize that there are conflicts between an expanding sea otter population and fisheries that have developed in the absence of sea otters, zonal management of sea otters has proven to be ineffective and compromises the ability of the species to recover.

We therefore propose to terminate the translocation program and remove the regulations at 50 CFR 17.84(d) in their entirety. This proposed action would:

○ Terminate the designation of the experimental population of southern sea otters;

○ Abolish the southern sea otter translocation and management zones;

○ Eliminate future actions, required under the current regulations, to capture and relocate southern sea otters for the purposes of establishing an experimental population or restricting movements of southern sea otters into an “otter-free” management zone; and

○ Allow southern sea otters to expand their range naturally into southern California waters.

Removal of the translocation program regulations in their entirety would also eliminate the current requirement at 50 CFR 17.84(d)(8)(vi) to remove southern sea otters from San Nicolas Island and from the management zone upon termination of the program.

Public Law 99-625 states that the Service, through the Secretary of the Interior, “may” develop and implement a plan for the relocation and management of sea otters, and then goes on to specify what must be included if such a plan is developed. Therefore, termination of the translocation program and removal of the regulations governing the program would render the specific provisions of Public Law 99-625 inoperative. The translocation and management zones would be abolished, and the exemptions under Public Law 99-625 from the duty to consult under section 7 of the ESA for defense-related activities within the former translocation zone and for all Federal activities within the former management zone, as well as the exemption from the incidental take prohibitions of the ESA and the MMPA for activities within the former management zone, would end.

Any incidental take by a Federal agency (authorized through the ESA section 7 process) or by a State or tribal government or private entity (authorized through the ESA section 10 process) would also have to be authorized under the MMPA. Under both the ESA and the MMPA, incidental take is prohibited unless it has been authorized. Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA states that we may authorize the taking of small numbers of marine mammals within a specified geographical region over periods of not more than 5 consecutive years, provided we find that the total of such taking during the period will have a negligible impact on the species or stock. Section 101(a)(5)(D) allows for similar authorization, for not more than 1 year for the incidental taking by harassment of only small numbers of marine mammals. Provisions specific to military readiness activities may also apply to the authorization of incidental take under the MMPA for defense-related agency actions.

The incidental take authorization provisions under section 101(a)(5) of the MMPA apply to activities other than commercial fishing. Take incidental to commercial fishing is authorized under different provisions of the MMPA. However, because of specific amendments to the provisions under section 118, incidental take of southern sea otters in commercial fisheries cannot be authorized under the MMPA. Therefore, incidental take of southern sea otters by commercial fisheries in southern California waters would be prohibited, as it is now throughout the remainder of the range of the species (north of Point Conception). All intentional take would continue to be prohibited, as it is under the current regulatory environment, unless authorized under both the ESA and the MMPA.

Federal agencies proposing actions (including the permitting or funding of actions proposed by non-Federal entities) that may affect southern sea otters anywhere in southern California waters, including all actions planned within the former management zone and defense-related actions in the former translocation zone, would be required to consult with the Service under section 7 of the ESA, as they do now within the remainder of the species' range. Under section 7, we must determine whether a proposed Federal action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the southern sea otter. Our determination is made through the issuance of a biological opinion at the conclusion of the consultation stating our opinion whether the action, if carried out as proposed, is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species. If we conclude the proposed action would likely result in jeopardy, we also indicate any reasonable and prudent alternatives to the proposed action that would meet its intended purpose while avoiding jeopardy to the southern sea otter. If a proposed action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the southern sea otter, it may not go forward unless the Federal action agency applies for and is granted an exemption under section 7(h) of the ESA. If we determine that the proposed Federal action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the southern sea otter, we may include an incidental take statement that exempts take of sea otters incidental to the proposed action from the take prohibition of section 9 of the ESA. Our incidental take statement would include terms and conditions that must be complied with to minimize the effects of any incidental take by the Federal action agency. In addition, the entity conducting the action would need to obtain incidental take authorization under the MMPA (discussed below).

The current exemption under State law for incidental take of southern sea otters in the management zone would also end once the translocation program is declared a failure. While California Fish and Game Code Section 4700 generally prohibits the take of southern sea otters, section 8664.2 of the Fish and Game Code provides that “the taking of a sea otter that is incidental to, and not for the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity within the sea otter management zone * * * is not a violation of the California Endangered Species Act * * * or Section 4700.” Section 8664.2 further provides, “this section shall become inoperative if the sea otter translocation experiment is declared a failure pursuant to the provisions of Public Law 99-625.”

To the extent otherwise allowable under State law, proposed non-Federal activities in California that would result in take of southern sea otters if the translocation program is terminated would require an incidental take permit from the Service under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA. Among other requirements, an applicant for an incidental take permit under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA must submit a conservation plan that we find minimizes and mitigates the impacts of the proposed take to the maximum extent practicable. In addition, we must find that the proposed take will avoid appreciably reducing the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the southern sea otter in the wild.

An economic analysis for this proposed rule and associated alternatives is included in our revised draft SEIS on the translocation of southern sea otters. A copy of the revised draft SEIS is posted on http://www.regulations.gov and may also be obtained from the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section). When compared to the existing baseline (suspension of southern sea otter translocation and containment), the proposed rule and subsequent actions would have no economic effects except possible indirect effects that may occur as a result of regulatory changes. The benefits to fisheries that may result from enforcing a southern sea otter management zone and retaining incidental take exemptions within this zone are included in our economic analysis for comparative purposes.

We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998 to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule we publish must:

(1) Be logically organized;

(2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;

(3) Use clear language rather than jargon;

(4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and

(5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.

If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us comments by one of the methods listing in the ADDRESSES section. To help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long, the section where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.

In accordance with the criteria in Executive Order 12866, this rule is not a significant regulatory action. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) makes the final determination under Executive Order 12866. OMB bases its determination on the following four criteria:

(1) Whether the rule will have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy or adversely affect an economic sector, productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of the government.

(2) Whether the rule will create inconsistencies with other Federal agencies' actions.

(3) Whether the rule will materially affect entitlements, grants, user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their recipients.

(4) Whether the rule raises novel legal or policy issues.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996), whenever a Federal agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities (such as small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency certifies that the rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Thus, for a regulatory flexibility analysis to be required, impacts must exceed a threshold for “significant impact” and a threshold for a “substantial number of small entities.” See 5 U.S.C. 605(b). SBREFA amended the RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Federal courts have held that an RFA analysis should be limited to impacts on entities subject to the requirements of the regulation, but not entities that may be indirectly affected by the regulation. This proposed rule directly affects only southern sea otters and their regulatory status in southern California waters with respect to the ESA and MMPA. Economic effects potentially resulting from future regulatory changes applicable to commercial fisheries and effects of sea otter range expansion on the nearshore marine environment, including the availability of certain prey species for harvest by commercial fishers, are indirect. The Service does not have direct regulatory authority over marine fisheries. Therefore, there are no direct effects on small businesses from the proposed termination of the translocation program. In spite of these rulings, in its guidance to Federal agencies on conducting screening analyses, the Small Business Administration (SBA) recommends considering impacts on entities that may be indirectly affected by the proposed regulation. Therefore, we prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), which we briefly summarize below, to accompany this rule.

The Service is proposing to terminate the southern sea otter translocation program and to allow all sea otters in southern California waters at the time of the program's termination to remain there. We are proposing this action because we have concluded, in a draft translocation program evaluation, that the program has failed to meet its objectives and that our recovery and management goals for the species under the ESA and MMPA cannot be met by continuing it. The Service has management authority for the southern sea otter, which is listed as “threatened” under the ESA and is considered “depleted” under the MMPA, and is authorized by regulations (50 CFR 17.84(d)(8)) implementing the translocation program under Pub. L. 99-625 to promulgate a rule to terminate the translocation program if we determine the program has failed.

A detailed economic analysis for this proposed rule and associated alternatives is included in the revised draft SEIS. The following discussion estimates the baseline and the expected economic effects of terminating the southern sea otter translocation program.

The purpose of this rule is to propose: To terminate the southern sea otter translocation program, to allow all sea otters to remain where they are upon termination of the program, and to remove the experimental population designation from the sea otters at San Nicolas Island. This action would allow southern sea otters to recolonize their historic range throughout southern California. We define the baseline (status quo) as the current physical and regulatory environment ( i.e., the biological and socioeconomic environment resulting from management practices that have been in place since 1993). These practices include the suspension of containment activities in the management zone. Using the current physical and regulatory environment (rather than the environment as it might be today if containment activities had not been suspended) as the baseline is essential to an accurate characterization of present conditions and to predictions of how conditions would change under each of the alternatives under consideration in the revised draft SEIS. Under baseline (current) conditions, southern sea otter movement throughout the species' range is not restricted or contained. Under the proposed rule, containment activities would not be resumed. Southern sea otters would have the ability, as they have since 1993, to continue to expand their range into southern California waters southeast of Point Conception, and to increase in number at San Nicolas Island. Accordingly, the economic effects of both the baseline and the proposed rule are the same (in that sea otters are allowed to expand their range naturally in both cases) except in the case of potential indirect economic effects on gill and trammel net fisheries stemming from regulatory changes, which we describe below. This statement should not be interpreted to mean that economic changes are not expected to occur as a result of natural range expansion. An expanding sea otter population will have numerous effects, including effects on certain commercial and recreational fisheries and the industries that depend on them. Effects of all the alternatives under consideration in the revised draft SEIS are examined in detail in that document, including an alternative that would entail resuming full implementation of the translocation program and its associated translocation and management zones (Alternative 1), the economic effects of which we present here for comparison.

Here and in the revised draft SEIS, we limit the quantitative analysis to a 10-year time horizon. (In the revised draft SEIS, we additionally describe long-term economic and other effects, but in qualitative terms only.) The rationale for limiting the quantitative analysis to 10 years is based in part on the extent of uncertainty involved in predicting sea otter range expansion, in part on the indirect nature of most projected impacts (and hence possible changes over time in the relationship between sea otter presence and resultant impacts), and in part on the uncertainty associated with management regimes and economic conditions beyond 10 years.

The uncertainty involved in predicting range expansion stems from: (1) The possibility that the southern sea otter range expansion model (Tinker et al. 2008a), although it is the best available, may not capture all population dynamics that might ultimately prove to be relevant to range expansion; and (2) the possibility that future variation in the vital rates and movements of southern sea otters, on which predictions are based, will be different from what has been observed in the past. The uncertainty arising from the indirect nature of most impacts stems from the fact that (1) any departure from predicted range expansion will also change associated impacts, and (2) changes in the ecosystem resulting from the presence of sea otters may occur differently than anticipated because of changes in a multitude of other variables unrelated to the presence of sea otters, such as global climate change, the spread of novel diseases or invasive species, or human activity (overexploitation of marine organisms, inputs of pollutants, and so forth). The uncertainty associated with management regimes and economic conditions results from the fact that (1) fisheries may open, close, or be subject to permit or gear restrictions for reasons unrelated to the presence or absence of sea otters, and (2) commercial fisheries revenues are driven largely by market forces (which are themselves influenced by the global economic environment) that determine consumer demand. Because of these manifold sources of uncertainty, we believe it is unreasonable to attempt to establish a baseline for the impact topics we consider, and thus to attempt to quantify impacts, beyond a limited time horizon. Although the choice of 10 years rather than 5 or 15 years is somewhat arbitrary, a review of past changes in southern sea otter population dynamics and commercial fisheries landings indicates that a 10-year time horizon represents a reasonable timeframe within which to quantify impacts. Whether sea otters would re-occupy other areas of the Southern California Bight in subsequent years would be a function of sea otter demographic rates, food supply, and other variables. Based on past rates of range expansion, it is expected that sea otters would not be present in most areas of southern California for decades.

To capture some of the uncertainty involved in forecasting range expansion, we present range expansion in terms of upper and lower confidence bounds. To the extent that the range expansion model captures the key population dynamics and that future variation in vital rates and movements is not fundamentally different from the range of variation already observed, these bounds have a 95-percent probability of encompassing the realized range expansion. Within the 10-year time horizon, economic effects are projected for two areas where sea otter numbers are expected to increase under baseline conditions: (1) The coastline from Point Conception to Carpinteria (lower 95 percent confidence bound) or Oxnard (upper 95 percent confidence bound), and (2) San Nicolas Island. We project that an expanding sea otter population will have economic effects on commercial fisheries (sea urchin, crab, lobster, and sea cucumber), recreational fisheries (lobster), and the sea urchin processing industry in southern California. Assumptions underlying the economic analysis are described in Chapter 6 of the revised draft SEIS. Numerous other non-economic effects are expected to occur as a result of sea otter range expansion within 10 years. We discuss these effects in the revised draft SEIS, but because these effects are difficult or impossible to quantify in economic terms, we do not discuss them here.

Baseline. Selected fisheries, both commercial (sea urchin, crab, lobster, and sea cucumber) and recreational (lobster), would likely be eliminated in mainland coastline areas predicted to be re-occupied by sea otters over the next 10 years: Point Conception to Carpinteria (lower bound) or Oxnard (upper bound). These fisheries are also likely to be affected, to some degree, by a growing sea otter population at San Nicolas Island. During this period, commercial sea urchin landings averaging 56,360 to 61,016 pounds annually along the affected portion of the mainland coastline are expected to be eliminated. Average annual landings at San Nicolas Island are expected to be reduced from 351,333 pounds to 324,280 pounds. These losses represent 1 percent and 0.2 percent, respectively, of annual commercial sea urchin landings in southern California. Commercial lobster landings averaging 54,674 to 75,649 pounds annually along the affected portion of the mainland coastline are expected to be eliminated. Average annual landings at San Nicolas Island are expected to be reduced from 41,622 pounds to 38,417 pounds. These losses represent 8 to 11 percent and 0.4 percent, respectively, of annual commercial lobster landings in southern California. Commercial crab landings averaging 253,572 to 385,743 pounds annually along the affected portion of the mainland coastline are expected to be eliminated. Average annual landings at San Nicolas Island are expected to be reduced from 10,634 pounds to 9,816 pounds. These losses represent 23 to 35 percent and 0.06 percent, respectively, of annual commercial crab landings in southern California. Commercial sea cucumber landings averaging 155,714 to 158,636 pounds annually along the affected portion of the mainland coastline are expected to be eliminated. Average annual landings at San Nicolas Island are expected to be reduced from 53,683 to 49,549 pounds. These losses represent 27 to 28 percent and 1.5 percent, respectively, of annual commercial sea cucumber landings in southern California. Also during this 10-year period, the seafood processing industry would be affected by the declining sea urchin harvest. However, because the decline in sea urchin harvest represents less than 2 percent of the sea urchin harvest in southern California over the next 10 years, anticipated impacts on the seafood processing industry would be negligible.

With respect to the recreational dive industry, lobster dive trips on commercial passenger fishing vessels along the affected mainland coastline are negligible. Dive trips at San Nicolas Island are expected to be reduced from an annual average of 434 to 401. This loss represents approximately 0.5 percent of total dive trips taken annually in southern California, assuming divers do not choose to dive at a different location. In the longer term, those areas re-occupied by sea otters would likely cease to support commercial and recreational shellfish fisheries, but the magnitude and timing of this potential change is unknown.

Economic Effects of Proposed Rule (Alternative 3C). This proposed rule would not result in economic effects beyond those described above for baseline conditions, except in the case of potential indirect economic effects stemming from regulatory changes, namely the elimination of incidental take exemptions associated with the management zone upon termination of the translocation program. Federal agencies planning activities that may affect sea otters in southern California would be required to consult with the Service under the ESA, and if their activities would result in take of southern sea otters, to seek authorization for incidental take under both the ESA and the MMPA. The economic effects of this change are expected to be negligible in the context of already existing consultation and permitting requirements for other endangered or threatened species and marine mammals under the ESA and MMPA, particularly in light of the fact that few otherwise legal activities result in take of southern sea otters and the expectation that sea otters would not be present in most areas of southern California for decades. If otherwise allowable under applicable State law, non-Federal activities that would result in take of southern sea otters in California would require an incidental take permit from the Service under the ESA and authorization for incidental take of sea otters under the MMPA. Incidental take of southern sea otters in commercial fisheries cannot be authorized under the MMPA. Therefore, incidental take of southern sea otters in commercial fisheries throughout southern California would be prohibited, as it is currently prohibited in the remainder of the range of the species (north of Point Conception, California).

Gill and trammel nets are known to be lethal to sea otters (Herrick and Hanan 1988; Wendell et al. 1986; Cameron and Forney 2000; Carretta 2001; Forney et al. 2001). Therefore, the regulatory changes associated with this proposed rule may indirectly affect portions of the commercial halibut and white seabass fisheries utilizing gill and trammel net gear. The use of gill and trammel nets is already banned throughout much of California. With respect to southern California, the Marine Resources Protection Act of 1990 (California Constitution Article 10B) prohibits the use of gill and trammel nets in waters less than 70 fathoms or within 1 mile of the Channel Islands, whichever is less, and generally within 3 nautical miles offshore of the mainland coast from Point Arguello to the Mexican border. However, some areas within southern California waters are characterized by a relatively shallow shelf that extends beyond the area currently closed to gill net fishing. The primary fisheries using gill and trammel net gear in these areas target halibut and white seabass. Effects on these fisheries would occur if the State acted, in response to regulatory changes associated with this rule, to extend the existing gill and trammel net closure in southern California waters to depths that would be fully protective of sea otters. Furthermore, effects would occur only in areas where sea otters are not already fully protected, and likely only in areas that sea otters were expected to recolonize in the near future. (A closure to protect sea otters would not likely be imposed in areas where sea otters did not occur and were not expected to occur in the near future.) No effects would occur at San Nicolas Island because incidental take by commercial fisheries is currently prohibited within the translocation zone and would continue to be prohibited upon termination of the program.

Estimated annualized costs for the commercial halibut fishery range from $0 (no additional closure) to $250,000 (immediate closure of the affected area), representing a loss of 0 to 21 percent to the commercial halibut fishery in southern California. To calculate the present value for a 10-year time period, the social discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent are applied per OMB guidance. The 10-year present value impact to the commercial halibut fishery would be approximately $2.2 million discounted at 3 percent or $1.7 million discounted at 7 percent. Estimated annualized costs for the white seabass fishery range from $0 (no additional closure) to $285,000 (immediate closure of the affected area), representing a loss of 0 to 42 percent to the commercial white seabass fishery in southern California. The 10-year present value impact to the commercial white seabass fishery would be approximately $2.3 million discounted at 3 percent or $1.7 million discounted at 7 percent. Estimates of maximum effects represent an upper bound. Realized effects are likely to be lower because (1) the State may not impose an immediate closure, (2) participants in the fishery already using alternate gear would benefit from the increased availability of halibut and white seabass, and (3) participants in the fishery using gill and trammel nets may switch gear or choose to fish elsewhere.

Economic Effects from Enforcement of the Management Zone (Alternative 1). As discussed, this proposed rule (Alternative 3C) would not result in any additional economic effects compared to the baseline, except the potential indirect effects stemming from regulatory changes summarized above. For comparison purposes, we present the economic effects that would occur if southern sea otters were excluded from the management zone through a resumption of zonal management under Alternative 1. These effects are further detailed in the revised draft SEIS. Implementation of sea otter containment in the management zone would affect the coastline southeast of Point Conception. Sea otters have been seasonally sighted in the Cojo Anchorage area since 1998. Since 2006, monthly surveys have counted an average of 40 otters with considerable variation over time (standard deviation of +/− 19) (K.D. Lafferty, USGS, pers. comm. 2011). The enforcement of containment in the management zone, if fully successful, would remove any sea otters from these areas and re-establish an otter-free management zone, thereby possibly increasing fishery harvests and also increasing the Service's administrative costs. The cost to the Service of implementing a zonal management program to contain southern sea otter range expansion over 10 years would total approximately $4.3 million discounted at 7 percent or $5.6 million discounted at 3 percent.

Effects on fisheries could occur due to (1) increased shellfish populations resulting from the elimination of sea otter predation currently occurring within the management zone ( i.e., the restoration of a pre-sea otter baseline), and (2) increased shellfish populations due to the future containment of sea otters. These estimates differ from the baseline not only in direction but also in magnitude because the baseline does not account for effects on commercial and recreational fisheries that would result from the removal of sea otters that are currently in the management zone. If sea otter containment in the management zone were to be enforced and fully successful, then the estimated annualized ex-vessel revenue benefit for the commercial sea urchin, lobster, crab, and sea cucumber fisheries would be $184,000 to $186,000, $420,000 to $530,000, $210,000 to $310,000, and $116,000 to $118,000, respectively, relative to the baseline. To calculate the present value for a 10-year time period, the social discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent are applied per OMB guidance. Discounted at 3 percent, the 10-year present value impact for the commercial sea urchin, lobster, crab, and sea cucumber fisheries would be $1.4 to $1.5 million, $3.2 to $4.1 million, $1.6 to $2.4 million, and $893,000 to $903,000, respectively. Discounted at 7 percent, the 10-year present value impact for the commercial sea urchin, lobster, crab, and sea cucumber fisheries would be $1.1 million, $2.3 to $2.9 million, $1.1 to $1.7 million, and $641,000 to $653,000, respectively. Minor positive effects on the sea urchin processing industry could result from an increase in sea urchin landings, depending on operating capacity and consumer demand. Recreational dive trips may increase along the coastline from Point Conception to Santa Barbara, but this increase is expected to result in negligible economic benefit because the mainland coastline is not an important area for recreational lobster diving.

Potential impacts to small businesses, such as owners of halibut fishing vessels and white seabass fishing vessels, are summarized below. For more information pertaining to the economic impacts, please refer to the revised draft SEIS.

The SBA defines a “small business” as one with an annual revenue or number of employees that meets or is below an established size standard. The SBA “small business” size standard is $4 million for “Finfish Fishing” and “Shellfish Fishing” (North American Industry Code (NAICS) 114111 and 114112) and fewer than 500 employees for “Fresh and Frozen Seafood Processing” (NAICS 311712). Most of the businesses in the finfish and shellfish fishing industries have fewer than 5 employees, and all of the businesses in the seafood processing industry have fewer than 500 employees. Therefore, all businesses participating in these industries are considered “small businesses.” The numbers of commercial fishing vessels participating in selected southern California fisheries in the area expected to be affected within 10 years and in southern California as a whole are shown in Table 1. Although some establishments may own more than one vessel, we utilize the vessel estimate provided by California Department of Fish and Game to ensure a conservative approach to our analysis of the number and proportion of small entities affected ( i.e., we may overestimate the number and proportion of small entities affected).

The proposed rule would not result in any effects on small entities, relative to the baseline, except potential indirect economic impacts stemming from regulatory changes by the State. Thus, the sea urchin, lobster, crab, and sea cucumber industries would not be impacted by the proposed rule. However, an additional gill and trammel net closure, if imposed by the State in response to the elimination of incidental take exemptions associated with the management zone, would affect portions of the halibut and white seabass fisheries utilizing gill and trammel net gear in Santa Barbara County and Ventura County within the next 10 years. Industries in Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, Santa Barbara, and Ventura Counties (hereafter referred to collectively as “southern California”) are included in the analysis because of their proximity to the affected area.

Estimates of the relative impact on vessels and the number of vessels affected may be overestimates because the data available to us do not allow us to account for vessels participating in multiple fisheries. Additionally, estimates of relative impact are averages ( i.e., some vessels will be more affected than others in the same fishery). All estimates of decreases in ex-vessel revenues assume that fishers would not choose to fish elsewhere or with alternate gear and hence would not supplement their revenues or increase harvest pressure in other areas. Finally, ex-vessel values reflect gross rather than net revenues and thus overestimate impacts because they fail to account for the savings in boat fuel and labor that could be re-employed elsewhere if commercial fishing activity in affected areas were reduced. Ex-vessel revenue and vessel number data are from the California Department of Fish and Game.

Table 2 shows the potential indirect effects if the State closes additional areas to gill and trammel net fishing in Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties. Potential indirect annualized effects on the commercial halibut fishery range from $0 (no additional closure) to $250,467 (immediate closure of the affected area), representing a loss to the commercial halibut fishery in southern California of 0 to 41 percent of landings made using gill and trammel net gear only (or 0 to 21 percent of all halibut landings) relative to the baseline. Potential indirect annualized effects on the commercial white seabass fishery range from $0 (no additional closure) to $284,638 (immediate closure of the affected area), representing a loss to the commercial white seabass fishery in southern California of 0 to 44 percent of landings made using gill and trammel net gear only (or 0 to 42 percent of all white seabass landings) relative to the baseline.

For comparison purposes, we analyze the effects on small entities that would occur if southern sea otters were excluded from the management zone through a resumption of zonal management (full implementation of the translocation program) as detailed in the revised draft SEIS under Alternative 1. These effects are also indirect and stem from estimated impacts of sea otter predation on species targeted by commercial shellfish fisheries. If zonal management were resumed as described under Alternative 1 in the revised draft SEIS, the following industries would be affected, relative to the baseline: (1) Shellfish Fishing (NAICS 114112), and (2) Seafood Manufacturing (NAICS 3117). Industries that support recreational diving are not included here because economic impacts to those entities are expected to be negligible, as shown in the baseline section. Under baseline conditions, changes over the next 10 years are expected to occur along the coastlines of Santa Barbara County and Ventura County as a result of a naturally expanding sea otter population. Alternative 1 would prevent this expansion and would entail the removal of sea otters currently residing within the management zone. Enforcement of a management zone, if successful, would benefit commercial shellfish fisheries because competition with sea otters would be eliminated. Industries in southern California are included in the analysis because of their proximity to the affected area. Within the shellfish fishing industry, we analyze four fisheries in depth: The sea urchin fishery, lobster fishery, crab fishery, and sea cucumber fishery. These predation effects are expected to occur under the baseline and under implementation of the proposed rule, but would not occur if sea otters were excluded from all southern California waters except those surrounding San Nicolas Island, as would be required under Alternative 1.

Impacts under Alternative 1 are summarized in Table 3. Potential indirect annualized effects on the commercial sea urchin fishery are estimated to be $184,054 to $186,140 relative to the baseline, representing a gain to the commercial sea urchin fishery in southern California of 3 percent of landings relative to the baseline. Potential indirect annualized effects on the commercial lobster fishery are estimated to be $419,812 to $528,611 relative to the baseline, representing a gain to the commercial lobster fishery in southern California of 6 to 7 percent of landings relative to the baseline. Potential indirect annualized effects on the commercial crab fishery are estimated to be $207,601 to $311,647 relative to the baseline, representing a gain to the commercial crab fishery in southern California of 15 to 16 percent of landings relative to the baseline. Potential indirect effects on the commercial sea cucumber fishery are estimated to be $116,157 to $118,338 relative to the baseline, representing a gain to the commercial sea cucumber fishery in southern California of 15 percent of landings relative to the baseline. Minor positive indirect effects on the sea urchin processing industry could result from an increase in sea urchin landings, depending on operating capacity and consumer demand. Thirty-two (32) seafood product preparation and packaging entities meet the SBA “small business” size standard in southern California. Maximum benefits would reflect the gain to the commercial sea urchin fishery in southern California of 3 percent of landings relative to the baseline.

Under Alternative 1, the regulatory environment for fishing would remain unchanged relative to the baseline. Because any potential effects on the portion of the halibut and seabass fisheries using gill and trammel net gear would stem from regulatory changes, there is no effect on these two fisheries.

Under Alternative 1, impacts to the sea urchin processing industry would be a positive function of the change in sea urchin landings. Impacts to the sea urchin processing industry would be dependent upon whether individual companies are operating at capacity and whether they are capable of processing different seafood products. If companies are operating at capacity, then there may be room for growth in the industry for an additional company. If companies are not operating at capacity, then revenues may increase in relation to any increase in raw product. Companies receiving sea urchins harvested along the affected coastline would be disproportionately affected. Because of the expected 3 percent increase in sea urchin inputs from the Southern California Bight, Alternative 1 is not expected to have a significant impact on the seafood processing industry.

Amendment of Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations to remove § 17.84(d) is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Our draft economic analysis concludes that removal of 50 CFR 17.84(d):

(a) Would not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. The maximum annualized ex-vessel revenue loss to the halibut and white seabass industries would be $535,105 (10-year present value of $4.5 million discounted at 7 percent and $3.4 million discounted at 3 percent).

(b) Would not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions.

(c) Would not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.

In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. ), the Service makes the following findings:

(a) This proposed rule would not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, tribal governments, or the private sector and includes both “Federal intergovernmental mandates” and “Federal private sector mandates.” These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). “Federal intergovernmental mandate” includes a regulation that “would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments” with two exceptions. It excludes “a condition of federal assistance.” It also excludes “a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program,” unless the regulation “relates to a then-existing Federal program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State, local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority,” if the provision would “increase the stringency of conditions of assistance” or “place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's responsibility to provide funding” and the State, local, or tribal governments “lack authority” to adjust accordingly. (At the time of enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; AFDC work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement.) “Federal private sector mandate” includes a regulation that “would impose an enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of Federal assistance; or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program.”

The proposed rule to terminate the southern sea otter translocation program does not impose a legally binding duty on non-Federal government entities or private parties.

(b) We do not believe that this rule would significantly or uniquely affect small governments because it would not produce a mandate of $100 million or greater in any year; that is, it is not a “significant regulatory action” under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. This determination is based on the economic analysis prepared as part of the revised draft SEIS on the sea otter translocation program. As such, a Small Government Agency Plan is not required.

In accordance with Executive Order 12630 “Government Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights,” we have analyzed the potential takings implications of terminating the southern sea otter translocation program. This assessment concludes that the proposed amendment to Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations to remove § 17.84(d) does not pose significant takings implications. While small segments of the fishing industry may be indirectly affected by changes resulting from termination of the southern sea otter translocation program, fishery resources are public resources in which private entities have no Constitutionally protected property interest.

In accordance with Executive Order 13132, the proposed amendment to Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations to remove § 17.84(d) does not have significant Federalism effects. A Federalism assessment is not required. The proposed amendment would not have substantial direct effects on the State, in the relationship between the Federal Government and the State, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. In keeping with Department of the Interior policy, we requested information from, and coordinated with, the State of California to the extent possible on the development of this proposed rule.

In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the proposed amendment to Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations to remove § 17.84(d) does not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order.

The proposed amendment to Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations to remove § 17.84(d) does not contain any information collection requirements for which Office of Management and Budget approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., is required. The proposed amendment would not impose new record keeping or reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals, businesses, or organizations.

We have considered this action with respect to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and have determined that this action requires the preparation of an environmental impact statement. A revised draft SEIS is now available for review. You may obtain a copy of this document at http://www.regulations.gov, at http://www.fws.gov/ventura/, or by contacting the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).

In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, and the Department of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our responsibility to communicate meaningfully with federally recognized Tribes on a Government-to-Government basis. We have evaluated possible effects on federally recognized Indian Tribes and have determined that there are no effects.

On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 on regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and use. Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. This rule is not expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, and use. Although adoption of this proposed rule would result in additional consultation requirements for energy activities that may affect southern sea otters, in the context of the current regulatory environment, it would not significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, and use. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.

A complete list of all references cited in this proposed rule is available on http://www.regulations.gov or upon request from the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).

The primary author of this proposed rule is Lilian Carswell of the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below: