3030 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules

DATES: Reply comments due January 26, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION regional carriers (petitioners) 2 filed a 2006. petition to institute a proceeding under Surface Transportation Board 49 U.S.C. 10502 to exempt a class of ADDRESSES: You may submit reply small carriers from the prior approval comments, identified by WT Docket No. 49 CFR Part 1105 requirements for abandonments under 05–265, by any of the following [STB Ex Parte No. 647] 49 U.S.C. 10903. Petitioners included a methods: detailed proposal, including revised • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// Class Exemption for Expedited rules for 49 CFR 1152.50 (exempt www.regulations.gov. Follow the Abandonment Procedure for Class II abandonments) and 1152.27 (offers of instructions for submitting comments. and Class III Railroads financial assistance). The Board issued a decision on August 13, 2003, to • Federal Communications AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board, institute a proceeding and held a public Commission’s Web site: http:// DOT. hearing on August 31, 2004, to discuss www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the ACTION: Advance notice of proposed the issues raised in petitioners’ filing. instructions for submitting comments. rulemaking. The Board has exclusive and plenary • E-mail: Include the docket jurisdiction over the abandonment of number(s) in the subject line of the SUMMARY: The Surface Transportation rail lines. Chicago & N.W. Transp. Co. message. Board (Board) has received a proposal to v. Kalo Brick & Tile Co., 450 U.S. 311, create a class exemption under 49 • People with Disabilities: Contact 319–21 (1981) (Kalo Brick); Phillips Co. U.S.C. 10502 for Class II and Class III v. Denver & Rio Grande Western R. Co., the FCC to request reasonable 1 railroads from the prior approval 97 F.3d 1375, 1376–78 (10th Cir. 1996), accommodations (accessible format requirements for abandonments under cert. denied, 521 U.S. 1104 (1997). documents, sign language interpreters, 49 U.S.C. 10903. A public hearing was Under 49 U.S.C. 10903, the Board may CART, etc.) by e-mail: [email protected] held on August 31, 2004, to discuss the authorize abandonment if it finds that or phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202– proposal. Before deciding whether to the present or future public convenience 418–0432. issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and necessity (PC&N) require or permit (NPR), the Board seeks comments from FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eli the abandonment. In making this public interested persons on this proposal and interest determination, the Board Johnson at (202) 418–1395, possible alternatives to it, as detailed [email protected], or Won Kim (202) below. 418–1368, [email protected], Wireless 2 The sixty-five carriers are: Allegheny & Eastern DATES: Notices of intent to participate in Railroad, Inc.; Bradford Industrial Rail, Inc.; Buffalo Telecommunications Bureau, Spectrum this rulemaking process are due on & Pittsburgh Railroad, Inc.; Carolina Coastal and Competition Policy Division. Railway, Inc.; , Inc.; February 2, 2006. Comments are due on Chicago SouthShore & South Bend Railroad; SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This March 6, 2006. Replies to comments are Chattahoochee & Gulf Railroad Co., Inc.; Connecuh proposed rulemaking, 70 FR 56612, due on April 4, 2006. Valley Railroad Co., Inc.; Corpus Christi Terminal ADDRESSES: All notices of intent to Railroad, Inc.; The Dansville & Mount Morris September 28, 2005, concerns a decision Railroad Company; Eastern Idaho Railroad, Inc.; to examine whether the Commission’s participate and comments may be Genesee & Wyoming Railroad Company; Golden current rules regarding roaming submitted either via the Board’s e-filing Isles Terminal Railroad, Inc.; H&S Railroad Co., requirements applicable to CMRS format or in the traditional paper Inc.; Illinois Indiana Development Company, LLC; format. Any person using e-filing should Illinois & Midland Railroad Company, Inc.; Kansas providers should be modified given the & Oklahoma Railroad, Inc.; Knoxville & Holston current state of the CMRS market. The comply with the instructions found on River Railroad Co., Inc.; Lancaster and Chester full text of the NPRM and comments the Board’s http://www.stb.dot.gov Web Railway Company; Laurinburg & Southern Railroad filed in response to the NRPM are site, at the ‘‘E-FILING’’ link. Any person Co., Inc.; Louisiana & Delta Railroad, Inc.; submitting a filing in the traditional Louisville & Indiana Railroad Company; Minnesota available for public inspection on the Prairie Line, Inc.; Montana Rail Link, Inc.; New Commission’s Internet site at http:// paper format should send an original York & Atlantic Railway Company; Pacific Harbor www.fcc.gov. It is also available for and 10 paper copies of the filing Line, Inc.; Palouse River & Coulee City Railroad, (referring to STB Ex Parte No. 647) to: Inc.; Pennsylvania Southwestern Railroad, Inc.; inspection and copying during regular Surface Transportation Board, 1925 K Piedmont & Atlantic Railroad Inc.; Pittsburg & business hours in the FCC Reference Shawmut Railroad, Inc.; Portland &Western Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423– Center (Room CY–A257), 445 12th Railroad, Inc.; Rochester & Southern Railroad, Inc.; 0001. Rocky Mount & Western Railroad Co., Inc.; St. Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The Lawrence & Atlantic Railroad Company; Salt Lake full text of this document also may be FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: City Southern Railroad Company; Savannah Port purchased from the Commission’s Joseph Dettmar, (202) 565–1609. Terminal Railroad, Inc.; duplication contractor, Best Copy and [Assistance for the hearing impaired is Company; South Kansas & Oklahoma Railroad available through the Federal Company; Stillwater Central Railroad; Talleyrand Printing Inc., Portals II, 445 12th St., Terminal Railroad, Inc.; Co., Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1– SW., Room CY–B402, Washington, DC Inc.; Timber Rock Railroad, Inc.; Twin Cities & 800–877–8339.] Western Railroad Company; 20554; telephone (202) 488–5300; fax Company; Willamette & Pacific Railroad, Inc.; (202) 488–5563; e-mail SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 15, 2003, sixty-five short-line and Wiregrass Central Railroad Company, Inc.; York [email protected]. Railway Company; AN Railway, LLC; Atlantic and Western Railway, Limited Partnership; Bay Line Federal Communications Commission. 1 The Board’s regulations divide railroads into Railroad, LLC; Central Midland Railway; Copper Catherine W. Seidel, three classes based on annual carrier operating Basin Railway, Inc.; East Railway, L.P.; revenues. Class I railroads are those with annual , L.P.; , Acting Chief, Wireless Telecommunications carrier operating revenues of $250 million or more L.P.; The Company; KWT Bureau. (in 1991 dollars); Class II railroads are those with Railway, Inc.; Little Rock & Western Railway, L.P.; [FR Doc. 06–456 Filed 1–18–06; 8:45 am] annual carrier operating revenues of more than $20 M & B Railroad, L.L.C.; , million but less than $250 million (in 1991 dollars); Limited Partnership; , L.P.; BILLING CODE 6712–01–P and Class III railroads are those with annual carrier Western Railway, LLC; Wheeling & Lake operating revenues of $20 million or less (in 1991 Erie Railway Company; Wilmington Terminal dollars). See 49 CFR part 1201, General Instruction Railroad, L.P.; and Yolo 1–1(a). Company.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 13:29 Jan 18, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19JAP1.SGM 19JAP1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules 3031

weighs the burden on shippers and needed to support a full application new class exemption for Class II and communities from the loss of rail under 49 U.S.C. 10903, i.e., base and Class III carriers seeking abandonment service against the burden on the carrier forecast year statistics, come from the authority. Under petitioners’ proposal, and interstate commerce from continued Board’s Uniform System of Accounts, Class II and Class III carriers would be operation of the line at issue. Colorado which only Class I carriers are required eligible to abandon their lines by v. United States, 271 U.S. 153 (1926). to use and report to the Board. invoking a notice procedure. The carrier The Board considers all relevant factors, Petitioners assert that small carriers would publish relevant commercial and including profits or losses incurred from typically lack the necessary data. They engineering information about the line operating the line, costs avoidable by can try to compile the necessary in local newspapers and national abandonment (such as maintenance and information or ask the Board for a railroad industry publications, in rehabilitation costs) and the opportunity waiver, but neither option is attractive addition to filing with the Board a costs incurred by forgoing more to small carriers. Petitioners maintain notice to be published in the Federal profitable use of the carrier’s assets that the first option is too expensive. Register. Such a notice would contain: elsewhere. Kalo Brick, 450 U.S.C. 311, The second also involves expense, 3 years of aggregate carload and revenue 321 (1981). See also 49 CFR part 1152. coupled with delay and uncertainty as data; a statement of physical condition The statute directs the Board also to to whether the waiver will be granted. of the line; an estimate of the consider whether the abandonment will Petitioners also claim that filing a rehabilitation, if any, that would be have a serious, adverse impact on rural petition for exemption for an individual needed to bring the line up to Federal and community development. 49 U.S.C. line under 49 U.S.C. 10502(a) poses Railroad Administration class 1 10903(d). challenges for small carriers. Although standards; the net liquidation value Over the years, Congress has taken less data are required and filing (NLV) of the line; and information steps to minimize needless burdens and expenses are lower, petitioners claim concerning connecting carriers, delay in the regulatory process. See that the individual exemption process is interchange locations, and any operating Railroad Ventures, Inc. v. STB, 299 F.3d too uncertain. Petitioners cite a Board rights of third parties over the line. 523, 529 n.1, 530–31 (6th Cir. 2002). decision that states that petitions for Other data would be made available Since 1980 it has encouraged the agency exemption are appropriate only where upon request to an OFA offeror. to streamline the regulatory process there is no opposition or operation of Petitioners’ proposed changes to the where appropriate. Under 49 U.S.C. the line is clearly unprofitable. Central Board’s abandonment rules are 10502, the Board must exempt a Railroad Company of Indiana— contained in the Appendix to the transaction, person, or service, in whole Abandonment Exemption)—In Board’s decision served on January 19, or in part, from otherwise applicable Dearborn, Decatur, Franklin, Ripley, 2006. A copy of the Board’s decision is statutory provisions when the Board and Shelby Counties, IN, STB Docket available on the Board’s Web page at finds that: (1) Continued regulation is No. AB–459 (Sub-No. 2X) (STB served http://www.stb.dot.gov or by contacting not necessary to carry out the rail May 4, 1998). Petitioners argue that this ASAP Document Solutions at (202) 306– transportation policy of 49 U.S.C. standard discourages use of the petition 4004. 10101; and (2) either (a) the transaction for exemption process in all but the Under Petitioners’ proposal, carriers is of limited scope, or (b) regulation is most routine cases. They also point out that availed themselves of this class not necessary to protect shippers from that a carrier must make its entire exemption procedure would waive any the abuse of market power. presentation in its initial filing, with no claim for the value of the line in excess The Board has used this exemption right to respond to comments and of NLV. Also, if an OFA sale were power to simplify and expedite protests. consummated and the subject line abandonment cases where it believes Petitioners claim that these connected only to the abandoning that closer regulatory scrutiny is deficiencies force carriers to forgo carrier, the abandoning carrier would be unnecessary, and most requests for seeking abandonment authority until a required to provide the purchaser with abandonment authority are now line is eligible for the Out-of-Service either haulage or trackage rights (at the handled through the exemption process. Exemption. Petitioners assert that the abandoning carrier’s choice), at A carrier seeking abandonment result is that when a prudent small commercially reasonable rates, to move authority may petition the Board for an carrier makes the subjective business any traffic to and from any connecting exemption for a particular line on a decision that a particular line is no carrier with which traffic has moved case-by-case basis. See 49 CFR 1152.60. longer viable, it will increase rates on during the 24 preceding months. The Or, if no local traffic has moved over the the line and divert resources away from proposal would create a longer OFA line in at least 2 years, any overhead the line to other more productive parts filing period of 90 days and would, at traffic can be rerouted, and no formal of its system. This, in turn, forces any the abandoning carrier’s option, delay complaint filed by a user regarding remaining traffic to find more the need to file the historic and cessation of service over the line is economical alternatives. When the line environmental reports required under pending or has been decided against the becomes eligible, the carrier would then the Board’s environmental rules at 49 railroad during the 2-year period, a invoke the class exemption for out-of- CFR 1105.7 and 1105.8 until after the carrier may utilize a class exemption for service lines. Petitioners argue that this OFA process. Under the proposal, ‘‘out-of-service lines.’’ See 49 CFR process wastes resources and deters carriers that elected to defer such 1152.50(b); Exemption of Out of Service potential offers of financial assistance reports would obtain only Rail Lines, 2 I.C.C.2d 146, 157–58 (OFAs) to continue rail service under 49 discontinuance authority and would not (1986), aff’d sub nom. Illinois U.S.C. 10904, because shippers will be able to remove track structure until Commerce Comm’n v. ICC, 848 F.2d already have found alternative such reports were completed. 1246 (D.C. Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 488 transportation and the physical assets In order to adopt a class exemption U.S. 1004 (1989) (Out-of-Service will have deteriorated for at least 2 for small carrier abandonments, we Exemption). years. would first have to find that, as a class, Petitioners claim that the existing To alleviate these perceived regulation of these transactions is not procedures do not work well for small shortcomings in the Board’s current necessary to carry out the rail carriers. Petitioners argue that the data procedures, petitioners have proposed a transportation policy of 49 U.S.C.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 13:29 Jan 18, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19JAP1.SGM 19JAP1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS 3032 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules

10101. See 49 U.S.C. 10502. This communities by such abandonments discontinuance authority until the analysis would require that we and the effects of deferred maintenance environmental and historic reporting determine whether, on balance, those and increased rates on continued requirements are completed. sometimes conflicting policies would be service on low volume lines would be Discontinuance authority, however, promoted or hindered by exemption helpful. also generally triggers the need for from regulatory requirements that Second, Congress considered completion of an EA prior to the time otherwise would apply. See Out-of- eliminating the PC&N test for all carrier the discontinuance of service is Service Exemption, citing Baggett abandonments during the consideration authorized. See 49 CFR 1105.6(b)(3). Transportation Co. v. U.S., 666 F.2d of the ICC Termination Act of 1995 Petitioners acknowledge this by 524, 530–31 (11th Cir. 1982). If (ICCTA), but ultimately did not do so. providing in their proposal that a carrier regulation is not necessary, we would The House bill contained a proposed that utilizes this process would certify also have to find that either (a) the section 10703 that would have replaced that the discontinuance would not transactions are of limited scope, or (b) section 10903 and 10904 and converted result in operational changes exceeding regulation is not necessary to protect all applications for abandonment or the thresholds set forth at 49 CFR shippers from the abuse of market discontinuance authority from the 1105.7(e)(4) and (5), and that the carrier power. current PC&N standard into a had no plans to alter or remove any Petitioners argue that their proposal notification process to ‘‘maximize the historic properties. Petitioners also would meet this statutory test and opportunity for the line to be acquired compare their suggested discontinuance should be issued for public review and for continued operation by a smaller authority process to what takes place comment and adopted. At the same railroad, even though the line is revenue under a lawful embargo, i.e., a time, petitioners acknowledged at the deficient for a large trunk carrier.’’ H.R. temporary cessation of rail service. The public hearing that some technical Rep. No. 104–422, at 180–81(1995) Board requests comments regarding difficulties could exist with their rules (Conf. Rep.), as reprinted in 1995 whether the proposal put forth by as proposed and expressed a willingness U.S.C.C.A.N. 865–66. The Senate petitioners would allow the Board to to work with the Board in perfecting amendment instead removed outdated meet its responsibilities under NEPA and improving them. Therefore, the provisions from the abandonment and NHPA. Board is now issuing this Advance statute. The conference substitute At the hearing, the Association of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to passed by Congress retained the PC&N American Railroads (AAR) urged the request public comment on whether the standard as formulated in the Senate proposed class exemption could meet amendment. The Board requests Board to seek to expedite and improve the statutory criteria and allow the comments on how the Board could its current historic review process, Board to meet its environmental justify going beyond the action Congress which, it believes, can significantly responsibilities. Also, the Board seeks took in ICCTA. delay railroad abandonments. AAR comment as to whether and how to Third, under the National stated that it was eager to work with the improve the proposed rules. Finally, the Environmental Policy Act of 1969 Board outside this proceeding to explore Board is also seeking comment as to (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4331–4335, the Board options to streamline the Board’s whether other changes to the Board’s is required to examine the potential historic reviews. AAR also indicated its processes could alleviate the alleged environmental impacts of proposed support of the former Chairman’s deficiencies with the current licensing actions subject to the Board’s suggestion of meetings with abandonment process that petitioners jurisdiction, including abandonments. representatives of the rail industry, the have identified for Class II and Class III The Section of Environmental Analysis historic preservation community, and carriers. After reviewing the comments, (SEA) is the office responsible for SEA. Since the hearing, SEA has the Board will decide whether to issue ensuring compliance with NEPA and consulted with representatives from an NPR in this proceeding. the National Historic Preservation Act, AAR and the American Short Line and While we welcome comments on all 16 U.S.C. 470 (NHPA). Under 49 CFR Regional Railroad Association (ASLRA) aspects of petitioners’ proposal, and any 1105.6(b)(2), SEA prepares to determine the scope of the carriers’ alternatives, we will briefly outline Environmental Assessments (EAs) in concerns. SEA has also provided below initial concerns we have with the most rail abandonment cases, analyzing extensive background information on class exemption, as proposed by the potential environmental and historic the nature of these concerns to the petitioners. First, section 10903 requires issues, and recommending appropriate Advisory Council on Historic the Board to balance competing interests mitigation. SEA bases its analysis on Preservation (ACHP) and has apprised in determining whether the PC&N information submitted by the carrier in ACHP that the Board would like its require or permit abandonment. the form of an environmental and assistance in developing appropriate Petitioners’ proposed class exemption historic report that sets forth the details streamlining options. In addition, SEA would require a finding that the of the proposed action, potential has met with the Executive Director of balancing analysis under section 10903 environmental impacts, and summarizes the National Conference of State is unnecessary for some classes of consultations conducted with relevant Historic Preservation Officers carriers based only on their annual Federal, State, and local entities. (NCSHPO). With the assistance of an revenue. Petitioners’ proposal does not Petitioners’ proposal would allow ASLRA representative, SEA is currently appear to contain sufficient data to carriers the option of delaying the completing work on a White Paper, as support such a finding. To decide environmental and historic reports until requested by the NCSHPO. Furthermore, whether to issue an NPR proposing after the OFA period has expired. This, SEA has developed, at the carriers’ specific changes for Class II and Class III they argue, would eliminate waste and suggestion, a guidance document carriers, it would be useful to know the expense by preventing the preparation (available on the Board’s Web site under average length of lines abandoned by of unnecessary reports in cases where the ‘‘Environmental’’ button) to assist such carriers and the average number of an OFA results in the continued carriers in complying with NHPA in shippers affected by such operation of the line. If a carrier elects Board proceedings and thereby avoid abandonments. In addition, some to delay its reporting, under petitioners’ unnecessary delay. SEA will continue measure of the typical effect on local proposed rules the carrier would have working with the carriers and the

VerDate Aug<31>2005 13:29 Jan 18, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19JAP1.SGM 19JAP1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules 3033

historic preservation community on the By the Board, Chairman Buttrey and Vice (503) 872–2791, or Marta Nammack, streamlining initiative. Chairman Mulvey. NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, at Finally, at the public hearing and in Vernon A. Williams, (301) 713–1401. Reference materials written testimony, the representatives of Secretary. regarding this determination are organized labor raised an additional [FR Doc. 06–392 Filed 1–18–06; 8:45 am] available upon request or on the Internet at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov. concern regarding the class exemption BILLING CODE 4915–01–P as originally proposed. The unions SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: expressed concern that it would be Previous Federal ESA Actions Related DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE possible to create small carriers with to Oregon Coast Coho few or no employees to act as a way to National Oceanic and Atmospheric In 1995, we completed a avoid labor protection. For example, Administration comprehensive status review of West they stated, a Class I railroad could spin Coast coho salmon (Weitkamp et al., off a failing line to a small-carrier shell 50 CFR Part 223 1995) that resulted in proposed listing with no or few employees under the determinations for three coho ESUs, class exemption for sales to Class III [Docket No. 051227348–5348–01; I.D. 020105C] including a proposal to list the Oregon carriers, see 49 CFR 1150 subpart E, Coast coho ESU as a threatened species thus avoiding labor protection. The Endangered and Threatened Species: (60 FR 38011; July 25, 1995). On ‘‘small carrier’’ could then use Withdrawal of Proposals to List and October 31, 1996, we announced a 6- petitioners’ proposed class exemption to Designate Critical Habitat for the month extension of the final listing abandon the line. Petitioners have Oregon Coast Evolutionarily determination for the ESU, pursuant to acknowledged that such a practice Significant Unit (ESU) of Coho Salmon section 4(b)(6)(B)(i) of the ESA, noting would be a concern and expressed a substantial disagreement regarding the willingness to explore ways to protect AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries sufficiency and accuracy of the available against such possibilities, such as Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and data relevant to the assessment of including a holding period before the Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), extinction risk and the evaluation of abandonment class exemption could be Commerce. protective efforts (61 FR 56211). On May utilized. The Board requests public ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal. 6, 1997, we withdrew the proposal to comment on whether to propose such a list the Oregon Coast coho ESU as SUMMARY: In June 2004, we (NMFS) holding period, and if so, what the threatened, based in part on proposed that the Oregon Coast coho conservation measures contained in the holding period should be and how it Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) would work. Oregon Coastal Salmon Restoration (Oncorhynchus kisutch) be listed as a Initiative (later renamed the Oregon Given our initial concerns about some threatened species under the Plan for Salmon and Watersheds; aspects of petitioners’ class exemption, Endangered Species Act (ESA). In June hereafter referred to as the Oregon Plan) as proposed, and the perceived 2005, we extended the 1-year deadline and an April 23, 1997, Memorandum of shortcomings petitioners see in the for the final listing determination by 6 Agreement (MOA) between NMFS and current abandonment regulations for months in light of public comments the State of Oregon which further smaller carriers, the Board also requests received and an assessment by the State defined Oregon’s commitment to public comments on other possible of Oregon concluding that the Oregon salmon conservation (62 FR 24588). We ways to improve the abandonment Coast coho ESU is viable (that is, likely concluded that implementation of process, and address the kinds of to persist into the foreseeable future harvest and hatchery reforms, and concerns petitioners have raised. For under current conditions). After habitat protection and restoration efforts example, the 2-year out-of-service considering the best available scientific under the Oregon Plan and the MOA exemption has reportedly worked well and commercial information available, substantially reduced the risk of we have concluded that the ESU is not since it has been adopted. Would a 1- extinction faced by the Oregon Coast in danger of extinction throughout all or year out-of-service exemption alleviate coho ESU. On June 1, 1998, the Federal a significant portion of its range, nor is some of the frustrations with the current District Court for the District of Oregon it likely to become so within the issued an opinion finding that our May process evidently experienced by small foreseeable future. We have determined carriers? Also, prior to ICCTA, 49 U.S.C. 6, 1997, determination to not list Oregon that the Oregon Coast coho ESU does Coast coho was arbitrary and capricious 10904(b) directed the agency to grant an not warrant listing as an endangered or abandonment application if no protest (Oregon Natural Resources Council v. threatened species under the ESA at this Daley, 6 F. Supp. 2d 1139 (D. Or. 1998)). had been received within 30 days of time. Therefore we have decided to filing. Would a similar, ‘‘no-protest’’ The Court vacated our determination to withdraw the proposed rule to list this withdraw the proposed rule to list the abandonment process for a petition for ESU. On December 14, 2004, we Oregon Coast coho ESU and remanded exemption improve upon the current proposed critical habitat for the Oregon the determination to NMFS for further process for small carriers? The Board Coast coho ESU. Because we are consideration. On August 10, 1998, we seeks comments on these and any other withdrawing the proposed listing issued a final rule listing the Oregon proposals interested persons might determination, we are also withdrawing Coast coho ESU as threatened (63 FR submit. the proposed rule to designate critical 42587), basing the determination solely This action will not significantly habitat for this ESU. on the information and data contained affect either the quality of the human ADDRESSES: NMFS, Protected Resources in the 1995 status review (Weitkamp et environment or the conservation of Division, 1201 NE Lloyd Boulevard, al., 1995) and the 1997 proposed rule energy resources. Suite 1100, Portland, Oregon, 97232. (62 FR 24588; May 6, 1997). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. In 2001 the U.S. District Court in Decided: January 9, 2006. Scott Rumsey, NMFS, Northwest Eugene, Oregon, set aside the 1998 Region, Protected Resources Division, at threatened listing of the Oregon Coast

VerDate Aug<31>2005 13:29 Jan 18, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19JAP1.SGM 19JAP1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS