77602 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 238 / Monday, December 13, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 

97.022, ‘‘Flood Insurance.’’) 

Dated: December 3, 2010. 

Sandra K. Knight, 

Deputy Federal Insurance and Mitigation 

Administrator, Mitigation, Department of 

Homeland Security, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency. 

[FR Doc. 2010–31151 Filed 12–10–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–12–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 25 

[IB Docket No. 97–95; FCC 10–186] 

Allocation and Designation of 

Spectrum for Fixed-Satellite Services 

in the 37.5–38.5 GHz, 40.5–41.5 GHz 

and 48.2–50.2 GHz Frequency Bands 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications 

Commission published a document in 

the Federal Register of November 22, 

2010, concerning a request for comment 

on technical rules for satellite systems 

in the 37.5–42.5 GHz band. The 

document contained incorrect 

proceeding numbers and incorrect 

language regarding the filing of 

comments on information collection 

requirements. 

DATES: The comment date for the 

proposed rule published November 22, 

2010, 75 FR 71064, remains January 6, 

2011, and reply comments remain due 

on or before February 7, 2011. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Correction 

In the Federal Register of November 

22, 2010, on page 71064, correct the 

ADDRESSES caption to read: 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comment, 

identified by IB Docket No. 97–95, by any of 

the following methods: 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions 

for submitting comments. 

Federal Communications Commission’s 

Web Site: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs. 

Follow the instructions for submitting 

comments. 

People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to 

request reasonable accommodations 

(accessible format documents, sign language 

interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail: 

FCC504@fcc.gov, phone: 202–418–0530 or 

TTY: 202–418–0432. 

For detailed instructions for submitting 

comments and additional information on the 

rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of this document. 

In the Federal Register of November 

22, 2010, on page 71064–65, correct the 

‘‘SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION’’ caption 

to read: 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Third Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking (Third Notice) in IB 

Docket No. 97–95, adopted October 29, 2010 

and released on November 1, 2010. The full 

text of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is 

available for public inspection and copying 

during regular business hours at the FCC 

Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 

12th Street, SW., Room CY–A257, 

Washington, DC 20554. This document may 

also be purchased from the Commission’s 

duplicating contractor, Best Copy and 

Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554, 

telephone (202) 488–5300, facsimile (202) 

488–5563, or via e-mail FCC@BCPIWEB.com. 

The Third Notice contains potential 

proposed new or modified information 

collection requirements subject to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, 

Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). 

The Commission invites the general public 

and the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) to comment on the information 

collection requirements contained in the 

Third Notice. These PRA comments are due 

on or before February 11, 2011. Comments 

should address: (a) Whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary for the 

proper performance of the functions of the 

Commission, including whether the 

information shall have practical utility; (b) 

the accuracy of the Commission’s burden 

estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, 

utility, and clarity of the information 

collected; and (d) ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information on 

the respondents, including the use of 

automated collection techniques or other 

forms of information technology. If the 

Commission adopts new or revised 

information collection requirements, the 

Commission will publish a separate notice in 

the Federal Register inviting the public to 

comment on the requirements before a 

submission is made to the OMB for approval 

of the information collection requirements. 

In addition, pursuant to the Small Business 

Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 

107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the 

Commission will seek specific comment on 

how it might ‘‘further reduce the information 

collection burden for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 employees.’’ 

Dated: November 23, 2010. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. C1–2010–30984 Filed 12–10–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 223 

[Docket No. 101124581–0584–01] 

RIN 0648–XA046 

Endangered and Threatened Species; 

90-Day Finding on Petitions To Delist 

the Eastern Distinct Population 

Segment of the Steller Sea Lion 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition 

finding; request for information. 

SUMMARY: We (NMFS) announce a 90- 

day finding on two petitions to delist 

the eastern Distinct Population Segment 

(DPS) of the Steller Sea Lion 

(Eumetopias jubatus) under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (ESA). We find that the 

petitions present substantial scientific 

or commercial information indicating 

that the petitioned action may be 

warranted. We are continuing our status 

review of this DPS to determine if the 

petitioned action is warranted. To 

ensure that the status review is 

comprehensive, we are again soliciting 

scientific and commercial information 

regarding this species from any 

interested party. 

DATES: Information and comments must 

be submitted to NMFS by February 11, 

2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by RIN 0648–XA046, by any 

of the following methods: 

• Electronic Submissions: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal http// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Hand-delivery: Assistant Regional 

Administrator, Protected Resources 

Division, NMFS, Alaska Regional Office, 

Attn: Ellen Sebastian, Juneau Federal 

Building, 709 West 9th Street, Room 

420A, Juneau, AK 99802–1668. 

• Mail: P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 

99802. 

• Facsimile (fax): (907) 586–7557. 

Instructions: All comments received 

are a part of the public record and will 

generally be posted to http:// 

www.regulations.gov without change. 

All Personal Identifying Information (for 

example, name, address, etc.) 

voluntarily submitted by the commenter 

may be publicly accessible. Do not 

submit Confidential Business 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 238 / Monday, December 13, 2010 / Proposed Rules 77603 

Information or otherwise sensitive or 

protected information. NMFS will 

accept anonymous comments (enter N/ 

A in the required fields, if you wish to 

remain anonymous). Attachments to 

electronic comments will be accepted in 

Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or 

Adobe PDF file formats only. 

The petitions may be viewed at: 

http://www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov./

protectedresources/stellers/edps/

status.htm. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Lisa Rotterman, NMFS, Alaska Region, 

(907) 271–1692; Kaja Brix, NMFS, 

Alaska Region, (907) 586–7235; or Lisa 

Manning, NMFS, Office of Protected 

Resources, (301) 713–1401. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

ESA Statutory Provisions and Policy 

Considerations 

The Administrative Procedure Act 

and ESA enable an interested person to 

petition for the listing or delisting of a 

species, subspecies, or DPS of a 

vertebrate species which interbreeds 

when mature (5 U.S.C. 553(e), 16 

U.S.C.1533(b)(3)(A)). ESA-implementing 

regulations issued by NMFS and the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) 

also establish procedures for receiving 

and considering petitions to revise the 

lists and for conducting periodic 

reviews of listed species (50 CFR 

424.01). 

Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA (16 

U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)) requires that the 

Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) make 

a finding as to whether a petition to 

delist a species presents substantial 

scientific or commercial information 

indicating the petitioned action may be 

warranted. ESA implementing 

regulations define ‘‘substantial 

information’’ as the amount of 

information that would lead a 

reasonable person to believe the 

measure proposed in the petition may 

be warranted (50 CFR 424.14(b)(1)). In 

determining whether substantial 

information exists for a petition to list 

a species, we take into account several 

factors, including information submitted 

with, and referenced in, the petition and 

all other information readily available in 

our files. To the maximum extent 

practicable, this finding is to be made 

within 90 days of the receipt of the 

petition (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)), and 

the finding is to be published promptly 

in the Federal Register. If the Secretary 

finds that a petition presents substantial 

information indicating that the 

requested action may be warranted, the 

Secretary must conduct a status review 

of the species concerned. 

Section 4(b)(3)(B) requires the 

Secretary to make a finding as to 

whether or not the petitioned action is 

warranted within 12 months of the 

receipt of the petition. The Secretary has 

delegated the authority for these actions 

to the NOAA Assistant Administrator 

for Fisheries. In making the 12-month 

finding whether the petitioned action is 

warranted, we will also determine 

whether the eastern DPS continues to 

qualify as a threatened species. 

The ESA defines an endangered 

species as ‘‘any species which is in 

danger of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range’’ (ESA 

section 3(6)). A threatened species is 

defined as a species that is ‘‘likely to 

become an endangered species within 

the foreseeable future throughout all or 

a significant portion of its range’’ (ESA 

section 3(19)). The basis for the 

determination of a species’ status under 

the ESA is provided in section 4 of the 

ESA. Under the ESA, a listing 

determination can address a species, 

subspecies, or a DPS of a vertebrate 

species which interbreeds when mature 

(16 U.S.C. 1532 (16)). Under section 

4(a)(1) of the ESA, a species may be 

determined to be threatened or 

endangered as a result of any one of the 

following factors: 

(A) Present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of habitat 

or range; 

(B) Over-utilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; 

(C) Disease or predation; 

(D) Inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; or 

(E) Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. 

Regulations implementing the ESA 

instruct NMFS to consider these same 

factors when determining whether to 

delist a species, a subspecies, or a DPS 

(50 CFR 424.11(d)). 

Listing determinations are made 

solely on the basis of the best scientific 

and commercial data available, after 

conducting a review of the status of the 

species and taking into account efforts 

made by any state or foreign nation to 

protect such species. 

Regulations implementing the ESA 

provide the rules for revising the Lists 

of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants (50 CFR 424). The 

regulations provide criteria for 

determining species to be endangered or 

threatened. In addition to identifying 

the factors that NMFS should consider 

when determining whether to delist a 

species, a subspecies, or a DPS, the ESA 

implementing regulations state that a 

species may be delisted for one or more 

of the following reasons: The species is 

extinct or has been extirpated from its 

previous range; the species has 

recovered and is no longer endangered 

or threatened; or investigations show 

the best scientific or commercial data 

available when the species was listed, or 

the interpretation of such data, were in 

error (50 CFR 424.11(d)). 

Background 

The Steller sea lion (Eumetopias 

jubatus) was listed as a threatened 

species under the ESA on April 5, 1990 

(55 FR 12645). Critical habitat was 

designated on August 27, 1993 (58 FR 

45269), based on the location of 

terrestrial rookery and haulout sites, 

spatial extent of foraging trips, and 

availability of prey. In 1997, based on 

demographic and genetic dissimilarities, 

we designated two DPSs of Steller sea 

lions under the ESA: A western DPS 

and an eastern DPS (62 FR 24345, 62 FR 

30772). Due to persistent decline, the 

western DPS was reclassified as 

endangered, while the increasing 

eastern DPS remained classified as 

threatened. 

We completed the first recovery plan 

for Steller sea lions in December 1992. 

At that time, the entire species was 

listed as threatened under the ESA. 

Because that recovery plan became 

obsolete after the reclassification of 

Steller sea lions into two distinct 

population segments (DPS) in 1997, and 

because nearly all of the recovery 

actions contained in the first plan had 

been completed, NMFS assembled a 

new Steller Sea Lion Recovery Team 

(Team) in 2001 to assist NMFS in 

revising the Recovery Plan and further 

promote conservation of the species. In 

March, 2008, NMFS released a Revised 

Recovery Plan for the Steller Sea Lion: 

Eastern and Western Distinct Population 

Segments (Recovery Plan). The 2008 

Recovery Plan states that, in 2002, the 

number of individuals in the eastern 

DPS was estimated to be between 46,000 

and 58,000 and that this population had 

been increasing at approximately 3 

percent per year since the late 1970s 

(Pitcher et al. 2007, as cited in NMFS 

2008:x). The Executive Summary of the 

2008 Recovery Plan states that the 

eastern DPS appears to have recovered 

from the predator control programs of 

the 20th century, which extirpated 

animals at rookeries and haulouts, no 

substantial threats are currently evident, 

and the population continues to 

increase at approximately 3 percent per 

year (NMFS 2008). The 2008 Recovery 

Plan also summarizes that: 

‘‘* * * no threats to continued recovery 

were identified for the eastern DPS. Although 

several factors affecting the western DPS also 

affect the eastern DPS (e.g., environmental 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
77604 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 238 / Monday, December 13, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

variability, killer whale predation, toxic 

substances, disturbance, shooting), these 

threats do not appear to be at a level 

sufficient to keep this population from 

continuing to recover, given the long term 

sustained growth of the population as a 

whole. However, concerns exist regarding 

global climate change and the potential for 

the southern part of the range (i.e., California) 

to be adversely affected. Future monitoring 

should target this southern portion of the 

range’’ (NMFS 2008:xiii).’’ 

It further states, ‘‘The primary 

action[s] [recommended] in the plan 

[are] to initiate a status review for the 

eastern DPS and consider removing it 

from the Federal List of Endangered 

Wildlife and Plants.’’ (NMFS 2008:xvi). 

The 2008 Recovery Plan identifies the 

following delisting criteria: 

1. The population has increased at an 

average annual growth rate of 3 percent 

per year for 30 years. 

2. The ESA listing factor criteria are 

met. NMFS (2008: viv). 

The Recovery Plan states that when the 

first of these criteria has been met, 

NMFS will evaluate the ESA listing 

factor criteria to determine whether to 

delist the eastern DPS. 

On June 29, 2010, we provided notice 

of the initiation of a 5-year status review 

of the eastern DPS of Steller sea lion 

under the ESA and opened a public 

comment period (75 FR 37385, June 29, 

2010; 75 FR 38979, Wednesday, July 7, 

2010). The agency subsequently reopened a second public comment 

period (75 FR 53272, August 31, 2010). 

A 5-year status review is a periodic 

process conducted to ensure that the 

listing classification of a species is 

accurate, and it is based on the best 

scientific and commercial data available 

at the time of the review. On the basis 

of such reviews under section 4(c)(2)(B) 

of the ESA, we determine whether or 

not any species should be removed from 

the list (delisted), or reclassified from 

endangered to threatened or from 

threatened to endangered. 

Analysis of the Petitions 

On August 30, 2010, we received a 

petition from the States of Washington 

and Oregon to delist the eastern DPS of 

Steller sea lion under the ESA. On 

September 1, 2010, the Secretary of 

Commerce received a petition from the 

State of Alaska to delist the eastern DPS 

of Steller sea lion. Both petitions 

contend that the eastern DPS of Steller 

sea lions has recovered, is not in danger 

of extinction now, and is not likely to 

be in danger in the foreseeable future. 

Because we received two petitions 

within a short period of time that 

requested the same action, we have 

considered the two petitions jointly in 

making our 90-day finding. 

Both petitions make multiple 

references to statements, information, 

and conclusions from the 

aforementioned 2008 Revised Recovery 

Plan, and literature cited within this 

document. For example, the conclusion 

section of the State of Alaska petition 

states: 

‘‘In the 2008 Recovery Plan, NMFS 

concluded that ‘‘[n]o threats to recovery [of 

the Eastern DPS of the Steller sea lion] have 

been identified and the population has been 

increasing for over 25 years, new rookeries 

have been created, and the population is at 

historical high levels.’’ 2008 Recovery Plan at 

VII–7.’’ 

Additionally, new information that 

was not available at the time of the 2008 

Recovery Plan, but that was readily 

available in our files upon receipt of the 

petitions, was presented in the 

petitions. For example, the petition from 

the States of Oregon and Washington 

refers to a recently published paper 

when they state: 

‘‘Boyd (2010) concluded that ‘‘the eastern 

and western segments of the population have 

probabilities of persistence that mean they do 

not meet the criteria for classification as 

endangered and it would be reasonable to delist them’’.’’ 

The State of Alaska’s petition cites 

new aerial survey information provided 

in a memorandum from the Alaska 

Fishery Science Center to the Alaska 

Region Protected Resources Division of 

NMFS. This memorandum reported that 

Steller sea lion pup production in 

Southeast Alaska (eastern DPS) totaled 

7,462 pups in 2009, with 7,443 counted 

at the 5 major rookeries where 5,510 had 

been counted in 2005. 

The petitions also present some new 

information that was not readily 

available in our files. For example, the 

petition from the States of Oregon and 

Washington cites unpublished data from 

studies of Steller sea lions by the 

Oregon and Washington Departments of 

Wildlife to support their conclusion that 

‘‘None of the potential natural or manmade 

causes for population decline examined in 

the western population range appear to be 

having negative impacts on eastern stock sea 

lions occurring in Oregon and Washington 

* * *.’’ 

This petition also provides preliminary 

results of non-pup abundance survey 

data from 1976–2008 collected by the 

Oregon Department of Wildlife, and the 

Petitioners report that unpublished data 

from surveys conducted by the 

Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife (WDFW) along the Washington 

coast show both increasing Steller sea 

lion numbers at haulout areas as well as 

increasing numbers of newborn pups at 

several locations over recent years. The 

Petitioners further contend that the 

available data demonstrate 31 years of 

population growth in the area of the 

primary Steller sea lion rookeries in 

U.S. waters south of Alaska (citing 

Pitcher et al., 2007). Based on the 

information presented and referenced in 

the petition, as well as all other 

information readily available in our 

files, we find that the petitions present 

substantial information indicating that 

the petitioned action may be warranted. 

Status Review and Solicitation of New 

Information 

As a result of this finding, we will 

continue our ongoing status review to 

determine whether the delisting of the 

eastern DPS of Steller sea lion under the 

ESA is warranted. We intend that any 

final action resulting from this status 

review will be as accurate and as 

effective as possible. Therefore, to 

ensure that the status review is 

complete and based on the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information, we are opening another 

public comment period for 60 days to 

solicit comments, suggestions, data, and 

information from the public, concerned 

governmental agencies, Native 

American tribes, conservation groups, 

the scientific community, industry, and 

any other interested parties concerning 

the status of the eastern DPS of the 

Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus) 

throughout its range, including, but not 

limited to information on: 

(A) Species biology, including, but 

not limited to, population trends, 

distribution and abundance, 

demographics, habitat use and 

requirements, genetics, and foraging 

ecology; (B) habitat conditions, 

including, but not limited to, amount, 

distribution, and suitability of habitat; 

(C) the effects of conservation measures 

that have been implemented to benefit 

the species; (D) status and trends of 

threats; and (E) other new information, 

data, or corrections, including, but not 

limited to, taxonomic or nomenclatural 

changes, identification of erroneous 

information contained in the list, and 

improved analytical methods. 

Upon completion of the status review, 

and within 12 months of our receipt of 

the first petition to delist this DPS, we 

must make one of the following 

findings: (1) The petitioned action is not 

warranted, in which case the Secretary 

shall promptly publish such finding in 

the Federal Register and so notify the 

petitioner; (2) the petitioned action is 

warranted, in which case the Secretary 

shall promptly publish in the Federal 

Register a proposed regulation to 

implement the action pursuant to 50 

CFR 424.16; or (3) the petitioned action 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 238 / Monday, December 13, 2010 / Proposed Rules 77605 

is warranted, but that (A) the immediate 

proposal and timely promulgation of a 

regulation to implement the petitioned 

action is precluded because of other 

pending proposals to list, delist, or 

reclassify species, and (B) expeditious 

progress is being made to list, delist, or 

reclassify qualified species, in which 

case such findings shall be promptly 

published in the Federal Register 

together with a description and 

evaluation of the reasons and data on 

which the finding is based. 

We will base our findings on a review 

of the best scientific and commercial 

information available, including 

information received during the public 

comment periods opened during this 

status review. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. 

Dated: December 8, 2010. 

Eric C. Schwaab, 

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–31232 Filed 12–10–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1