49842 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 29, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

Federally funded or permitted 

projects affecting listed species outside 

their designated critical habitat areas 

may still result in jeopardy findings in 

some cases. Similarly, critical habitat 

designations made on the basis of the 

best available information at the time of 

designation will not control the 

direction and substance of future 

recovery plans, habitat conservation 

plans, or other species conservation 

planning efforts if new information 

available to these planning efforts calls 

for a different outcome. Section 7(a)(2) 

of the Act requires Federal agencies, 

including the Service, to ensure that 

actions they fund, authorize, or carry 

out are not likely to destroy or adversely 

modify critical habitat. If a Federal 

action may affect a listed species or its 

critical habitat, the responsible Federal 

agency (action agency) must enter into 

consultation with us. As a result of this 

consultation, we document compliance 

with the requirements of section 7(a)(2) 

through our issuance of: 

(1) A concurrence letter for Federal 

actions that may affect, but are not 

likely to adversely affect, listed species 

or critical habitat; or 

(2) A biological opinion for Federal 

actions that may affect, and are likely to 

adversely affect, listed species or critical 

habitat. 

When we issue a biological opinion 

concluding that a project is likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of a 

listed species or destroy or adversely 

modify critical habitat, we also provide 

reasonable and prudent alternatives to 

the project, if any are identifiable. We 

define ‘‘Reasonable and prudent 

alternatives’’ at 50 CFR 402.02 as 

alternative actions identified during 

consultation that: 

•Can be implemented in a manner 

consistent with the intended purpose of 

the action, 

•Can be implemented consistent with 

the scope of the Federal agency’s legal 

authority and jurisdiction, 

• Are economically and 

technologically feasible, and 

•Would, in the Director’s opinion, 

avoid jeopardizing the continued 

existence of the listed species or 

destroying or adversely modifying 

critical habitat. 

Reasonable and prudent alternatives 

can vary from slight project 

modifications to extensive redesign or 

relocation of the project. Costs 

associated with implementing a 

reasonable and prudent alternative are 

similarly variable. 

Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require 

Federal agencies to reinitiate 

consultation on previously reviewed 

actions in instances where we have 

listed a new species or subsequently 

designated critical habitat that may be 

affected and the Federal agency has 

retained discretionary involvement or 

control over the action (or the agency’s 

discretionary involvement or control is 

authorized by law). Consequently, 

Federal agencies may sometimes need to 

request reinitiation of consultation with 

us on actions for which formal 

consultation has been completed, if 

those actions with discretionary 

involvement or control may affect 

subsequently listed species or 

designated critical habitat. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

in this document is available, upon 

request, from the Western Colorado 

Ecological Services Office (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Author 

The primary authors of this notice are 

the staff members of the Western 

Colorado Ecological Services Office (see 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Authority 

The authority for this action is the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

Dated: September 16, 2009. 

Thomas L. Strickland 

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and 

Parks 

[FR Doc. E9–23155 Filed 9–28– 09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–S 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2009-0066] 

[92210-1117-0000-B4] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a 

Petition to Revise Critical Habitat for 

the Florida Manatee (Trichechus 

manatus latirostris) 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of 90–day petition 

finding and initiation of critical habitat 

review. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, announce a 90–day 

finding on a petition to revise the 

critical habitat designation for the 

Florida subspecies (Trichechus manatus 

latirostris) of the endangered West 

Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus) 

under the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended. Based on our review, 

we find that the petition, in conjunction 

with information readily available in 

our files, presents substantial scientific 

or commercial information indicating 

that a revision of the critical habitat 

designation for the Florida manatee may 

be warranted. Therefore, with the 

publication of this notice, we are 

initiating a review of the current critical 

habitat designation for the subspecies to 

determine how we intend to proceed 

with the revision. To ensure a 

comprehensive review, we seek 

information pertaining to the Florida 

manatee’s essential habitat needs from 

any interested party. 

DATES: To allow us adequate time to 

conduct this review, we request that you 

send us information on or before 

October 29, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit 

information by one of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Search for docket 

FWS-R4-ES-2009-0066 and then follow 

the instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public 

Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R4- 

ES-2009-0066; Division of Policy and 

Directives Management; U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, 

Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203. 

We will post all information received 

on http://www.regulations.gov. This 

generally means that we will post any 

personal information you provide us 

(see the Information Solicited section 

below for more details). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dave Hankla, Field Supervisor, 

Jacksonville, Florida Ecological Services 

Office, 7915 Baymeadows Way, Suite 

200, Jacksonville, FL 32256, by 

telephone (904-731-3336), or by 

facsimile (904-731-3045). If you use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD), please call the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800- 

877-8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Information Solicited 

When we make a finding that a 

petition presents substantial 

information indicating that a revision of 

a critical habitat designation may be 

warranted, we initiate a review of that 

critical habitat to determine how we 

intend to proceed with the requested 

revision of the designation. To ensure 

that the review is complete and 

incorporates the best available scientific 

and commercial information, we seek 

information regarding the revision of 

critical habitat for the Florida manatee. 


CPrice-Sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 29, 2009 / Proposed Rules 49843 

We request information from 

governmental agencies, Native 

American Tribes, the scientific 

community, industry, and any other 

interested parties. We are seeking 

information regarding: 

(1) The historical and current status 

and distribution of Florida manatee, its 

biology and ecology, and ongoing 

conservation measures for the species 

and its habitat; 

(2) Physical and biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species; 

(3) Information on threats to the 

species and its habitat; and 

(4) Data on the increase in growth of 

Florida’s human population since we 

designated manatee critical habitat in 

1976, and examples of related increased 

threats to the species and subsequent 

changes to manatee habitat. 

In 2007, the Service conducted an 

extensive review of all available 

information on the Florida manatee 

while preparing a 5–year status review 

of the species (Service 2007). We are 

particularly seeking information about 

manatee habitat or manatee use of 

habitat that has been made available 

since publication of the review. 

Please note that submissions merely 

stating support for or opposition to the 

action under consideration without 

providing supporting information, 

although noted, will not be considered 

in making a determination. Section 

4(b)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 

et seq.) directs that ‘‘the Secretary shall 

designate critical habitat, and make 

revisions thereto, ...on the basis of the 

best scientific data available.’’ Based on 

our critical habitat review, we will 

publish a 12–month notice of our 

intentions concerning the petition, as 

provided in section 4(b)(3)(D)(ii) of the 

Act. 

You may submit your information 

concerning this review by one of the 

methods listed in the ADDRESSES

section. If you submit information via 

http://www.regulations.gov, your entire 

submission—including any personal 

identifying information—will be posted 

on the website. If your submission is 

made via a hardcopy that includes 

personal identifying information, you 

may request at the top of your document 

that we withhold this personal 

identifying information from public 

review. However, we cannot guarantee 

that we will be able to do so. We will 

post all hardcopy submissions on http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Please include 

sufficient information with your 

submission (such as full references) to 

allow us to verify any scientific or 

commercial information you include. 

Information and materials we receive, 

as well as supporting documentation we 

used in preparing this finding, will be 

available for public inspection on http:// 

www.regulations.gov, or by appointment 

during normal business hours, at the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Jacksonville, Florida Ecological Services 

Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT). 

Background 

Section 4(b)(3)(D) of the Act requires 

that we make a finding as to whether a 

petition to revise critical habitat 

presents substantial scientific 

information indicating that the revision 

may be warranted. The standard for 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information set forth in our 

implementing regulations with regard to 

a 90–day petition finding is ‘‘that 

amount of information that would lead 

a reasonable person to believe that the 

measure proposed in the petition may 

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

determining whether substantial 

information exists, 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, we are to 

make this finding within 90 days of the 

receipt of the petition, and we are to 

publish the finding promptly in the 

Federal Register. 

Our standard for substantial scientific 

or commercial information within the 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with 

regard to a 90–day petition finding is 

‘‘that amount of information that would 

lead a reasonable person to believe that 

the measure proposed in the petition 

may be warranted’’ (50 CFR 424.14(b)). 

If we find that a petition presents 

substantial information indicating that 

the revision may be warranted, we are 

required to determine how we intend to 

proceed with the requested revision 

within 12 months after receiving the 

petition and promptly publish notice of 

such intention in the Federal Register. 

Critical habitat is defined under 

section 3(5)(A) of the Act as: 

(i) The specific areas within the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species, at the time it is listed in 

accordance with the Act, on which are 

found those physical or biological 

features 

(I) essential to the conservation of the 

species and 

(II) which may require special 

management considerations or 

protection; and 

(ii) Specific areas outside the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time it is listed, upon a 

determination that such areas are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. 

Our implementing regulations at 50 

CFR 424.12 describe our criteria for 

designating critical habitat. We are to 

consider essential physical and 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species. Those 

features include, but are not limited to: 

(1) space for individual and population 

growth, and normal behavior; (2) food, 

water, air, light, minerals, or other 

nutritional or physiological 

requirements; (3) cover or shelter; (4) 

sites for breeding, reproduction, or 

rearing of offspring; and (5) habitats that 

are protected from disturbance or are 

representative of the historic 

geographical and ecological distribution 

of a species. Essential physical and 

biological features may include, but are 

not limited to: ‘‘nesting grounds, feeding 

sites, water quality, tide, and geological 

formations.’’ Our implementing 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define 

‘‘special management considerations or 

protection’’ as any methods or 

procedures useful in protecting physical 

and biological features of the 

environment for the conservation of the 

species. 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us 

to designate and make revisions to 

critical habitat for listed species on the 

basis of the best scientific data available 

and after taking into consideration the 

economic impact, the impact on 

national security, and any other relevant 

impact, of specifying any particular area 

as critical habitat. The Secretary may 

exclude any particular area from critical 

habitat if he determines that the benefits 

of such exclusion outweigh the benefits 

of specifying such area as part of the 

critical habitat, unless he determines 

that the failure to designate such area as 

critical habitat will result in the 

extinction of the species concerned. 

Petition History 

On December 19, 2008, we received a 

petition from Wildlife Advocacy Project, 

Save the Manatee Club, Center for 

Biological Diversity, and Defenders of 

Wildlife, requesting that we revise 

critical habitat for the Florida manatee 

(Trichechus manatus latirostris) 

pursuant to the Act and the 

Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 

Subchapter II). The petition clearly 

identified itself and included the 

requisite identification information for 

the petitioners, as required in 50 CFR 

424.14(a). In a January 17, 2009, letter 

to the petitioners, we responded that we 

received the petition and would make a 

finding, to the maximum extent 

practicable within 90 days, as to 


CPrice-Sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
49844 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 29, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

whether or not the petition presents 

substantial information. We also stated 

that if the initial finding concludes that 

the petition presents substantial 

information indicating that a revision 

may be warranted, then we have one 

year from the date we received the 

petition to determine how we intend to 

proceed with the requested revision and 

we will promptly publish in the Federal 

Register a notice of our intentions at the 

end of this period. 

Previous Federal Actions 

We originally listed the Florida 

manatee (Trichechus manatus 

latirostris), a subspecies of the West 

Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus), 

as endangered in 1967 (32 FR 4001, 

March 11, 1967) under the Endangered 

Species Preservation Act of 1966 (Pub. 

L. 89-669; 80 Stat. 926). In 1970, we 

amended Appendix A to 50 CFR part 17 

to include additional names to the list 

of foreign endangered species (35 FR 

18319, December 2, 1970). This listing 

incorporated West Indian manatees into 

the list under the Endangered Species 

Conservation Act of 1969 (Pub. L. 91- 

135; 83 Stat. 275) and encompassed the 

species’ range in the Caribbean and 

northern South America, thus including 

both Antillean (T. m. manatus) and 

Florida manatees in the listing. The 

West Indian manatee is currently listed 

as an endangered species under the Act, 

and the population is further protected 

as a depleted stock under the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 1361 

et seq.). We designated critical habitat 

for the Florida manatee (listed in that 

regulation as Trichechus manatus) on 

September 24, 1976 (41 FR 41914) in 

Citrus, Hillsborough, Manatee, Sarasota, 

Charlotte, De Soto, Lee, Collier, Monroe, 

Dade, Palm Beach, Martin, West Palm 

Beach, Volusia, Brevard, Nassau and 

Duval Counties, Florida. That critical 

habitat designation appears in our 

regulations at 50 CFR 17.95(a). 

Species Information 

For current information on the 

biology, status, and habitat needs of the 

Florida manatee, refer to the Service’s 5- 

Year Review of the West Indian Manatee 

(Service 2007) and the Service’s Florida 

Manatee Recovery Plan (Service 2001), 

available on the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov and at http:// 

www.fws.gov/northflorida/Manatee/ 

manatees.htm. 

Evaluation of the Petition 

In making this 90–day finding, we 

evaluated whether information 

regarding the revision of the critical 

habitat for Florida manatee, as 

presented in the petition and other 

information available in our files is 

substantial, thereby indicating that the 

petitioned action may be warranted. Our 

evaluation of this information is 

presented below. 

The petitioners seek to revise the 

critical habitat designation through 

proposed revisions of each geographic 

area or management unit and the 

inclusion of ‘‘notable constituent 

elements.’’ The petitioners claim that 

although the currently designated 

critical habitat is large, because of flaws 

in the listing, it provides inadequate 

protection of manatees. The petitioners 

include the four topics listed below as 

‘‘major deficiencies’’ in the currently 

designated critical habitat for the 

Florida manatee. 

(1) Petitioners Claim that Constituent 

Elements Required by Law are Absent. 

The petitioners state that we 

designated manatee critical habitat in 

1976, 2 years before the requirement for 

constituent elements was included in 

the 1978 amendments to the ESA in 

which the term ‘‘critical habitat’’ was 

clearly defined, and included the 

physical and biological factors (p. 15). 

The petitioners also state that, because 

extensive information concerning the 

manatee’s current and projected habitat 

needs and utilization is now available, 

it is possible to describe the constituent 

elements, and we should remedy the 

lack of such elements in the critical 

habitat designation (p. 15). 

We agree that we did not address 

constituent elements, or more 

appropriately, the physical and 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the manatee, in the 

original 1976 designation of critical 

habitat, and more information is now 

available on the habitat needs of the 

manatee. Therefore, we find that the 

petitioners have presented substantial 

information that a revision to the critical 

habitat for the manatee may be 

warranted to more adequately address 

the features essential to the species’ 

conservation. 

(2) Petitioners Claim that Changes in 

Use by the Species Necessitate Revision. 

The petitioners include statistics on 

the increase in growth of Florida’s 

human population since we designated 

manatee critical habitat and include 

examples of related increased threats to 

the species and subsequent changes to 

habitats now available to manatees (pp. 

15-16). They state that a 171 percent 

increase in the human population of 

Florida since critical habitat was 

designated in 1976, through 2005, has 

increased recreational use of coastal 

areas and has diminished water quality 

and the availability of natural warm 

water for manatees. 

We agree that the increase in urban 

development, particularly on Florida’s 

coasts, has changed the landscape since 

we designated critical habitat for the 

manatee. In response to the increase in 

human growth, and consequent increase 

in the number of recreational vessels on 

Florida’s waterways, we have published 

a number of rules to establish manatee 

protection areas in the State (50 CFR 

17.100 through 17.108). This 

information can be found on the 

Internet at http://www.fws.gov/ 

northflorida/Manatee/manatees.htm. 

We find that the information provided 

by the petitioners, along with 

information in our files, is substantial, 

indicating that a revision to critical 

habitat may be warranted to address 

changes in habitat use by manatees in 

Florida since the original designation of 

critical habitat. 

(3) Petitioners Claim that Advancements 

in Science Provide New Information 

About the Needs of the Species. 

The petitioners claim that aerial 

surveys, radio and satellite telemetry 

studies, a carcass retrieval database, and 

the U.S. Geological Survey-Sirenia 

Project photo-identification database, 

which were developed after the initial 

designation of manatee critical habitat, 

have revolutionized our knowledge of 

manatee distribution and use of habitat. 

The petitioners also cite the Florida 

Manatee Recovery Plan’s actions 

regarding manatee habitat, stating that 

we are compiling information and 

sponsoring research to identify and 

protect important manatee habitats with 

a longer term goal to conserve a network 

of manatee migratory corridors, and 

feeding, calving, and nursing areas (p. 

16). 

We agree that scientific information 

regarding manatee conservation has 

dramatically increased since the original 

critical habitat designation. On the basis 

of this information, it is apparent that 

there has been a change in habitat use 

by the manatee due to an increasing 

manatee population and changing 

habitats. However, the most substantial 

information otherwise readily available 

to the Service is not that of the 

petitioners, but the analysis of threats 

for the Florida manatee in the Service’s 

5–year review (Service 2007), which 

incorporates updates in manatee science 

and includes both biological 

information and habitat use. The 

Service must designate and make 

revisions to critical habitat on the basis 

of the best scientific information 

available. The Service’s 5–year review is 

the most recent analysis of threats to the 


CPrice-Sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 29, 2009 / Proposed Rules 49845 

species based on those updates in 

scientific information. Therefore, based 

on information submitted by the 

petitioners and information in Service 

files, we find the information 

concerning advancements in science 

and new information concerning the 

needs of the species to be substantial 

information. We now know more 

specifically where habitat exists for 

manatees that is critical to their survival 

and recovery. As a consequence, we 

have determined that a revision to 

critical habitat for the manatee may be 

warranted to address new information 

concerning habitat usage and needs. 

(4) Petitioners Claim that The U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service Recognizes the 

Need for Revision. 

The petitioners cite passages from 

Service consultation documents and the 

current Florida Manatee Recovery Plan 

(Recovery Plan) as evidence that we 

have stated the need to assess and revise 

critical habitat for the Florida manatee 

(p. 17). Specifically, the petitioners cite 

a biological opinion regarding U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers Application 

(No. 4-1-97-F-602): ‘‘The action area is 

within designated critical habitat for the 

manatee; however, no specific primary 

or secondary constituent elements were 

included in the critical habitat 

designation, making it difficult to 

determine when an action adversely 

modifies critical habitat.’’ The 

petitioners state that the Service’s 

Recovery Plan acknowledges the need to 

revise critical habitat and cite Recovery 

Action 3.5 from the Recovery Plan: 

‘‘Much has been learned about manatee 

distribution in the decades since 

manatee critical habitat was originally 

defined. The FWS should assess the 

need to revise critical habitat for the 

Florida manatee.’’ 

The Service disagrees with the 

petitioner’s statement that the Recovery 

Plan acknowledges the need to revise 

critical habitat; however, we do 

acknowledge that the 2001 Florida 

Manatee Recovery Plan contains a 

recovery action, including the 

recommendation as stated above, to 

assess the need to revise critical habitat. 

Although the Service believes 

‘‘assessing the need’’ is not the same as 

‘‘recognizing the need’’ for revision, we 

find that the information submitted by 

the petitioner in this category to be 

substantial information indicating that a 

revision to critical habitat for the 

manatee may be warranted. 

Petitioners’ Proposed Revisions to 

Critical Habitat 

In addition to identifying the 

deficiencies noted above with the 

current Florida manatee critical habitat 

designation, the petitioners dedicate an 

entire section of the petition to specific 

proposed revisions to manatee critical 

habitat in Florida. These proposed 

revisions include a description of 

geographic boundaries within each 

regional management unit that would 

alter the currently designated critical 

habitat, as well as recommended 

physical and biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

manatee that would require protection 

and special attention either throughout 

all or portions of the petition’s proposed 

geographical boundary revisions. 

Within each geographic management 

unit (Northwest Region, Southwest 

Region, Atlantic Region, and Upper St. 

Johns River Region), the petitioners 

provide a list of the currently designated 

critical habitat areas followed by their 

proposed revisions to those areas. In 

most cases, the petitioners list 

additional areas that they believe should 

be included in a revision to the 

currently designated critical habitat 

boundaries. They cite available 

scientific data to support their proposal. 

The list of essential features 

recommended by the petitioners for 

each of these geographic areas includes 

warm water (natural springs, passive 

thermal basins, and power plant thermal 

discharges); various food sources 

(seagrasses and freshwater vegetation); 

travel corridors; shelter (for calving and 

from disturbances); fresh water; and 

other habitat features (water depth, 

water quality and salinity). 

The Service recognizes the 

importance of warm water habitat to 

manatees; however, we have not 

evaluated potential physical and 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the manatee. The 

Service makes no statement at this time 

on the specific proposals by the 

petitioners for the constituent elements 

or for the areas presented as revised 

critical habitat geographic boundaries. 

We do believe that any revision to 

critical habitat should reflect the current 

understanding of the conservation needs 

of the species. 

Finding 

Our process for making this 90–day 

finding under section 4(b)(3)(D) of the 

Act is limited to a determination of 

whether the information in the petition 

presents ‘‘substantial scientific 

information,’’ which is interpreted in 

our regulations as ‘‘that amount of 

information that would lead a 

reasonable person to believe that the 

measure proposed in the petition may 

be warranted’’ (50 CFR 424.14(b)). 

Based on this review and evaluation, 

in addition to the information readily 

available in our files, we find that the 

petition has presented substantial 

scientific information indicating that 

revision of the critical habitat 

designation for the Florida manatee may 

be warranted. Therefore, we are 

initiating a review to determine how we 

intend to proceed with the request to 

revise the critical habitat designation 

under the Act for the Florida manatee. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

in this rule is available on the Internet 

at http://www.regulations.govor upon 

request from the Field Supervisor, 

Jacksonville, Florida Ecological Services 

Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT). 

Author(s) 

The primary authors of this notice are 

the staff members of the Jacksonville, 

Florida Ecological Services Office (see 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Authority 

The authority for this action is the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

Dated: September 16, 2009. 

Thomas L. Strickland 

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and 

Parks 

[FR Doc. E9–23245 Filed 9–28– 09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 660 

[Docket No. 0909111273–91274–01] 

RIN 0648–XR09 

Fisheries Off West Coast States; 

Coastal Pelagic Species Fisheries; 

Annual Specifications 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes a regulation 

to implement the annual harvest 

guideline (HG) for Pacific mackerel in 

the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ) 

off the Pacific coast. This HG is 

proposed according to the regulations 

implementing the Coastal Pelagic 

Species (CPS) Fishery Management Plan 

(FMP) and establishes allowable harvest 


CPrice-Sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS