55432 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Notices 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/ 

statusreviews.htm 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rory 

Saunders, NMFS Northeast Regional 

Office, (207) 866–4049, or Pat Scida, 

NMFS Northeast Regional Office, (978) 

281–9208. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The ESA requires that FWS and 

NMFS (Services) make listing 

determinations based on the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available after conducting a review of 

the status of species and after taking 

into account efforts to protect the 

species. In 1999 the Services completed 

a review of the biological status of 

Atlantic salmon in the United States. 

Based on that status review, in 

November 2000, the Services listed all 

naturally reproducing remnant 

populations of Atlantic salmon from the 

Kennebec River downstream of the 

former Edwards Dam site, northward to 

the mouth of the St. Croix River 

(excluding those fish inhabiting the 

mainstem of the Penobscot River above 

the site of the former Bangor Dam) as an 

endangered Distinct Population 

Segment (DPS) under the ESA. A 

decision regarding whether or not to 

include salmon that inhabited the 

mainstems of the Kennebec River above 

the former site of Edwards Dam and the 

Penobscot River above the former site of 

Bangor Dam was deferred by the 

Services during the initial listing action 

pending genetic analysis of these 

populations. 

The 2006 Status Review 

In response to the recent availability 

of the genetic data for these populations, 

the Services convened a BRT in late 

2003 consisting of biologists from the 

Maine Atlantic Salmon Commission, 

Penobscot Indian Nation, NMFS, and 

FWS. The BRT was charged with 

reviewing and evaluating all relevant 

scientific information relating to the 

current DPS delineation, determining 

the conservation status of the 

populations for which a decision was 

deferred in 2000, and assessing their 

relationship to the currently listed Gulf 

of Maine (GOM) DPS. 

The BRT has completed its review of 

the biological status of Atlantic salmon 

in the United States, including an 

assessment of the adequacy of protective 

measures, the extent of implementation 

of these measures, and the effect of 

these measures on Atlantic salmon and 

their habitat. This Status Review is an 

update to the 1999 Atlantic salmon 

Status Review and discusses the status 

of salmon in the Androscoggin, 

Kennebec, and Penobscot Rivers relative 

to the currently listed GOM DPS. 

Recent genetic studies indicate that 

salmon inhabiting the Kennebec and 

Penobscot Rivers are more closely 

related to other salmon inhabiting the 

GOM DPS than they are to those found 

in Canada and other parts of the world. 

Based on these studies, as well as other 

zoogeographic, hydrographic, and life 

history data, the new Status Review 

concludes that the GOM DPS should be 

comprised of all anadromous Atlantic 

salmon whose freshwater range occurs 

in the watersheds from the 

Androscoggin River northward along 

the Maine coast to the Dennys River, 

including all associated conservation 

hatchery populations used to 

supplement natural populations; 

currently, such populations are 

maintained at Green Lake and Craig 

Brook National Fish Hatcheries. A 

population viability analysis (PVA) was 

performed for the GOM DPS, including 

the Androscoggin, Kennebec, and 

Penobscot River populations, and is 

discussed in the new Status Review. 

The PVA is a way to estimate 

population growth or decline over time. 

In the new Atlantic salmon Status 

Review, PVA projections suggest that 

the likelihood of extinction of the GOM 

DPS of Atlantic salmon ranges from 19 

percent to 75 percent within the next 

100 years. The Status Review also 

includes a detailed analysis of threats to 

the DPS (as delineated by the BRT). 

NMFS contracted with the Center for 

Independent Experts to have the 2006 

Status Review independently peer 

reviewed. The reviewers were asked to 

address the following four questions: 

(1) Is the species delineation 

supported by the information 

presented? 

(2) Does the status review include and 

cite the best available scientific and 

commercial information available on the 

species and threats to it and its habitat? 

(3) Are the scientific conclusions 

sound and derived logically from the 

results? 

(4) Where available, are opposing 

scientific studies or theories 

acknowledged and discussed? 

This review has been completed and 

provided to the BRT for their 

consideration and response. The July 

2006 version of the status review, which 

is being made available to the public, 

contains modifications made by the BRT 

in light of the comments received from 

four peer reviewers. 

The Services jointly administer the 

ESA as it applies to anadromous 

Atlantic salmon. The Northeast Region 

of NMFS and Region 5 of the FWS have 

entered into a Statement of Cooperation 

in order to divide responsibility for ESA 

implementation in order to enhance 

efficiency and effectiveness. The 

Services have agreed that NMFS would 

be responsible for receiving the status 

review from the BRT, conducting a peer 

review on that status review, and 

determining and preparing any 

appropriate action under the ESA. It 

was agreed that NMFS would prepare 

and publish any associated Federal 

Register notices. Pursuant to this 

agreement, NMFS is currently 

considering the information presented 

in the new Status Review, the comments 

from the peer reviewers, and the 

response of the BRT to the peer 

reviewers to determine if action under 

the ESA is warranted. NMFS could 

determine that a change to the 

boundaries or conservation status of the 

existing GOM DPS is warranted, that a 

separate listing action is warranted, or 

that no new action is warranted. If 

NMFS determines that a modification to 

the existing listing or a new listing is 

warranted, then a proposed rule will be 

published along with the rationale for 

that proposal. A decision regarding 

NMFS’ determination will be published 

in the Federal Register. 

Authority 

The authority for this action is the 

ESA, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq.). 

Dated: September 18, 2006. 

Samuel D. Rauch, III 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 06–8100 Filed 9–21–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

Draft Framework for Developing the 

National System of Marine Protected 

Areas 

AGENCY: National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Department of Commerce (DOC). 

ACTION: Notice of availability and 

solicitation of public comments on the 

Draft Framework for Developing the 

National System of Marine Protected 

Areas. 

SUMMARY: NOAA and the Department of 

the Interior (DOI) jointly propose the 

Draft Framework for Developing the 

National System of Marine Protected 

Areas (Draft Framework), as required by 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Notices 55433 

Executive Order 13158 on Marine 

Protected Areas (MPAs). This Draft 

Framework provides overarching 

guidance for collaborative efforts among 

Federal, State, tribal and local 

governments and stakeholders to 

develop an effective National System of 

MPAs (National System) from existing 

sites, build coordination and 

collaborative efforts, and identify 

ecosystem-based gaps in the protection 

of significant natural and cultural 

resources for possible future action by 

the nation’s MPA authorities. The 

document further provides the guiding 

principles, key definitions, goals, and 

objectives for the National System, 

based on the breadth of input received 

from MPA stakeholders and 

governmental partners around the 

nation over the past several years. The 

intent of this document is to solicit 

additional public input on the proposed 

Draft Framework in order to develop a 

final document that meets the nation’s 

interests in the National System. 

DATES: Comments must be received 

before 11:59 p.m. EDT, February 14, 

2007. 

ADDRESSES: All comments regarding the 

Draft Framework should be submitted to 

Joseph Uravitch, National MPA Center, 

N/ORM, NOAA, 1305 East-West 

Highway, Silver Spring, Maryland 

20910. Comments sent via e-mail should 

be sent to mpa.comments@noaa.gov, 

and all comments sent by fax should be 

sent to 301–713–3110. E-mail and fax 

comments should state ‘‘Draft 

Framework Comments’’ in the subject 

line. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Please direct all questions and requests 

for additional information concerning 

the Draft Framework, as well as for 

paper copies of the document to: 

Jonathan Kelsey, NOAA, at 301–713–

3100, ext. 130 or via e-mail at 

mpa.comments@noaa.gov. E-mail 

requests should state either ‘‘Question’’

or ‘‘Paper Copy Request’’ in the subject 

line. An electronic copy of the Draft 

Framework is available for download at 

http://www.mpa.gov/. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration’s (NOAA) National 

Marine Protected Areas Center (MPA 

Center), in cooperation with the 

Department of the Interior (DOI), has 

developed a Draft Framework for 

Developing the National System of 

MPAs (Draft Framework) to meet 

requirements under Executive Order 

13158 on Marine Protected Areas 

(Order). The purpose of this notice is to 

solicit additional input and comments 

on the Draft Framework from 

governments and stakeholders in order 

to ensure that the final document 

represents the diversity of the nation’s 

interests in the marine environment and 

MPAs. NOAA and DOI recognize the 

principal role that State and tribal 

governments, along with Federal 

agencies, must have in developing and 

implementing the National System. 

Roughly 85% of the nation’s existing 

place-based conservation areas are 

under the jurisdiction of non-Federal 

governments. The significance of these 

government-to-government 

relationships and the marine resources 

managed by States and tribes 

necessitates this national, rather than 

Federal, approach to building the 

National System. In developing this 

Draft Framework, NOAA and the DOI 

have made and will continue to expand 

efforts to understand and incorporate, as 

appropriate, the recommendations of 

government partners concerning a 

structure and function for the National 

System that builds partnerships with 

and supports the efforts and voluntary 

participation of State, tribal, and local 

governments. MPA stakeholders and 

Federal and non-Federal government 

partners alike are encouraged to review 

and provide comments on the Draft 

Framework so that it supports the 

variety of MPA efforts and interests 

around the country. 

Increasing impacts on the world’s 

oceans, caused by development, 

overfishing, and natural events, are 

straining the health of our coastal and 

marine ecosystems. Some of these 

impacts to the marine and Great Lakes 

environment have resulted in declining 

fish populations; degradation of coral 

reefs, seagrass beds, and other vital 

habitats; threats to rare or endangered 

species; and loss of artifacts and areas 

that are part of our nation’s historic and 

cultural heritage. The effects of these 

mounting losses are being directly felt 

in the social and economic fabric of our 

nation’s communities. 

MPAs offer a promising ocean and 

coastal management tool to mitigate or 

buffer these impacts. It is important to 

clarify that the term ‘‘MPA,’’ as used 

here, is not synonymous with or limited 

to ‘‘no-take areas’’ or ‘‘marine reserves.’’

Instead, the term ‘‘MPA’’ denotes an 

array of levels of protection, from areas 

that allow multiple use activities to 

those that restrict take and/or access. 

When used effectively and in 

conjunction with other management 

tools, MPAs can help to ensure healthy 

Great Lakes and oceans by contributing 

to the overall protection of critical 

marine habitats and resources. In this 

way, effective MPAs can offer social and 

economic opportunities for current and 

future generations, such as tourism, 

biotechnology, fishing, education, and 

scientific research. 

Since 2001, the MPA Center and its 

Federal, State, and tribal partners have 

been collecting information on the vast 

array of the nation’s place-based marine 

conservation areas, including those 

generally considered MPAs, to serve as 

the foundation for building the National 

System. This inventory has resulted in 

the identification of at least 1,500 placebased sites established by hundreds of 

Federal and State authorities. A number 

of these existing sites are further 

managed as systems by their respective 

agencies or programs. The types of sites 

found range from multiple-use areas to 

no-take reserves. The vast majority of 

these areas allow multiple uses, and less 

than one percent of the total area under 

management in the United States (U.S.) 

is no-take. This inventory has also 

revealed a dramatic increase in the use 

of MPAs over the past several decades. 

Most MPAs in the U.S. have been 

established since 1970, and most allow 

recreational and commercial uses. With 

this expanded use of MPAs have come 

many new and enhanced protections to 

natural and cultural resources. A 

preliminary analysis of U.S. place-based 

conservation efforts reveals important 

trends in how these areas, including 

MPAs, are being used to conserve some 

of the nation’s most significant marine 

resources. The emerging results 

illustrate that while there are many such 

areas currently in U.S. waters, these 

diverse sites vary widely in mandate, 

jurisdiction, purpose, size, and level of 

protection. 

Moreover, this initial analysis 

illustrates how the growing recognition 

of MPAs as essential conservation tools 

has resulted in a multitude of new MPA 

programs and authorities at all levels of 

government, often times for a sole 

purpose or objective. There also are a 

number of good examples where MPA 

efforts are coordinated locally across 

programs and levels of government; 

however, there is no larger framework 

for collaborating MPA efforts across 

ecosystems and nationally to meet 

common goals. This complex 

environment leads to public confusion, 

and, in many cases, conservation efforts 

that are not as effective as they could be 

with better coordination. The results of 

this initial analysis have further 

reinforced the need for a National 

System and provided much of the 

baseline information to begin building 

it. 

In recognition of the key role MPAs 

can play and their growing use, the U.S. 

is developing an effective National 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
55434 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Notices 

System to support the effective 

stewardship, lasting protection, 

restoration, and sustainable use of the 

nation’s significant natural and cultural 

marine resources. The MPA Center is 

charged by the Order to carry out these 

requirements in cooperation with DOI. 

Neither the Order nor the National 

System establishes any new legal 

authorities to designate or manage 

MPAs, nor do they alter any existing 

State, Federal, or tribal laws or 

programs. 

In addition, the U.S. Ocean Action 

Plan (USOAP) outlines a variety of 

actions for promoting the responsible 

use and stewardship of ocean and 

coastal resources for the benefit of all 

Americans. A Cabinet-level ‘‘Committee 

on Ocean Policy’’ (COP) was established 

by Executive Order 13366 (December 

17, 2004) to coordinate the activities of 

executive branch departments and 

agencies regarding ocean-related matters 

in an integrated and effective manner to 

advance the environmental and 

economic interests of present and future 

generations of Americans. The President 

further directs the Executive branch 

agencies to facilitate, as appropriate, 

coordination and consultation regarding 

ocean-related matters among Federal, 

State, tribal, local governments, the 

private sector, foreign governments, and 

international organizations. 

Subcommittees of the COP also have 

been formed as part of the ocean 

governance structure described in the 

USOAP, including the Subcommittee on 

Integrated Management of Ocean 

Resources (SIMOR) and the Joint 

Subcommittee on Ocean Science and 

Technology. Many of the activities 

outlined in the USOAP and the 

subsequent work plans of the COP’s 

subcommittees complement efforts to 

develop the National System. Similarly, 

many of the collaborative actions under 

the National System may offer 

opportunities to help advance the 

USOAP. As these efforts proceed, the 

MPA Center will work closely with 

SIMOR to evaluate progress and plans 

for developing the National System in 

order to ensure coordination and 

consistency with the USOAP’s 

governance structure and overall 

approach. 

The MPA Center has developed this 

Draft Framework based on information 

from the initial analysis of information 

about existing place-based conservation 

efforts, along with comments from 

hundreds of individuals at nearly sixty 

meetings, initial tribal consultations, 

and recommendations from Federal, 

non-governmental and State advisory 

groups. As a result, the proposed 

collaborative development of an 

effective National System outlined in 

this document provides a structure for 

an assemblage of MPA sites, systems, 

and networks established and managed 

by Federal, State, tribal, and local 

governments to collectively work 

together at the regional and national 

levels to achieve common objectives for 

conserving the nation’s vital natural and 

cultural resources. 

By establishing an effective structure 

for working together, the National 

System will help to increase the 

efficient protection of important marine 

resources; contribute to the nation’s 

overall social and economic health; 

support government agency cooperation 

and integration; and improve the 

public’s access to scientific information 

and decision-making about the nation’s 

marine resources. The efforts of the 

National System are also intended to 

benefit participating State, tribal, 

Federal, and local government partners 

through collaborative efforts to identify 

shared priorities for improving MPA 

effectiveness and develop partnerships 

to provide assistance in meeting those 

needs. Further, it provides a foundation 

for cooperation with other countries to 

conserve resources of common concern. 

In submitting your comments on the 

Draft Framework, please remember that 

comments submitted by e-mail are 

preferred; however, those submitted by 

mail and fax will also be accepted. An 

extended comment period of 145 days is 

being provided in order to accommodate 

the quarterly meeting schedules of some 

organizations, including regional fishery 

management councils. 

Classification 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

This action is not a regulatory action 

subject to E.O. 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993). 

Energy Effects 

NOAA and DOI have determined that 

this action will have no effect on energy 

supply, distribution, or use and is 

therefore not a ‘‘significant energy 

action’’ as defined by Executive Order 

13211 (66 FR 28355, May 18, 2001). No 

Statement of Energy Effects is required 

and therefore none has been prepared. 

Government to Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

E.O. 13175—Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments— outlines the 

responsibilities of the Federal 

Government regarding its policies with 

tribal implications, i.e., regulations, 

legislative comments or proposed 

legislation, and other policy statements 

or actions that have substantial direct 

effects on one or more Indian tribes, on 

the relationship between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000). Pursuant to 

E.O. 13175, we will consult with tribal 

governments as the National System is 

developed. 

Administrative Procedure Act 

Pursuant to authority at 5 U.S.C. 

533(b)(A), prior notice and an 

opportunity for public comment are not 

required to be given, as this document 

concerns agency procedure or practice. 

Nevertheless, NOAA and DOI want the 

benefit of the public’s comment and are 

hereby giving prior notice and 

opportunity for public comment. 

Dated: July 12, 2006. 

Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr., 

Vice Admiral, U.S. Navy (Ret.), Under 

Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and 

Atmosphere. 

[FR Doc. 06–8077 Filed 9–21–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–08–P 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

Submission for OMB Review; 

Comment Request—Flammability 

Standards for Clothing Textiles and 

Vinyl Plastic Film 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: In the Federal Register of July 

11, 2006 (71 FR 39056), the Consumer 

Product Safety Commission published a 

notice in accordance with provisions of 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) to announce the 

agency’s intention to seek an extension 

of approval of a collection of 

information in regulations 

implementing the flammability 

standards for clothing textiles and vinyl 

plastic film. The regulations prescribe 

requirements for testing and 

recordkeeping by persons and firms 

issuing guaranties of garments, fabrics, 

and related materials subject to the 

Standard for the Flammability of 

Clothing Textiles (16 CFR part 1610) 

and the Standard for the Flammability 

of Vinyl Plastic Film (16 CFR part 1611). 

No comments were received in response 

to that notice. By publication of this 

notice, the Commission announces that 

it has submitted to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) a 

request for an extension of approval of 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES