Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 63 / Monday, April 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules 19605 

productivity of naturally spawning 

Chinook salmon in this ESU. 

Conservation Efforts 

When considering the listing of a 

species, section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA 

(16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(1)(A)) requires 

consideration of efforts by any State, 

foreign nation, or political subdivision 

of a State or foreign nation to protect the 

species. On March 28, 2003, NMFS and 

the USFWS published the final Policy 

for Evaluating Conservation Efforts 

When Making Listing Decisions (68 FR 

15100), that provides guidance on 

evaluating current protective efforts 

identified in conservation agreements, 

conservation plans, management plans, 

or similar documents (developed by 

Federal agencies, State and local 

governments, Tribal governments, 

businesses, organizations, and 

individuals) that have not yet been 

implemented, or that have been 

implemented but have not yet 

demonstrated effectiveness. 

There is a wide range of conservation 

efforts focused on salmonids, including 

Chinook salmon, in the UKTR ESU. One 

important effort is the Trinity River 

Restoration Program. This ongoing 

program established restoration goals for 

spring-run and fall-run Chinook salmon, 

identified actions that must be taken to 

restore Trinity River Chinook salmon 

populations, established quantifiable 

performance measures, and 

incorporated the principles of adaptive 

management (TRRP 2012). Removing 

Iron Gate Dam and three other dams 

upstream of Iron Gate Dam on the 

Klamath River (if the Secretary of the 

Interior makes an affirmative 

determination under the Klamath 

Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement) or 

adding fish passage facilities around 

these and other upper basin dams on the 

Klamath River (if the Secretary of the 

Interior does not make an affirmative 

determination under the Klamath 

Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement) 

and associated restoration efforts will 

likely improve the viability of UKTR 

Chinook salmon (CDFG and DOI 2011), 

but there are uncertainties regarding 

which of these efforts will be 

implemented. Several other efforts are 

ongoing in the Klamath Basin; in 

particular, improved forest practices, 

land management, and purchase of 

private land for conservation. Ongoing 

research on diseases that afflict UKTR 

Chinook salmon is expected to provide 

greater understanding of the factors that 

contribute to disease infection and 

management efforts that can ameliorate 

disease impacts in the UKTR ESU. 

12-Month Finding 

We have reviewed the status of the 

UKTR Chinook salmon ESU and 

considered the best scientific and 

commercial data available, and we 

conclude that the petitioned action is 

not warranted. In reaching this 

conclusion, we conclude that spring-run 

and fall-run Chinook salmon in the 

UKTR Basin constitute a single ESU. We 

have considered the conservation efforts 

for the ESU. In addition, we have 

considered the ESA section 4(a)(1) (16 

U.S.C. 1533(a)(1)) factors in the context 

of the biological status of the species, 

the assessment of the risks posed by 

those threats, the possible cumulative 

impacts, and the associated 

uncertainties. Despite the issues 

discussed under those factors, 

consistent with the 1998 status review 

and listing determination for the UKTR 

Chinook salmon ESU, and based on a 

comprehensive review of the best 

scientific and commercial data currently 

available, NMFS concludes the overall 

extinction risk of the ESU is considered 

to be low over the next 100 years. 

Based on these considerations and 

others described in this notice, we 

conclude that the UKTR Chinook 

salmon ESU is not in danger of 

extinction throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range, nor is it likely to 

become so in the foreseeable future. 

Therefore, the UKTR Chinook salmon 

ESU does not meet the ESA definition 

of an endangered or threatened species, 

and listing the UKTR Chinook salmon 

ESU under the ESA is not warranted at 

this time. 

References 

A complete list of references cited 

herein is available upon request (see 

ADDRESSES section). 

Authority 

The authority for this action is the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

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

Dated: March 27, 2012. 

Alan D. Risenhoover, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–7879 Filed 3–30–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 679 

RIN 0648–BB77 

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Salmon 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of availability of fishery 

management plan amendments; request 

for comments. 

SUMMARY: The North Pacific Fishery 

Management Council (Council) 

submitted Amendments 10, 11, and 12 

to the Fishery Management Plan for the 

Salmon Fisheries in the EEZ off the 

Coast of Alaska (FMP) to NMFS for 

review. If approved, Amendment 10 

would provide authority for NMFS to 

recover the administrative costs of 

processing applications for any future 

permits that may be required under this 

FMP, except for exempted fishing 

permits and prohibited species donation 

permits. If approved, Amendment 11 

would revise the timeline associated 

with the Council’s process to identify 

Habitat Areas of Particular Concern so 

that the process coincides with the 

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) 5-year 

review, revise habitat research priority 

objectives, and update EFH 

conservation recommendations for, and 

the analysis of the impacts of, nonfishing activities. If approved, 

Amendment 12 would comprehensively 

revise and update the FMP to reflect the 

Council’s salmon management policy 

and Federal law. Amendments 10, 11, 

and 12 are intended to promote the 

goals and objectives of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act, the FMP, and other 

applicable laws. 

DATES: Written comments on the 

amendment must be received on or 

before 5 p.m., Alaska local time, on June 

1, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by FDMS Docket Number 

NOAA–NMFS–2011–0295, by any one 

of the following methods: 

• Electronic Submissions: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal http:// 

www.regulations.gov. To submit 

comments via the e-Rulemaking Portal, 

first click the ‘‘submit a comment’’ icon, 

then enter NOAA–NMFS–2011–0295 in 

the keyword search. Locate the 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
19606 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 63 / Monday, April 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

document you wish to comment on 

from the resulting list and click on the 

‘‘Submit a Comment’’ icon on that line. 

• Fax: Address written comments to 

Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional 

Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries 

Division, Alaska Region NMFS, Attn: 

Ellen Sebastian. Fax comments to 907– 

586–7557. 

• Mail: Address written comments to 

Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional 

Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries 

Division, Alaska Region NMFS, Attn: 

Ellen Sebastian. Mail comments to P.O. 

Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802–1668. 

• Hand delivery to the Federal 

Building: Address written comments to 

Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional 

Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries 

Division, Alaska Region NMFS, Attn: 

Ellen Sebastian. Deliver comments to 

709 West 9th Street, Room 420A, 

Juneau, AK. 

Instructions: Comments must be 

submitted by one of the above methods 

to ensure that the comments are 

received, documented, and considered 

by NMFS. Comments sent by any other 

method, to any other address or 

individual, or received after the end of 

the comment period, may not be 

considered. 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) voluntarily 

submitted by the commenter will be 

publicly accessible. Do not submit 

Confidential Business 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). You may submit 

attachments to electronic comments in 

Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or 

Adobe PDF file formats only. 

Electronic copies of the proposed 

Fishery Management Plan for the 

Salmon Fisheries in the EEZ off Alaska 

that incorporates Amendments 10, 11, 

and 12, and the draft Environmental 

Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review 

prepared for Amendment 12 may be 

obtained from http:// 

www.regulations.gov or from the NMFS 

Alaska Region Web site at http:// 

alaskafisheries.noaa.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gretchen Harrington, 907–586–7228. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires that 

each regional fishery management 

council submit any fishery management 

plan or fishery management plan 

amendment it prepares to NMFS for 

review and approval, disapproval, or 

partial approval by the Secretary of 

Commerce. The Magnuson-Stevens Act 

also requires that NMFS, upon receiving 

a fishery management plan amendment, 

immediately publish a notice in the 

Federal Register announcing that the 

amendment is available for public 

review and comment. 

This notice announces that proposed 

Amendments 10, 11, and 12 to the FMP 

are available for public review and 

comment. The salmon fisheries in the 

exclusive economic zone (EEZ, 3 to 200 

nautical miles) off Alaska are managed 

under the FMP. The FMP was prepared 

by the Council under the authority of 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 

1801 et seq. The following paragraphs 

provide information on Amendments 

10, 11, and 12. Because Amendment 12 

would comprehensively amend the FMP 

and incorporates FMP language for 

Amendments 10 and 11, it is described 

first in this NOA. Descriptions of 

Amendments 10 and 11 follow the 

description of Amendment 12. 

Fishery Management Plan for the 

Salmon Fisheries in the EEZ off the 

Coast of Alaska 

The FMP originally was approved in 

1979 and last comprehensively revised 

in 1990. The FMP conserves and 

manages the Pacific salmon commercial 

and sport fisheries that occur in the EEZ 

off Alaska. The FMP establishes two 

management areas: the East Area is the 

EEZ in the Gulf of Alaska east of Cape 

Suckling (143°53.6′′ West Longitude) 

and the West Area is the EEZ off the 

coast of Alaska west of Cape Suckling. 

The FMP manages commercial salmon 

fisheries differently in each area. In the 

East Area, the FMP delegates 

management of the commercial troll 

salmon fishery to the State of Alaska 

(State) to manage in compliance with 

the Pacific Salmon Treaty, MagnusonStevens Act, and FMP. The FMP 

prohibits commercial salmon fishing 

with net gear in the East Area. In the 

West Area, the FMP prohibits 

commercial salmon fishing, except for 

commercial salmon fishing with net 

gear in three defined areas of the EEZ 

adjacent to Cook Inlet, Prince William 

Sound, and the Alaska Peninsula. The 

FMP delegates management of the sport 

fishery to the State in both areas. 

Although the FMP has been amended 

nine times in the last two decades, no 

comprehensive consideration of 

management strategy or scope of Federal 

management has occurred since 1990. 

State fisheries regulations and Federal 

and international laws affecting Alaska 

salmon have changed since 1990, and 

the reauthorized Magnuson-Stevens Act 

expanded the requirements for FMPs. 

Additionally, the current FMP is vague 

with respect to management authority 

for commercial salmon fishing in the 

three defined areas that occur in the 

West Area. 

Therefore, the Council determined 

that the FMP must be updated, in order 

to comply with the current MagnusonStevens Act requirements, and 

amended, to more clearly reflect the 

Council’s policy with regard to the 

State’s continued management authority 

over commercial fisheries in the West 

Area, the Southeast Alaska commercial 

troll fishery, and the sport fishery. 

Amendment 12 

In December 2011, the Council voted 

unanimously to recommend 

Amendment 12 to the FMP. The Council 

considered revisions to the FMP at five 

separate meetings that occurred over 

more than a year. At each regularly 

scheduled and noticed public meeting, 

the Council took public testimony and 

considered written and oral public 

comments, providing stakeholders with 

opportunities for involvement on this 

issue. Additionally, the Council 

conducted a special open workshop for 

stakeholders in September 2011, which 

was attended by more than 20 members 

of the public, three Council members, 

Council staff, and State and Federal 

agency staff. The Council considered the 

comments and suggestions made during 

that workshop in developing 

Amendment 12. 

Amendment 12 would 

comprehensively revise the FMP to 

reflect the Council’s salmon 

management policy, which is to 

facilitate State of Alaska salmon 

management in accordance with the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, Pacific Salmon 

Treaty, and applicable Federal law. 

Under this policy, the Council 

identified six management objectives to 

guide salmon management under the 

FMP and achieve the management 

policy: (1) Prevent overfishing and 

achieve optimum yield, (2) manage 

salmon as a unit throughout their range, 

(3) minimize bycatch and bycatch 

mortality, (4) maximize economic and 

social benefits to the Nation over time, 

(5) protect wild stocks and fully utilize 

hatchery production, and (6) promote 

safety. The Council, NMFS, and the 

State of Alaska will consider these 

management objectives in developing 

FMP amendments and associated 

management measures. 

To reflect the Council’s policy and 

objectives, Amendment 12 would 

redefine the FMP’s management area to 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 63 / Monday, April 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules 19607 

exclude the Cook Inlet, Prince William 

Sound, and the Alaska Peninsula net 

fishing areas and the sport fishery from 

the West Area. In removing these three 

areas and the sport fishery from the 

FMP, the Council provided a rationale 

for why Federal conservation and 

management are not necessary, 

consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act. The Council recognized that FMP 

management would only apply to the 

portion of the fisheries in the EEZ, and 

that salmon are more appropriately 

managed as a unit in consideration of all 

fishery removals to meet in-river 

escapement goals. The Council 

determined that excluding these areas 

and the sport fishery from the West Area 

and the FMP would allow the State to 

manage Alaska salmon stocks as 

seamlessly as practicable throughout 

their range, rather than imposing dual 

State and Federal management. Under 

Amendment 12, the FMP would 

continue to apply to the vast majority of 

the EEZ west of Cape Suckling and 

would maintain the prohibition on 

commercial salmon fishing in the 

redefined West Area. 

In the East Area, Amendment 12 

would maintain the current scope of the 

FMP and would reaffirm that 

management of the commercial and 

sport salmon fisheries in the East Area 

is delegated to the State. The FMP relies 

on a combination of State management 

and management under the Pacific 

Salmon Treaty to ensure that salmon 

stocks, including trans-boundary stocks, 

are managed as a unit throughout their 

ranges and interrelated stocks are 

managed in close coordination. 

Maintaining the FMP in the East Area 

would leave existing management 

structures in place, recognizing that the 

FMP is the nexus for the application of 

the Pacific Salmon Treaty and other 

applicable Federal law. 

The Council also recommended a 

number of FMP provisions to update the 

FMP and bring it into compliance with 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other 

applicable Federal law. Amendment 12 

would include these changes in a 

reorganized FMP with a more concise 

title, ‘‘Fishery Management Plan for the 

Salmon Fisheries in the EEZ off 

Alaska.’’ 

The primary new FMP provision is a 

mechanism to establish annual catch 

limits (ACLs) and accountability 

measures (AMs) for the salmon stocks 

caught in the East Area commercial troll 

fishery, the only commercial fishery 

authorized under the FMP. Amendment 

12 would not establish ACLs or AMs in 

the West Area because no commercial 

salmon fisheries are authorized in the 

West Area. The mechanism to establish 

ACLs and AMs for the commercial troll 

fishery builds on the FMP’s existing 

framework for establishing status 

determination criteria. The commercial 

troll fishery harvests primarily Chinook 

and coho salmon; though chum, 

sockeye, and pink salmon are also 

harvested occasionally. The FMP 

currently separates these salmon stocks 

into three tiers for the purposes of status 

determination criteria. 

Tier 1 stocks are Chinook salmon 

stocks covered by the Pacific Salmon 

Treaty. Amendment 12 would not 

establish a mechanism for specifying 

ACLs and AMs for Chinook salmon 

because the Magnuson-Stevens Act 

exempts stocks managed under an 

international fisheries agreement in 

which the United States participates 

from the ACL requirement (16 U.S.C. 

1853 note). 

Under Amendment 12, the 

mechanisms for specifying ACLs for 

Tier 2 (coho salmon) and Tier 3 (coho, 

pink, chum, and sockeye salmon stocks 

managed as mixed-species complexes) 

salmon stocks would be established 

using the State’s scientifically-based 

management measures to control catch 

and prevent overfishing. This approach 

represents an alternative approach to 

the methods prescribed in NMFS’s 

National Standard 1 Guidelines (50 CFR 

600.310) for specifying ACLs. The 

National Standard 1 Guidelines 

contemplate limited circumstances 

where the standard approaches to 

specification of reference points, 

including ACLs, and management 

measures detailed in the guidelines may 

not be appropriate. The National 

Standard 1 Guidelines specifically cite 

Pacific salmon as an example of stocks 

that may require an alternative 

approach. Under this flexibility within 

the guidelines, the Council may propose 

an alternative approach for satisfying 

the requirements of National Standard 

1, other than those set forth in the 

guidelines. The guidelines require that 

the Council document its rationale for 

proposing an alternative approach in an 

FMP amendment and document its 

consistency with the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act. Amendment 12 would modify the 

FMP to include the rationale for this 

alternative approach as the mechanism 

for specifying ACLs. 

The Council proposes an alternative 

approach because the State’s 

escapement-based management system 

is a more effective management system 

for preventing overfishing of Alaska 

salmon than a system that places rigid 

numeric limits on the number of fish 

that may be caught. Escapement is 

defined as the annual estimated size of 

the spawning salmon stock in a given 

river, stream, or watershed. Given 

salmon’s particular life history 

attributes, the Council’s preferred 

method to annually ensure that 

surviving spawners will maximize 

present and future yields is a system 

that establishes escapement goals 

intended to maximize surplus 

productivity of future runs, estimates 

run strength in advance, monitors actual 

run strength and escapement during the 

fishery, and utilizes in-season 

management measures, including 

fishery closures, to ensure that 

minimum escapement goals are 

achieved. Further, escapement-based 

management, with real-time monitoring 

of run strength, inherently accounts for 

total catch and all sources of natural 

mortality. As part of the alternative 

approach the Council recommends that 

Amendment 12 establish a peer review 

process in the FMP that utilizes the 

State’s existing salmon expertise and 

processes for developing escapement 

goals as fishing level recommendations. 

The State’s escapement-based 

management system includes the added 

features of in-season monitoring to 

confirm actual run strength and inseason management measures that 

adjust fishing pressure, or close a 

fishery, to ensure that escapement goals 

are met if pre-season predictions of run 

strength prove inaccurate. Under 

Amendment 12, these features would be 

the AMs to prevent ACLs from being 

exceeded and to correct overages of the 

ACL if they do occur. 

Amendment 12 also would revise the 

definition of optimum yield. For the 

East Area, several economic, social, and 

ecological factors are involved in the 

definition of OY. For Chinook salmon 

stocks in Tier 1, an all-gear maximum 

sustainable yield (MSY) is prescribed in 

terms of catch by the Pacific Salmon 

Treaty and takes into account the 

biological productivity of Chinook 

salmon and ecological factors in setting 

this limit. Under Amendment 12, the 

portion of the all-gear catch limit 

allocated to troll gear would represent 

the OY for that fishery and takes into 

account the economic and social factors 

considered by the State of Alaska in 

making allocation decisions. For stocks 

in Tiers 2 and 3, MSY currently is 

defined in terms of escapement. MSY 

escapement goals account for biological 

productivity and ecological factors, 

including the consumption of salmon by 

a variety of marine predators. Under 

Amendment 12, the OY for the troll 

fishery would be that fishery’s annual 

catch, which, when combined with the 

catch from all other salmon fisheries, 

results in a post-harvest run size equal 

to the MSY escapement goal for each 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
19608 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 63 / Monday, April 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

indicator stock. The portion of the 

annual catch harvested by the troll 

fishery reflects the biological, economic, 

and social factors considered by the 

State of Alaska in determining when to 

open and close the coho salmon harvest 

by the troll fishery. 

For the redefined West Area under 

Amendment 12, commercial fishing is 

prohibited; therefore the directed 

harvest OY would be zero. The 

redefined West Area has been closed to 

commercial net fishing since 1952 and 

commercial troll fishing since 1973 and 

there has not been any commercial yield 

from this area. This proposed OY 

recognizes that salmon are fully utilized 

by state-managed fisheries and that the 

State manages fisheries based on the 

best available information using the 

State’s escapement goal management 

system. This OY also recognizes that 

non-Alaska salmon are fully utilized 

and managed by their respective 

management authorities when they 

return to their natal regions. 

Amendment 12 would add a fishery 

impact statement to the FMP that 

includes fishery information required by 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 

1853(a)(2), (3), (5), (9), (11), and (13)). 

The fishery impact statement contained 

in Amendment 12 analyzes the effects of 

the conservation and management 

measures on participants in the 

fisheries, fishing communities affected 

by the FMP, and safety of human life at 

sea. The fishery impact statement also 

describes the salmon fishery, specifies 

the present and probable future 

condition of the fishery, and describes 

the commercial, recreational, and 

charter fishing sectors which participate 

in the salmon fishery. Additionally, the 

fishery impact statement assesses the 

economic impacts of the salmon fishery 

by sector. 

Amendment 12 also would revise the 

current FMP process for Federal review 

of State management measures to more 

fully describe the process and bring the 

process into compliance with 

Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements (16 

U.S.C. 1856(a)(3)(B)). With the 

delegation of management authority of 

the East Area commercial troll salmon 

fishery and the East Area sport fishery 

to the State of Alaska, the Council and 

NMFS must stay apprised of State 

management measures governing 

commercial and sport salmon fishing in 

the East Area and, if necessary, review 

those measures for consistency with the 

FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and 

other applicable Federal law. Also, 

members of the public may request that 

the Secretary review State salmon 

management measures in the East Area 

for consistency with the FMP, the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act and other 

applicable Federal law. Under 

Amendment 12, the FMP would 

describe (1) how the Council and NMFS 

fulfill this oversight role, (2) the ways in 

which the Council and NMFS will 

monitor State management measures 

that regulate salmon fishing in the East 

Area, (3) the process by which NMFS 

will review State management measures 

governing salmon fisheries in the East 

Area for consistency with the FMP, the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other 

applicable Federal law, (4) the process 

by which a member of the public can 

petition NMFS to review State 

management measures in the East Area 

for consistency with the FMP, the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other 

applicable Federal law, and (5) the 

process NMFS will follow if NMFS 

determines that State management 

measures in the East Area are 

inconsistent with the FMP, the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, or other 

applicable Federal laws. 

Amendment 12 would remove 

existing FMP language governing the 

issuance of Federal salmon permits. The 

Council recommended removing FMP 

language related to Federal salmon 

permits because Federal permits are no 

longer necessary. All current 

participants have State of Alaska limited 

entry permits. According to language 

included in the original 1979 FMP, 

provisions for Federal salmon permits 

were established as a complement to the 

State limited entry permit, in order to 

limit capacity in the EEZ so that persons 

who did not receive a State limited 

entry permit would not simply shift 

their fishing efforts into Federal waters. 

Additionally, the 1979 FMP explains 

that there was an interest in ensuring 

that the few vessels that had fished in 

the EEZ but not landed their catch in 

Alaska could continue to have access to 

the EEZ, even if they were not eligible 

for a state limited entry permit. The 

problems identified in the 1979 FMP 

were addressed by this Federal permit 

system. In 1979 or 1980, NMFS issued 

2 non-transferrable limited entry 

permits and these permits are no longer 

active in the fishery. 

An Environmental Assessment/ 

Regulatory Impact Review was prepared 

for Amendment 12 that describes the 

management background, the purpose 

and need for action, the management 

alternatives, and the environmental, 

social, and economic impacts of the 

alternatives (see ADDRESSES). Additional 

details on the basis of specific policy 

and management measures are provided 

in the analysis. 

Amendment 10 

In October 2009, the Council adopted 

a motion to revise all six of its fishery 

management plans to provide authority 

for recovering the administrative costs 

of processing applications for permits 

required under those plans, except for 

exempted fishing permits and 

prohibited species donation permits. 

Amendment 10 would amend the FMP 

to provide authority for NMFS to 

recover the administrative costs of 

processing applications for any future 

permits that may be required under this 

FMP, except for exempted fishing 

permits and prohibited species donation 

permits. Amendment 10 would 

implement the following FMP language: 

‘‘NMFS may assess and collect fees to 

recover the administrative costs 

incurred by the Federal government in 

processing applications for permits 

required to participate in the fisheries 

managed under this FMP as authorized 

by the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C 

1853(b).’’ If Amendments 10 and 12 are 

approved by NMFS, this language 

would be included at section 4.2 of the 

FMP. If Amendment 10 is approved but 

Amendment 12 is not, then this 

language would be included at section 

5.2 of the FMP. 

Amendment 11 

In April 2011, the Council 

recommended Amendment 11 to (1) 

revise the timeline associated with the 

Council’s process to identify Habitat 

Areas of Particular Concern so that the 

process coincides with the EFH 5-year 

review, (2) revise habitat research 

priority objectives, and (3) update EFH 

conservation recommendations for, and 

the analysis of the impacts of, nonfishing activities. If Amendments 11 and 

12 are approved by NMFS, Amendment 

11 would to include the most recent 

scientific information resulting from the 

5-year review in chapter 7 of the FMP 

and the FMP’s Appendix A ‘‘Essential 

Fish Habitat and Habitat Areas of 

Particular Concern’’. If Amendment 11 

is approved but Amendment 12 is not, 

then this language would be included in 

section 6.3 of the FMP and in the FMP’s 

Appendix E. These changes are 

necessary to update the FMP based 

upon the best scientific information 

available and the guidelines articulated 

in the final rule to implement the EFH 

provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act 

(see 50 CFR part 600, subpart J). 

NMFS is soliciting public comments 

on proposed Amendments 10, 11, and 

12 through the end of the comment 

period (see DATES). NMFS will consider 

all comments received by the end of the 

comment period on Amendments 10, 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 63 / Monday, April 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules 19609 

11, and 12, in the FMP approval/ 

disapproval decision. To be considered, 

comments must be received, not just 

postmarked or otherwise transmitted, by 

5 p.m. Alaska local time on the last day 

of the comment period. Comments 

received after that date will not be 

considered in the approval/disapproval 

decision on the amendment. 

NMFS intends to publish in the 

Federal Register a proposed rule that 

would implement Amendment 12 and 

seek public comment on that proposed 

rule, following NMFS’s evaluation of 

the proposed rule under the MagnusonStevens Act. Public comments on the 

proposed rule must be received by the 

end of the comment period for 

Amendment 12 to be considered in the 

approval/disapproval decision on 

Amendment 12. Implementing 

regulations are not needed for either 

Amendment 10 or Amendment 11, and 

therefore no proposed rule for these 

amendments will be published. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 

Dated: March 28, 2012. 

Carrie Selberg, 

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–7854 Filed 3–30–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS