66222 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 214 / Friday, November 3, 2000 / Proposed Rules

NMFS evaluated whether the petition

met the ESA’s standard for ‘‘substantial

information’’ and applied this standard

in determining whether to accept the

petition as well as whether to invoke an

emergency listing under the ESA. NMFS

believes it is appropriate to accept the

petition to list the species but to reject

the petitioner’s request for an

emergency listing as ‘‘endangered.’’ On

this latter issue the petition failed to

present new and substantial information

to resolve longstanding uncertainties

about ESU configuration and level of

risk to these populations. However, the

petition does highlight key issues

warranting consideration by NMFS,

including: (1) recent genetic evidence

bearing on the issue of whether to split

the southwest Washington/lower

Columbia River ESU; (2) viability

analyses indicating that Clackamas and

Sandy River coho salmon populations

are at high risk of extinction; and (3)

evidence that populations may persist

in other lower Columbia River

tributaries. NMFS believes that an

emergency listing should occur only

after the ESU structure has been

determined. NMFS will not presuppose

the outcome of a more rigorous status

review and BRT assessment.

Petition Finding

After reviewing the information

contained in the petition, as well as

information readily available to NMFS

scientists, the Secretary determines that

the petition presents substantial

scientific information indicating the

petitioned action may be warranted.

However, NMFS does not believe that

available information supports the

petitioner’s request for an emergency

listing. In accordance with section

4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA, the Secretary will

make his determination whether the

petitioned action is warranted for this

species within 12 months from the date

the petition was received (i.e., by July

24, 2001).

Listing Factors and Basis for

Determination

Under section 4(a)(1) of the ESA, a

species can be determined to be

threatened or endangered based on any

of the following factors: (1) The present

or threatened destruction, modification,

or curtailment of a species’ habitat or

range; (2) overutilization for

commercial, recreational, scientific, or

educational purposes; (3) disease or

predation; (4) inadequacy of existing

regulatory mechanisms; or (5) other

natural or manmade factors affecting the

species continuing existence. Listing

determinations are based solely on the

best available scientific and commercial

data after taking into account any efforts

being made by any state or foreign

nation to protect the species.

Information Solicited

To ensure that the status review is

complete and based on the best

available scientific and commercial

data, NMFS solicits information and

comments concerning the status of

Columbia River basin coho salmon

populations (see DATES and ADDRESSES).

Specifically, the agency is seeking

updated information since 1994 on: (1)

abundance estimates and measures of

population productivity, including

spawner-recruit or spawner-spawner

survival data, smolt production

estimates, size and fecundity data, and

ocean survival rates; (2) impacts

associated with hatchery production

including estimates of hatchery fish

releases, straying rates, and proportions

of hatchery fish in spawner escapements

to lower Columbia River tributaries; (3)

estimates of hatchery fish survival and

their reproductive success in the wild;

(4) genetic, life history, habitat, and

other evidence distinguishing Columbia

River coho salmon populations from

coastal populations; (5) current or

planned activities and their possible

impact on this species (e.g., harvest

measures and habitat actions); and (6)

efforts being made to protect coho

salmon in Washington and Oregon.

NMFS also requests information

describing the quality and extent of

freshwater, estuarine and marine

habitats for Columbia River coho

salmon, as well as information on areas

that may qualify as critical habitat.

Areas that include the physical and

biological features essential to the

recovery of the species should be

identified. Essential features include,

but are not limited to, the following: (1)

Habitat for individual and population

growth, and for normal behavior; (2)

food, water, air, light, minerals, or other

nutritional or physiological

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

sites for reproduction and rearing of

offspring; and (5) habitats that are

protected from disturbance or are

representative of the historic

geographical and ecological

distributions of the species. NMFS is

also seeking information and maps

describing natural and manmade

barriers within the species’ current and

historical range in the Columbia River

basin.

For areas potentially qualifying as

critical habitat, NMFS also requests

information describing (1) the activities

that affect the area or could be affected

by the designation, and (2) the economic

costs and benefits of additional

requirements of management measures

likely to result from the designation.

The economic cost to be considered in

a critical habitat designation under the

ESA is the probable economic impact

‘‘of the (critical habitat) designation

upon proposed or ongoing activities’’

(50 CFR 424.19). NMFS must consider

the incremental costs specifically

resulting from a critical habitat

designation that are above the economic

effects attributable to listing the species.

Economic effects attributable to listing

include actions resulting from section 7

consultations under the ESA to avoid

jeopardy to the species and from the

taking prohibitions under section 9 or

4(d) of the ESA. Comments concerning

economic impacts should distinguish

the costs of listing from the incremental

costs that can be directly attributed to

the designation of specific areas as

critical habitat.

On July 1, 1994, NMFS, jointly with

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

published a series of policies regarding

listings under the ESA, including a

policy for peer review of scientific data

(59 FR 34270). The intent of the peer

review policy is to ensure that listings

are based on the best scientific and

commercial data available. NMFS now

solicits the names of recognized experts

in the field who could take part in the

peer review process for the agency’s

status review of Columbia River coho

salmon. Peer reviewers may be selected

from academic and scientific

community, tribal and other Native

American groups, Federal and state

agencies, the private sector, and public

interest groups.

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

Dated: October 30, 2000.

William T. Hogarth,

Deputy Administrator for Fisheries, National

Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 00–28306 Filed 11– 2–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 648

[I.D. 091800K]

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management

Council; Public Hearings

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Cancellation of public hearings.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 214 / Friday, November 3, 2000 / Proposed Rules 66223

SUMMARY: NMFS announces the

cancellation of two public hearings that

had dates and locations yet to be

determined by the Atlantic States

Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC)

and held in the states of Massachusetts

and Rhode Island on the public hearing

draft of Amendment 13 to the Summer

Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass

Fishery Management Plan. The intent to

schedule these meetings was announced

in the Federal Register on September

27, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Daniel T. Furlong, Executive Director of

the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management

Council (Council), 302–674–2331, ext.

19, or John Dunnigan, Executive

Director, ASMFC, 202–289–6400, ext.

304.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS, the

Council, and ASMFC jointly manage the

summer flounder fishery off the Atlantic

coast. An earlier notice, published in

the Federal Register (65 FR 58035,

September 27, 2000) announced four

public hearings with specific locations

and dates to gather public comments on

draft Amendment 13. The same notice

also advised the public that two

additional hearings (one in

Massachusetts and one in Rhode Island)

would be held at locations and times to

be determined by the ASMFC and

announced later through another notice

in the Federal Register. The ASMFC has

decided not to hold these hearings.

Dated: October 30, 2000.

Bruce C. Morehead,

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 00–28305 Filed 11–2–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 679

[Docket No. 001023289–0289–01; I.D.

083000C]

RIN 0648–AO25

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic

Zone Off Alaska; Extension of the

Interim Groundfish Observer Program

through December 31, 2002

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes a rule to

extend through 2002 the existing

regulations for the Interim North Pacific

Groundfish Observer Program (Observer

Program), which otherwise would

expire December 31, 2000. This action

is necessary to ensure uninterrupted

observer coverage through December 31,

2002. The intention is to advance the

management objectives of the Fishery

Management Plan for the Groundfish

Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian

Islands Area and the Fishery

Management Plan for Groundfish of the

Gulf of Alaska (FMPs). The proposed

rule would not amend the existing

regulations, except to extend the

certifications of observer contractors

who are currently certified by NMFS.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule

must be received by November 20, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to

Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional

Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries,

Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668,

Juneau, AK 99802, Attn: Lori Gravel, or

delivered to the Federal Building, 709

West 9th Street, Juneau, AK. Copies of

the Environmental Assessment/

Regulatory Impact Review/Final

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/

RIR/FRFA) prepared for the 1997

Interim Groundfish Observer Program,

the RIR/FRFA prepared for the 1998

Interim Groundfish Observer Program,

the RIR/FRFA prepared for the 1999–

2000 Interim Groundfish Observer

Program, and the RIR/Initial Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) prepared for

this proposed regulatory action may also

be obtained from the same address.

Send comments on any ambiguity or

unnecessary complexity arising from the

language used in this proposed rule to

the Regional Administrator, Alaska

Region, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau AK

99802.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bridget Mansfield, 907–586–7228.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

NMFS manages the U.S. groundfish

fisheries of the Gulf of Alaska and the

Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area in

the Exclusive Economic Zone under the

FMPs. The North Pacific Fishery

Management Council (Council)

prepared the Fishery Management Plans

(FMPs) pursuant to the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and

Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens

Act). Regulations implementing the

FMPs appear at 50 CFR part 679.

General regulations that pertain to U.S.

fisheries appear at subpart H of 50 CFR

part 600.

The Council adopted and NMFS

implemented the Interim Groundfish

Observer Program (Interim Program) in

1996, which superseded the North

Pacific Fisheries Research Plan

(Research Plan). The requirements of the

1996 Interim Program were extended

through 1997 (61 FR 56425, November

1, 1996), again through 1998 (62 FR

67755, December 30, 1997), and again

through 2000 (63 FR 69024, December

15, 1998). The Interim Program provides

the framework for the collection of data

by observers to obtain information

necessary for the conservation and

management of the groundfish fisheries

managed under the FMPs. Further, it

authorizes mandatory observer coverage

requirements for vessels and shoreside

processors and establishes vessel,

processor and contractor responsibilities

relating to the observer program. NMFS’

intent is that the Interim Program be

effective until a long-term program is

developed and implemented that

addresses several current concerns.

These include data integrity, observer

compensation, working conditions for

observers, and equitable distribution of

observer costs.

NMFS is working with the Council

and the Council’s Observer Advisory

Committee (OAC) to address the

concerns above and to develop new

options for an alternative infrastructure

for the Observer Program. A new

infrastructure would be expected to

ensure the continued collection of

quality observer data and address

observer coverage cost distribution

issues through a fee system or alternate

funding mechanism.

The development of a new

infrastructure will require extensive

time and coordination among NMFS

staff, the OAC, and representatives of

the industry sectors and observer

interests. The intent of NMFS and the

Council is to implement a replacement

structure for the program prior to the

proposed expiration of the current

Interim Observer Program on December

31, 2002.

A description of the regulatory

provisions of the Interim Groundfish

Observer Program was provided in the

proposed and final rules implementing

this program (61 FR 40380, August 2,

1996; 61 FR 56425, November 1, 1996,

respectively) as well as the proposed

and final rules extending this program

through 1998 and again through 2000

(62 FR 49198, September 19, 1997; 62

FR 67755, December 30, 1997; 63 FR

47462, September 8, 1998; 63 FR 69024,

December 15, 1998, respectively). No

changes to the existing regulations are

proposed in this rulemaking, except to

extend certification of observer