Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 107 /Thursday, June 4, 1998 / Proposed Rules 30453

The request for comment seeks to

determine whether shift mechanisms

that employ a non-serial method of gear

selection would degrade safety, and if

so, could the standard be amended so as

to allow for their safe inclusion in motor

vehicles. If NHTSA decides to initiate

rulemaking, it is NHTSA’s intent that

the rulemaking not impose any

additional costs.

Procedures for Filing Comments

Interested persons are invited to

submit comments on this request for

comment. It is requested but not

required that two copies be submitted.

All comments must not exceed 15

pages in length. (49 CFR 553.21).

Necessary attachments may be

appended to these submissions without

regard to the 15-page limit. This

limitation is intended to encourage

commenters to detail their primary

arguments in a concise fashion.

If a commenter wishes to submit

certain information under a claim of

confidentiality, three copies of the

complete submission, including

purportedly confidential business

information, should be submitted to the

Docket Section. A request for

confidentiality should be accompanied

by a cover letter setting forth the

information specified in the agency’s

confidential information regulation. 49

CFR part 512.

All comments received before the

close of business on the comment

closing date indicated above for the

proposal will be considered, and will be

available for examination in the docket

at the above address both before and

after that date. To the extent possible,

comments filed after the closing date

will also be considered. Comments

received after the comment due date

will be considered as suggestions for

any future rulemaking action.

Comments on the request for comment

will be available for inspection in the

docket. NHTSA will continue to file

relevant information as it becomes

available in the docket after the closing

date, and it is recommended that

interested persons continue to examine

the docket for new material.

Those persons desiring to be notified

upon receipt of their comments in the

rules docket should enclose a selfaddressed, stamped postcard in the

envelope with their comments. Upon

receiving the comments, the docket

supervisor will return the postcard by

mail.

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115,

30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at

49 CFR 1.50.

Issued on: May 29, 1998.

L. Robert Shelton,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 98–14832 Filed 6–3–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants: Finding on Petitions To

Change the Status of Grizzly Bear

Populations in the North Cascades

Area of Washington and the CabinetYaak Area of Montana and Idaho From

Threatened to Endangered

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition

finding.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (Service) announces a recycled

12-month petition finding for two

petitions to amend the List of

Threatened and Endangered Wildlife.

The Service finds that reclassification of

grizzly bears (Ursus arctos horribilis) in

the North Cascades Recovery Zone of

Washington and Cabinet-Yaak Recovery

Zone of Montana and Idaho from

threatened to endangered status remains

warranted but precluded.

DATES: The finding announced in this

document was approved on June 1,

1998.

ADDRESSES: Questions or comments

concerning this finding should be sent

to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Grizzly Bear Recovery Coordinator,

University Hall 309, University of

Montana, Missoula, Montana 59812.

The petition, finding, and supporting

data are available for public inspection

by appointment during normal business

hours at the above office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

Christopher Servheen, Grizzly Bear

Recovery Coordinator (see ADDRESSES

above) at telephone (406) 243–4903.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section

4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered Species

Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that for

any petition to revise the Lists of

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants that contains substantial

scientific and commercial information,

the Service make a finding within 12

months of the date of the receipt of the

petition on whether the petitioned

action is (a) not warranted, (b)

warranted, or ‘‘ warranted, but

precluded. Section 4(b)(3)(C) requires

that petitions for which the requested

action is found to be warranted but

precluded should be treated as though

resubmitted on the date of such finding,

i.e., requiring a subsequent finding to be

made within 12 months. The Service

announces a new 12-month finding on

two petitions requesting the

reclassification of grizzly bears from

threatened to endangered status.

The Service received a petition dated

March 13, 1990, from the Humane

Society of the United States, Greater

Ecosystem Alliance, North Cascades

Audubon Society, Kittitas Audubon

Society, Pilchuck Audubon Society,

Skagit Alpine Club, North Cascades

Conservation Council, and Carol Rae

Smith. The petition requested the

Service to reclassify the grizzly bear in

the North Cascades area of Washington

State from threatened to endangered.

The Service made a 90-day finding that

the petition presented substantial

information indicating that the

requested action may be warranted. The

Service announced the 90-day finding

in the Federal Register on August 7,

1990, (55 FR 32103) and initiated a

status review. The Service issued a 12-

month finding that the petitioned action

was warranted but precluded on July 24,

1991 (56 FR 33892).

A petition dated January 16, 1991,

was received from Mr. D.C. Carlton on

January 28, 1991. The petition requested

the Service to reclassify the grizzly bear

in the Selkirk ecosystem of Idaho and

Washington; the Cabinet-Yaak

ecosystem of Montana and Idaho; and

the North Cascades ecosystem of

Washington from threatened to

endangered. A petition dated February

4, 1991, was received from the Fund for

Animals, Inc., on February 7, 1991. The

petition requested the Service to

reclassify the grizzly bear in the Selkirk

ecosystem of Idaho and Washington; the

Cabinet-Yaak ecosystem of Montana and

Idaho; the Yellowstone ecosystem of

Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho; and the

Northern Continental Divide ecosystem

of Montana from threatened to

endangered. On April 20, 1992 (57 FR

14372) the Service issued a 90-day

finding that there was not substantial

information to warrant the

reclassification of the grizzly bear in the

Yellowstone and Northern Continental

Divide ecosystems, but there was

substantial information to indicate that

reclassification in the Selkirk and

Cabinet-Yaak ecosystems may be

warranted. At the same time, the Service

initiated a status review. On February

12, 1993 (58 FR 8250) the Service issued

a 12-month finding that reclassification

in the Cabinet-Yaak ecosystem was
30454 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 107 /Thursday, June 4, 1998 / Proposed Rules

warranted but precluded and that

reclassification in the Selkirk ecosystem

was not warranted.

Section 4(b) of the Act states that the

Service may make warranted but

precluded findings only if it can

demonstrate that (1) an immediate

proposed rule is precluded by other

pending proposals, and that (2)

expeditious progress is being make on

other listing actions. On September 21,

1983 (48 FR 43098), the Service

published in the Federal Register its

priority system for listing species under

the Act. The system considers

magnitude of threat, immediacy of

threat, and taxonomic distinctiveness in

assigning species numerical listing

priorities on scale of one through

twelve. The two grizzly bear

populations discussed here have been

assigned a listing priority of 6.

The magnitude of the threat to the

continued existence of the North

Cascades and Cabinet-Yaak grizzly bear

populations remains high. The reasons

for this are detailed in the Service’s 12-

month petition findings in 1991 for the

North Cascades (56 FR 33892) and in

1993 for the Cabinet-Yaak (58 FR 8250).

However, grizzly bear habitat protection

in the North Cascades and the CabinetYaak areas is facilitated by Federal

ownership of most of the land within

both recovery zones. In the North

Cascades, large portions of the recovery

zone are designated wilderness or lie

within North Cascades National Park. In

the Cabinet-Yaak there is some

designated wilderness and additional

proposed wilderness. All actions on

Federal lands which may affect grizzly

bears undergo consultation under

section 7 of the Act. The Grizzly Bear

Recovery Plan was revised in 1993 (U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service 1993) and a

supplemental chapter specific to the

North Cascades was completed in 1997

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1997).

These plans outline grizzly bear habitat

and population management policies to

be applied in the North Cascades and

the Cabinet-Yaak.

On private land, the northern portion

of the planning area for the Plum Creek

Timber Company Habitat Conservation

Plan (HCP) is within the North Cascades

grizzly bear recovery area. After

approval of the HCP, an incidental take

permit under Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the

Act was issued to Plum Creek Timber

Company in June of 1996. At present,

grizzly bears are not known to be

present in the HCP planning area. Plum

Creek HCP calls for implementation of

a series of Best Management Practices

that will address two major habitatrelated concerns for grizzly bears: open

road density and habitat diversity. Best

Management Practices will include

restriction of public use, reduction of

open road density, maintenance of

visual screening along open roads, and

prohibition of firearms in company

vehicles. Once the Service verifies that

grizzly bears have recolonized the area,

additional practices will be

implemented to address road location,

road closures, cover, size of openings,

and timing of operations.

Potential threats to the continued

existence of the grizzly bear populations

in both recovery zones include low

numbers of individuals, alteration of

habitat, and human intrusion into

grizzly habitat. Cumulative impacts of

recreation, timber harvest, mining, and

other forest uses with associated road

construction can reduce the amount of

effective habitat for grizzly bears.

Potential threats to grizzly bear habitat

and the animals remaining in the North

Cascades and the Cabinet-Yaak areas

persist, but are nonimminent. Prior to

this notice, the Service reviewed the

status of the finding on the CabinetYaak population in September 1992 and

March 1996, and the status of the

finding on the North Cascades

population in March 1993. In these

reviews, the Service determined that the

threats to the grizzly bear populations in

the North Cascades and the CabinetYaak ecosystems remain of high

magnitude and of a nonimminent nature

and that a listing priority of 6 for the

petitioned reclassification remained

appropriate.

On December 6, 1996, the Service

adopted a listing priority guidance for

Fiscal Year 1997 (61 FR 64475) and this

guidance was extended on October 23,

1997. Final listing priority guidance for

Fiscal Year 1998 and Fiscal Year 1999

was published in the Federal Register

on May 8, 1998 (63 FR 25502). Both the

Fiscal Year 1997 and 1998/1999

guidance described a multi-tiered listing

approach that assigns relative priorities

to listing actions to be carried out under

Section 4 of the Act. This guidance

supplements, but does not replace the

1983 listing priority guidelines.

Grizzly bear reclassification from

threatened to endangered status in the

North Cascades and Cabinet-Yaak

recovery zones falls into Tier 3 under

Fiscal Year 1997 guidance and under

Tier 2 in the Fiscal Year 1998 guidance.

In both guidance documents,

determinations and processing of

proposed listings to add new species to

the lists of threatened and endangered

species receives higher priority than

reclassifications of already listed

species. Because the Service must

devote listing funds to addressing high

priority candidate species, preparation

of a proposed rule to reclassify the

grizzly bear in the North Cascades or

Cabinet-Yaak ecosystems remains

warranted but precluded by higher

listing priorities.

Based on a review of the status and

threats affecting the grizzly bear in the

North Cascades and Cabinet-Yaak

ecosystems, the Service finds that there

is no information to indicate that a

change in the listing priority of 6 is

appropriate for either of these

populations.

The Notice of Review of Plant and

Animal Taxa published in the Federal

Register on September 19, 1997 (62 FR

49397), provided a discussion of the

expeditious progress made in the past

year on listing decisions and recycling

of petition findings throughout all

regions of the Service. In that

publication, the Service provided notice

of review of 18 recycled petitions and

described its progress in completing

final listing actions for 152 taxa,

proposed listing actions for 23 taxa, and

proposed delisting action for one taxa.

Since publication of the 12-month

finding on the Cabinet-Yaak ecosystem

in 1993, the Service has made

expeditious progress in making listing

decisions on 14 candidate species in the

Mountain-Prairie Region (Region 6). At

the present time, there remain in Region

6 an additional 19 candidate species

with listing priority numbers of 1–5.

These listing priority numbers are

higher than the listing priority number

of 6 given to reclassification of the

grizzly bear in the North Cascades and

the Cabinet-Yaak ecosystems.

The Service reaffirms that both the

North Cascades and Cabinet-Yaak

populations of grizzly bears continue to

face threats of high magnitude that are

nonimminent, and therefore are

assigned listing priorities of 6. Work on

species with a listing priority of 6 is

precluded by work on species of a

higher priority.

Author: The primary author of this

document is Wayne Kasworm, U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, Missoula,

Montana (see ADDRESSES above).

Authority: The authority for this action is

the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531

et seq.)

References Cited

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Grizzly

bear recovery plan. Missoula, Montana.

181 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Grizzly

bear recovery plan supplement: North

Cascades Ecosystem Recovery Plan

Chapter. Missoula, Montana. 28 pp.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 107 /Thursday, June 4, 1998 / Proposed Rules 30455

Dated: June 1, 1998.

Jamie Rappaport Clark,

Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 98–14974 Filed 6–3–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Parts 222, 226, and 227

[I.D. 022398C]

Endangered and Threatened Species;

Extension of Comment Periods; and

Notice of Public Hearing on Proposed

Listing and Proposed Designation of

Critical Habitat for West Coast

Chinook, Chum, and Sockeye and on

Proposed Listing of West Coast

Steelhead

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule; public hearing

and extension of public comment

periods.

SUMMARY: NMFS is extending the public

comment periods and a public hearing

will be held on the proposed listings

and designations of critical habitat for

west coast chinook (Oncorhynchus

tshawytscha), sockeye (Oncorhynchus

nerka), and chum (Oncorhynchus keta)

salmon and on the proposed listings of

west coast steelhead (Oncorhynchus

mykiss). NMFS has received a request

for an additional public hearing to allow

further opportunity for the public to

participate in the exchange of

information and opinion among

interested parties and to provide oral

and written testimony. NMFS, finding

the request reasonable, has scheduled a

public hearing and extended the public

comment periods to facilitate the

reception of public views.

DATES: The meeting date is June 11,

1998, 6:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m. Written

comments on the proposed chinook,

sockeye, and chum listing and critical

habitat designation and on the proposed

steelhead listing must be received by

June 30, 1998.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at

Cunha Intermediate School, Kelly and

Church Streets, Half Moon Bay, CA

94019. Written comments on the

proposed chinook rule and requests for

reference materials should be sent to

Chief, Protected Species Division,

NMFS, 525 NE Oregon Street, Suite 500,

Portland, OR 97232-2737.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Garth Griffin, (503) 231-2005; Craig

Wingert, (562) 980–4021; or Joe Blum,

(301) 713–1401. Copies of the Federal

Register documents cited herein and

additional salmon-related materials are

available via the Internet at

www.nwr.noaa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On March 9, 1998 (63 FR 11482),

NMFS issued a proposed rule to list and

designate critical habitat for the

California Central Valley, spring-run

and the Washington Upper Columbia

River, spring-run Evolutionarily

Significant Units (ESUs) as endangered

and for the Central Valley fall-run, the

Southern Oregon and California Coastal,

the Puget Sound, the Lower Columbia

River, and the Upper Willamette River

ESUs as threatened, and to redefine the

Snake River fall-run chinook salmon

ESU to include fall chinook salmon

populations in the Deschutes River, to

list this redefined ESU as threatened,

and to revise its existing critical habitat

under the Endangered Species Act

(ESA). That proposal does not affect the

current definition and threatened status

of the listed Snake River fall chinook

salmon ESU.

On March 10, 1998, NMFS published

proposed rules listing the Hood Canal

summer-run and the Columbia River

Chum ESUs as threatened and

designating critical habitat (63 FR

11774), listing the Ozette Lake sockeye

as threatened and designating critical

habitat (63 FR 11750), and listing the

Middle Columbia River and the Upper

Willamette River ESUs as threatened (63

FR 11798).

Proposed critical habitat for all four

species’ ESUs is their current freshwater

and estuarine range, certain marine

areas for chinook, and all waterways,

substrate, and adjacent riparian zones

below longstanding, impassible, natural

barriers.

On April 7, 1998 (63 FR 16955),

NMFS announced the schedule for 20

public hearings in the states of

Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and

California to discuss the chinook, chum,

sockeye, and steelhead proposals. On

May 18, 1998, NMFS received a request

for an additional public hearing for the

chinook proposal from the Pacific Coast

Federation of Fishermen’s Association.

The reason given for the request was to

allow the many fishermen who could be

most effected by the chinook proposed

rule and who were participating in the

salmon fishery at the time of the public

hearings in California the opportunity to

comment firsthand with NMFS’

officials. NMFS finds that the request

reasonable and has scheduled a public

hearing, and extended the public

comment period for not only the

chinook proposal but also the chum,

sockeye, and steelhead proposals.

NMFS is soliciting specific

information, comments, data, and/or

recommendations on any aspect of the

March 9 and 10, 1998, proposals from

all interested parties. In particular,

NMFS is requesting information or data

as described in the Federal Register

notice announcing the proposed listings

and designations of critical habitat (see

63 FR 11482, 63 FR 11774, 63 FR 11750,

and 63 FR 11798). This information is

considered critical in helping NMFS

make final determinations on the

proposed listings and proposed

designations of critical habitat. NMFS

will consider all information,

comments, and recommendations

received during the comment period or

at the public hearings before reaching a

final decision.

Dated: May 28, 1998.

Rolland A. Schmitten,

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,

National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 98–14870 Filed 6–3–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 600

[Docket No. 980519132–8132–01;

I.D.022498F]

RIN 0648–AK49

Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions;

List of Fisheries and Gear, and

Notification Guidelines

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes to establish a

list of fisheries and fishing gear used in

those fisheries under the authority of

each Regional Fishery Management

Council (Council), or the Secretary of

Commerce (Secretary) for Atlantic

highly migratory species. NMFS also

proposes guidelines for determining

when fishing gear or a fishery is

sufficiently different from those listed to

require notification of the appropriate

authority. The list of fisheries and gear

and the guidelines would apply only to

fisheries and gear that occur within the