31600 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2001 / Proposed Rules

13. It Is Further Ordered that the

Petition for Rulemaking, RM–9798,

submitted by the LoJack Corporation on

December 20, 1999 Is Granted to the

extent indicated herein.

14. It Is Further Ordered that the

Commission’s Consumer Information

Bureau, Reference Information Center,

Shall Send a copy of this Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking, including the

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis,

to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the

Small Business Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 90

Communications equipment, radio.

Federal Communications Commission.

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary.

Proposed Rules

For the reasons discussed in the

preamble, the Federal Communications

Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR

part 90 as follows:

PART 90—PRIVATE LAND MOBILE

RADIO SERVICES

1. The authority citation for Part 90

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Sections 4(i), 11, 303(g), 303(r),

and 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act of

1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303(g),

303(r), and 332(c)(7).

2. Section 90.20 is amended by

revising paragraph (e)(6) introductory

text to read as follows:

§ 90.20 Public Safety Pool.

* * * * *

(e) * * *

(6) The frequency 173.075 MHz is

available for stolen vehicle recovery

systems on a shared basis with the

Federal Government. Stolen vehicle

recovery systems are limited to

recovering stolen vehicles and are not

authorized for general purpose vehicle

tracking or monitoring. Mobile

transmitters operating on this frequency

are limited to 2.5 watts power output

and base transmitters are limited to 300

watts ERP. F1D and F2D emissions may

be used within a maximum authorized

20 kHz bandwith. Transmissions from

mobiles shall be limited to either 200

milliseconds every 10 seconds or 1800

milliseconds every 300 seconds, except

that when a vehicle is being tracked

actively, the transmissions under either

duty cycle may be increased to 200

milliseconds every second. Applications

for base stations operating on this

frequency shall require coordination

with the Federal Government.

Applicants shall perform an analysis for

each base station located within 169 km

(105 miles) of a TV channel 7

transmitter of potential interference to

TV channel 7 viewers. Such stations

will be authorized if the applicant has

limited the interference contour to fewer

than 100 residences or if the applicant:

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 01–14802 Filed 6–11–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–U

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 223

[I.D. 052301C]

Endangered and Threatened Species;

Take of Anadromous Fish

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final determination

and discussion of underlying biological

analysis.

SUMMARY: NMFS has evaluated the joint

resource management plan (RMP),

provided by the Washington

Department of Fish and Wildlife and the

Point-No-Point Treaty Tribes (Comanagers) for harvest of Hood Canal and

Strait of Juan de Fuca summer-run

chum salmon pursuant to the protective

regulations promulgated for Hood Canal

summer-run chum salmon under the

Endangered Species Act (ESA). The

RMP (the harvest component of the

Summer Chum Salmon Conservation

Initiative - An Implementation Plan to

Recover Summer Chum Salmon in the

Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca

Region [SCSCI]) specifies the future

management of commercial,

recreational, and tribal salmon fisheries

that potentially affect listed Hood Canal

summer-run chum salmon.

This document serves to notify the

public that NMFS, by delegated

authority from the Secretary of

Commerce, has determined that

implementing and enforcing the RMP

will not appreciably reduce the

likelihood of survival and recovery of

the Hood Canal summer-run chum

salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit

(ESU). This document also includes a

summary of the underlying biological

analysis used in the determination

(Evaluation).

DATES: The final determination on the

take limit was made on April 27, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Sustainable Fisheries

Division, National Marine Fisheries

Service, 7600 Sand Point Way NE,

Seattle, Washington 98115–0070.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Keith Schultz at: 206/526–4447, or email: keith.schultz@noaa.gov regarding

the RMP.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

notice is relevant to the Hood Canal

Summer-Run Chum Salmon

(Oncorhynchus keta) ESU.

Electronic Access

The full texts of NMFS’

determination, and the final Evaluation

are available on the Internet at the

NMFS, Sustainable Fisheries Division

wed site at: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/

1sustfsh/limit6/index.html.

The Summer Chum Salmon

Conservation Initiative - An

Implementation Plan to Recover

Summer Chum Salmon in the Hood

Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca Region

is available on the Internet at the State

of Washington, Department of Fish and

Wildlife web site: http://www.wa.gov/

wdfw/fish/chum/chum.htm.

Background

The Washington Department of Fish

and Wildlife and the Point-No-Point

Treaty Tribes provided NMFS a jointly

developed RMP for Hood Canal and

Strait of Juan de Fuca summer-run

chum salmon. The RMP encompasses

Washington Coastal and Puget Sound

salmon fisheries affecting the Hood

Canal summer-run chum salmon ESU.

Harvest objectives specified in the RMP

account for fisheries-related mortality

throughout the migratory range of Hood

Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca

summer chum salmon, from Northern

British Columbia, Canada to South

Puget Sound. The RMP also includes

implementation, monitoring and

evaluation procedures designed to

ensure fisheries are consistent with

these objectives.

On March 13, 2001, at 66 FR 14551,

NMFS published a notice of availability

for public review and comment on its

evaluation of how the Hood Canal

summer-run chum salmon RMP

addressed the criteria in § 223.203(b)(4)

of the ESA 4(d) rule (65 FR 42477).

As required by § 223.203 (b)(6) of the

ESA 4(d) rule, NMFS must determine

pursuant to 50 CFR 223.209 and

pursuant to the government to

government processes therein whether

the RMP for Hood Canal summer-run

chum salmon would appreciably reduce

the likelihood of survival and recovery

of the Hood Canal Summer-Run Chum

Salmon ESU and other affected

threatened ESUs. NMFS must take

comments on how the RMP addresses

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2001 / Proposed Rules 31601

the criteria in § 223.203(b)(4) in making

that determination.

Discussion of the Biological Analysis

Underlying the Determination

The RMP establishes a harvest regime

referred to as the Base Conservation

Regime (BCR). Under the BCR, summer

chum salmon are caught incidentally in

fisheries targeting other, more abundant

and healthy populations. Most of these

fisheries require the catch-and-release of

summer chum salmon. The RMP’s

management actions affect all salmon

fisheries which impact listed Hood

Canal summer-run chum salmon,

including Canadian salmon fisheries.

The BCR is comprised of the

following elements: (1) A base set of

fishery-specific management actions for

fisheries in U.S. and Canadian preterminal, Washington terminal and

Washington extreme terminal areas; (2)

Management unit and population

abundance and escapement critical

thresholds that trigger review of and

possible adjustment of the management

actions; (3) Expected fishery specific

exploitation rate targets and ranges

based on the application of the BCR on

the Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de

Fuca summer chum salmon

management units; and (4) Overall

management performance standards

based on natural production against

which to assess success of the Summer

Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative

and the harvest strategy, and make

necessary adjustments. The actions

required depend both on the status of

the management unit and the

populations within them, with the most

conservative controls prevailing.

In any given year, the results of these

management actions are designed to

produce exploitation rates within the

range of 3.3 to 15.3 percent on summer

chum salmon bound for the Hood Canal

and 2.8 to 11.8 percent on the Strait of

Juan de Fuca populations. It is NMFS’s

determination that exploitation rates

within these ranges, with the average

annual exploitation rate near the midpoint, will not appreciably reduce the

likelihood of survival and recovery of

the ESU in the wild. Although in any

one year, fisheries may be managed for

exploitation rates lower than this range,

the upper end of the exploitation rate

ranges may not be exceeded. If postseason analysis indicates that the range

has been exceeded, the RMP requires

Co-managers to take the necessary

actions to identify the reasons for

exceeding the ranges and to minimize

this occurring the following year. At the

time of the five-year plan review, the

annual exploitation rates for the

previous five-year period are not to be

clustered towards either extreme of the

range. The expected average annual

exploitation rate is 10.9 percent on

summer chum salmon bound for the

Hood Canal and 8.8 percent on the

Strait of Juan de Fuca populations. As

stated previously, it is NMFS’

determination that the exploitation rates

proposed in the RMP will not

appreciably reduce the likelihood of

survival and recovery of the ESU in the

wild.

The BCR will remain in place until

such time as the Co-managers

incorporate the population recovery

goals into the management structure. At

that time, the Co-managers will discuss

with NMFS what terms of the existing

plan will continue.

The RMP includes a monitoring and

evaluation plan to assess fishing-related

impacts to Hood Canal summer-run

chum salmon, the abundance of

naturally spawning fish for each of the

identified management units, the

effectiveness of the fishing regimes and

general approach, and regulatory

compliance. The RMP also requires a

progress report to be completed

annually, with a more comprehensive

plan review every five years. This

information will be used by NMFS and

the Co-managers annually to assess

whether impacts to listed fish are as

expected, and to revise the RMP as

necessary.

A more detailed discussion of NMFS’

Evaluation is on the Sustainable

Fisheries Division web site (See

Electronic Access, under the heading

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

Summary of Comments Received in

Response to the Proposed Evaluation

and Recommended Determination

NMFS published notice of its

proposed evaluation and recommended

determination on the RMP for public

review and comment on March 13, 2001

(66 FR 14551). The public comment

period closed on March 30, 2001. NMFS

received comments from one

representative of an organization

concerning this notice. NMFS has

reviewed comments received by the

closing date and no issues were raised

which required modifying the proposed

evaluation and recommended

determination. Based on its evaluation

and taking into account the public

comments, NMFS issued (April 27,

2001) its final determination on the

Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon

RMP.

Those comments related to NMFS’

proposed evaluation and recommended

determination (Evaluation) are

summarized here.

The March 13, 2001, Federal Register

Notice (66 FR 14551) requested

comments concerning NMFS’ proposed

evaluation and recommended

determination of the RMP (harvest

component of the SCSCI). Issues raised

by the commenter that related directly

to the RMP or addressed the habitat or

hatchery components of the Summer

Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative

required no response because this was

not the subject of NMFS’ evaluation.

The comments received were organized

into five general categories; Critical

Thresholds; Abundance and

Escapement; Monitoring;

Supplementation; and Population

Growth Rate. NMFS’ response to

comments followed this same structure.

1. Critical Thresholds

Comment: The commenter suggested

that the critical thresholds established

by the RMP are too low. The commenter

argued that increasing the critical

thresholds would increase straying to

areas where stocks are now extinct,

introduce more salmon carcasses

(nutrients) into the systems and

compensate for catastrophic events.

Response: The RMP established

critical thresholds for the five

management units. The critical

thresholds are based on the lowest

abundance observed from 1974 to 1998

which produced a positive observed

return (number of spawners was greater

than the number of parents), plus a

buffer of 25 percent of the difference

between the highest and lowest

observed abundances. The buffer was

added to take into account management

and forecast uncertainties, and

environmental variation. NMFS’ (2000a)

Viable Salmonid Populations (VSP)

document describes four key parameters

for evaluating the status of salmonid

populations. These parameters are: (1)

population size (abundance); (2)

population growth rate (productivity);

(3) spatial structure; and (4) diversity.

These parameters include the issues

raised by the commenter. Section 4(I)(B)

of the proposed determination

document addressed adequately each of

the VSP parameters for the Hood Canal

summer chum salmon population. The

critical thresholds were derived prior to

the availability of the paper on VSP, but

meet or exceed the guidelines, and are

generally conservative when compared

to the size of the populations

historically (NMFS 2000b).

2. Abundance and Escapement

Comment: NMFS received three

comments under this category. One

addressed the RMP directly (the level of

terminal versus pre-terminal harvest)

31602 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2001 / Proposed Rules

and required no response because this

was not the subject of NMFS’s

evaluation. One comment addressed the

need for increased abundance and

escapement to encourage natural

straying into adjacent streams.

Supplementation and reintroduction

approach are described in the Artificial

Production section of the SCSCI and

was not part of the review of this RMP

(the harvest component of the SCSCI).

This issue was also addressed

adequately in the critical threshold

discussion in the response to the

previous comment and in the proposed

evaluation and recommended

determination document (dated March

13, 2001) in the VSP parameters

analysis. The last comment under this

category was the commenter’s comment

that the criteria for ‘‘renewing’’ harvest

should be that the average abundance

must be higher than the critical

threshold for at least three life cycles

(the commenter suggested nine years).

Response: The RMP establishes an

annual harvest regime (called the Base

Conservation Regime) for Hood Canal

and Strait of Juan de Fuca terminal and

Washington pre-terminal salmon

fisheries. The harvest management

strategy during this regime is designed

to minimize incidental take of listed

Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon,

while providing opportunity for

fisheries directed at other species. Very

specific fishing restrictions are outlined

in the RMP. These restrictions include

closure of all summer chum salmon

directed fisheries, delayed or truncated

fishery openings for other salmonid

species, chum salmon non-retention in

fisheries directed at other species, and

area closures around freshwater

spawning tributaries. All state and tribal

fisheries will operate in compliance

with the Base Conservation Regime

(BCR), and with any modifications made

in response to the critical status for one

or more management units or

populations. The BCR will remain in

place until such time as the Comanagers (Washington Department of

Fish and Wildlife and the Point-NoPoint Treaty Tribes) incorporate the

population recovery goals into the

management structure. It is anticipated

that the BCR will be in place for the

foreseeable future. However, as an

implementation term, Co-managers will

provide NMFS with an assessment

report on the anticipated impacts

associated with any new harvest regime

(including direct take) on the Hood

Canal Summer-Run Chum Salmon ESU.

The Co-managers and NMFS will meet

and discuss the results of the

anticipated impacts of any new harvest

regime prior to implementation. At that

time, NMFS will determine if the new

harvest regime is consistent with Limit

6 of the ESA 4(d) Rule.

3. Monitoring

Comment: The commenter suggested

that the use of exploitation rate is not an

adequate method to assess the ‘‘run

health.’’

Response: The RMP uses several

population-specific, performance

indicators to assess the effectiveness of

the RMP. The performance indicators

include: abundance, productivity,

escapement, and management actions.

The combined status of all these

indicators are used to determine ‘‘run

health’’. These indicators are explained

in more detail in the RMP and in the

proposed evaluation and recommended

determination document. Performance

indicators also include indicators for

monitoring the fisheries. The primary

monitoring indicator is the estimates of

exploitation rates obtained from the

fisheries. Secondary fishery indicators

include catch and catch rate, fishing

effort, non-landed fishing-related

mortality, and catch and escapement

composition (size, age, mark rates, etc.).

Comment: The commenter suggested

that the abundance numbers used in the

RMP cannot be validated.

Response: NMFS recognizes that there

are data gaps in the summer chum

salmon escapement and harvest

information. However, the RMP and

NMFS’ evaluation used the best

available scientific information.

Currently, over 90 percent of the

spawning grounds are surveyed. Catch

is estimated by intensively subsampling a proportion of the harvest.

More importantly, an exploitation rate

approach is more resilient to data

uncertainty and environmental

variability than a fixed goal approach.

Comment: The commenter’s suggested

the elimination of gill nets as a gear

type.

Response: This comment is directed

at the RMP and not NMFS’ proposed

evaluation and recommended

determination. No response was

necessary.

Comment: The final comment in this

category addressed the commenter’s

concern over the commitment of the Comanagers to conduct the required

monitoring.

Response: The Co-managers have

designed the BCR management actions

to provide sufficient protection for

summer-run chum populations at the

current levels of monitoring. The Comanagers have committed to

maintaining the core elements of the

monitoring programs, while recognizing

that additional monitoring activities are

important and are actively seeking

funds to support them. However, as an

implementation term, NMFS required

all sampling, monitoring, assessment,

evaluation, enforcement and reporting

tasks or assignments related to harvest

management in the RMP be conducted

by the Co-managers as required in the

RMP. The RMP requires the Comanagers to maintain fishery sampling

at 1998 levels or above. The RMP also

calls for specific and integrated

monitoring programs to maintain and

improve population assessment

methodologies as well as evaluating the

effectiveness of harvest management

actions and objectives.

4. Supplementation

All comments received under this

category addressed hatchery operations

(supplementation) and fall outside the

harvest component of the SCSCI (the

RMP). No response was necessary.

5. Population Growth Rate

Comment: Two of the three comments

received under this category addressed

the RMP or hatchery operations and not

NMFS’ proposed evaluation and

recommended determination of the

harvest component of the SCSCI (the

RMP). No response was necessary. The

commenter also suggested that the

proposed average exploitation rates

could be reduced further by selective

fishing methods.

Response: Selective fishing is a key

aspect of the RMP. During the BCR, no

direct take of Hood Canal summer-run

chum salmon is allowed. Summer chum

salmon are caught incidentally in

fisheries targeting other abundant and

healthy populations. Most of these

fisheries require the non-retention of

summer chum salmon. The proposed

RMP management actions affect all

salmon fisheries which impact listed

Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon,

including Canadian salmon fisheries. In

any given year, the results of these

management actions are designed to

produce exploitation rates within the

range of 3.3 to 15.3 percent on summer

chum salmon bound for the Hood Canal

and 2.8 to 11.8 percent on the Strait of

Juan de Fuca populations. Although in

any one year, fisheries may be managed

for exploitation rates lower than this

range, the upper end of the exploitation

rate ranges may not be exceeded. At the

time of the five-year plan review, the

annual exploitation rates for the

previous five-year period are not to be

clustered towards either extreme of the

range. The expected average annual

exploitation rate is 10.9 percent on

summer chum salmon bound for the

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2001 / Proposed Rules 31603

Hood Canal and 8.8 percent on the

Strait of Juan de Fuca populations.

NMFS’ analysis indicates that the

proposed fishing regime (BCR) would

not result in escapement significantly

less than if fishing had not occurred at

all. These exploitation rates were

evaluated by NMFS and found to meet

the requirements of Limit 6 of the ESA

4(d) Rule. This included the NMFS’

recommended determination that the

RMP will not appreciably reduce the

likelihood of survival and recovery of

the ESU in the wild. Based on this

analysis, excluding populations that are

below the critical thresholds (which

require Co-managers to investigate

additional harvest management

measures), a further reduction in the

BCR average exploitation rate is not

needed to meet the Limit 6, ESA 4(d)

Rule requirements.

References

A complete list of all references cited

herein is available upon request (see

ADDRESSES), or through the documents

available on the Sustainable Fisheries

web site (see Electronic Access, under

the heading SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION).

Authority

Under section 4 of the ESA, NMFS, by

delegated authority from the Secretary

of Commerce, is required to adopt such

regulations as it deems necessary and

advisable for the conservation of the

species listed as threatened. The ESA

salmon and steelhead 4(d) rule (65 FR

42422, July 10, 2000) specifies

categories of activities that are

adequately regulated to provide for the

conservation of listed salmonids and

sets out the criteria for such activities.

The rule further provides that the

prohibitions of paragraph (a) of the rule

do not apply to actions undertaken in

compliance with a RMP developed

jointly by the State of Washington and

the Tribes (joint plan) and determined

by NMFS to be in accordance with the

salmon and steelhead 4(d) rule (65 FR

42422, July 10, 2000).

Dated: June 7, 2001.

Chris Mobley,

Acting Chief, Endangered Species Division,

Office of Protected Resources, National

Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 01–14770 Filed 6–11–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22 –S

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 223

[I.D. 052301D]

Endangered and Threatened Species;

Take of Anadromous Fish

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final determination

and discussion of underlying biological

analysis.

SUMMARY: NMFS has evaluated the joint

resource management plan (RMP)for

harvest of Puget Sound chinook salmon

provided by the Washington

Department of Fish and Wildlife

(WDFW) and the Puget Sound Treaty

Tribes pursuant to the protective

regulations promulgated for Puget

Sound chinook salmon under the

Endangered Species Act (ESA). The

RMP specifies the future management of

commercial, recreational and tribal

salmon fisheries that potentially affect

listed Puget Sound chinook salmon.

This document serves to notify the

public that NMFS, by delegated

authority from the Secretary of

Commerce, has determined pursuant to

the Tribal Rule and the government-togovernment processes therein that

implementing and enforcing the RMP

will not appreciably reduce the

likelihood of survival and recovery of

the Puget Sound chinook salmon

Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU).

DATES: The final determination on the

take limit was made on April 27, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Sustainable Fisheries

Division, National Marine Fisheries

Service, 7600 Sand Point Way NE,

Seattle, Washington 98115–0070.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Susan Bishop at: 206/526–4587, or email: susan.bishop@noaa.govregarding

the RMP.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

notice is relevant to the Puget Sound

chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus

tshawytscha) ESU.

Electronic Access

The full texts of NMFS’

determination, and the final Evaluation

are available on the Internet at the

NMFS, Sustainable Fisheries Division

wed site at: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/

1sustfsh/limit6/index.html.

Background

In February of this year, the WDFW

and the Puget Sound Treaty Tribes (Comanagers) provided a jointly developed

RMP that encompasses Washington

coastal and Puget Sound salmon

fisheries affecting the Puget Sound

chinook salmon ESU. The RMP is the

harvest management component of a

larger Puget Sound management and

conservation planning effort called

Comprehensive Chinook. Harvest

objectives specified in the RMP account

for fisheries-related mortality of Puget

Sound chinook throughout its migratory

range DBU*COM003*MDNM from

Oregon and Washington to Southeast

Alaska. The RMP also includes

implementation, monitoring and

evaluation procedures designed to

ensure fisheries are consistent with

these objectives. On March 5, 2001, at

66 FR 13293, NMFS published a notice

of availability for public review and

comment in the Federal Register, on its

evaluation of how the Puget Sound

chinook RMP addressed the criteria in

§ 223.203 (b)(4) of the ESA 4 (d) rule (65

FR 42422).

As required by § 223.203 (b)(6) of the

ESA 4 (d) rule, NMFS must determine

pursuant to 50 CFR 223.209 and

pursuant to the government to

government processes therein whether

the RMP for Puget Sound chinook

would appreciably reduce the

likelihood of survival and recovery of

the Puget Sound chinook and other

affected threatened ESUs. NMFS must

take comments on how the RMP

addresses the criteria in § 223.203 (b)(4)

in making that determination.

Discussion of the Biological Analysis

Underlying the Determination

The RMP’s approach to establishing

management objectives is risk averse

and progressive, representing significant

improvements from past management

practices, including (1) management

objectives based on natural production

and natural spawning have been

established for the majority of naturally

producing populations which

historically had self-sustaining chinook

populations and for which data is

available. These management units

represent the entire range of life history

types (races) and geographic

distribution that comprise the Puget

Sound ESU; (2) the RMP derives

exploitation rates based on conservative,

quantifiable standards directly related to

recovery, which take into account

scientific uncertainty; (3) in isolating

the effect of harvest on survival and

recovery, the approach is valuable in

ensuring that harvest actions do not