Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 25, 2010 / Notices 29317 

Education Division at the address listed 

above. The request should set forth the 

specific reasons why a hearing on this 

application would be appropriate. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jennifer Skidmore or Kate Swails, (301) 

713–2289. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

subject amendment to Permit No. 13599 

is requested under the authority of the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

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

the regulations governing the taking, 

importing, and exporting of endangered 

and threatened species (50 CFR 222– 

226). 

Permit No. 13599, issued on 

December 16, 2008 (73 FR 78724), 

authorizes the permit holder to receive, 

import, export, transfer, archive, and 

conduct analyses of marine mammal 

and endangered species parts. Species 

include all cetaceans, pinnipeds (except 

for walrus), sea turtles (in the water), 

smalltooth sawfish (Pristis pectinata), 

shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser 

brevirostrum) and white abalone 

(Haliotis sorenseni). 

The permit holder is requesting the 

permit be amended to include 

additional species under NMFS 

jurisdiction including Chinook 

(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), chum 

(Oncorhynchus keta), coho 

(Oncorhynchus kisutch) and sockeye 

(Oncorhynchus nerka) salmon, 

steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), 

green (Acipenser medirostris) and Gulf 

(Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) 

sturgeon, totoaba (Totoaba macdonaldi), 

and black abalone (Haliotis cracherodii). 

In compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), an initial 

determination has been made that the 

activity proposed is categorically 

excluded from the requirement to 

prepare an environmental assessment or 

environmental impact statement. 

Dated: May 19, 2010. 

P. Michael Payne, 

Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education 

Division, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–12561 Filed 5–24–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

Response to Comments on the Second 

Round of Nominated Sites to the 

National System of MPAs 

AGENCY: NOAA, Department of 

Commerce (DOC). 

ACTION: Notice of updates to the List of 

National System Marine Protected Areas 

(MPAs) and response to comments on 

nominations of existing MPAs to the 

national system. 

SUMMARY: NOAA and the Department of 

the Interior (DOI) invited federal, state, 

commonwealth, and territorial MPA 

programs with potentially eligible 

existing MPAs to nominate their sites to 

the national system of MPAs (national 

system). This was the second round of 

nominations, following the nomination 

of 225 sites in the initial round of 

nominations, completed in April 2009. 

For the second round, a total of 32 

nominations were received. Following a 

45-day public review period, 114 public 

comments were received by the 

National Marine Protected Areas Center 

(MPA Center) and forwarded to the 

relevant managing agencies. After 

review of the public comments, 

managing agencies were asked to make 

a final determination of sites to 

nominate to the national system. All the 

nominations were confirmed by the 

managing agencies. Finding them to be 

eligible for the national system, the 

MPA Center has accepted the 

nominations for 29 sites and placed 

them on the List of National System 

MPAs. 

The national system and the 

nomination process are described in the 

Framework for the National System of 

Marine Protected Areas of the United 

States of America (Framework), 

developed in response to Executive 

Order 13158 on Marine Protected Areas. 

The final Framework was published on 

November 19, 2008, and provides 

guidance for collaborative efforts among 

federal, state, commonwealth, 

territorial, tribal and local governments 

and stakeholders to develop an effective 

and well coordinated national system 

that includes existing MPAs meeting 

national system criteria as well as new 

sites that may be established by 

managing agencies to fill key 

conservation gaps in important ocean 

areas. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Lauren Wenzel, NOAA, at 301–713– 

3100, ext. 136 or via e-mail at 

mpa.comments@noaa.gov. A detailed 

electronic copy of the List of National 

System MPAs is available for download 

at http://www.mpa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background on National System 

The national system of MPAs is made 

up of member MPA sites, networks and 

systems established and managed by 

federal, state, commonwealth, 

territorial, tribal and/or local 

governments that collectively enhance 

conservation of the nation’s natural and 

cultural marine heritage and represent 

its diverse ecosystems and resources. 

Although participating sites continue to 

be managed independently, national 

system MPAs also work together at the 

regional and national levels to achieve 

common objectives for conserving the 

nation’s important natural and cultural 

resources, with emphasis on achieving 

the priority conservation objectives of 

the Framework. MPAs include sites 

with a wide range of protection, from 

multiple use areas to no take reserves 

where all extractive uses are prohibited. 

The term MPA refers only to the marine 

portion of a site (below the mean high 

tide mark) that may include both 

terrestrial and marine components. 

The national system is a mechanism 

to foster greater collaboration among 

participating MPA sites and programs in 

order to enhance stewardship in the 

waters of the United States. 

The act of joining the national system 

does not create new MPAs, or create 

new restrictions for the existing MPAs 

that become members. In fact, a site 

must have existing protections of 

natural and/or cultural resources in 

place in order to be eligible to join the 

national system, as well as meet other 

criteria described in the Framework. 

However, joining the national system 

does not establish new regulatory 

authority or change existing regulations 

in any way, nor does it require changes 

affecting the designation process or 

management of member MPAs. Nor 

does it bring state, territorial, tribal or 

local sites under federal authority. 

Benefits of joining the national 

system, which are expected to increase 

over time as the system matures, 

include a facilitated means to work with 

other sites in the MPA’s region, and 

nationally on issues of common 

conservation concern; fostering greater 

public and international recognition of 

U.S. MPAs and the resources they 

protect; priority in the receipt of 

available technical and other support for 

cross-cutting needs; and the opportunity 

to influence federal and regional ocean 

conservation and management 

initiatives (such as Coastal and Marine 

Spatial Planning, integrated ocean 

observing systems, systematic 

monitoring and evaluation, targeted 

outreach to key user groups, and 

helping to identify and address MPA 

research needs). In addition, the 

national system provides a forum for 

coordinated regional planning about 

place-based conservation priorities that 

does not otherwise exist. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
29318 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 25, 2010 / Notices 

Nomination Process 

The Framework describes two major 

focal areas for building the national 

system of MPAs—a nomination process 

to allow existing MPAs that meet the 

entry criteria to become part of the 

system and a collaborative regional gap 

analysis process to identify areas of 

significance for natural or cultural 

resources that may merit additional 

protection through existing federal, 

state, commonwealth, territorial, tribal 

or local MPA authorities. The second 

round of nominations for the national 

system began on August 6, 2009, when 

the MPA Center sent a letter to federal, 

state, commonwealth, and territorial 

MPA programs inviting them to submit 

nominations of eligible MPAs to the 

national system. The deadline for 

nominations was November 20, 2009. A 

public comment period was held from 

December 23, 2009 through February 22, 

2010. 

There are three entry criteria for 

existing MPAs to join the national 

system, plus a fourth for cultural 

heritage. Sites that meet all pertinent 

criteria are eligible for the national 

system. 

1. Meets the definition of an MPA as 

defined in the Framework. 

2. Has a management plan (can be 

site-specific or part of a broader 

programmatic management plan; must 

have goals and objectives and call for 

monitoring or evaluation of those goals 

and objectives). 

3. Contributes to at least one priority 

conservation objective as listed in the 

Framework (see below). 

4. Cultural heritage MPAs must also 

conform to criteria for the National 

Register for Historic Places. 

Additional sites not currently meeting 

the management plan criterion can be 

evaluated for eligibility to be nominated 

to the system on a case-by-case basis 

based on their ability to fill gaps in the 

national system coverage of the priority 

conservation objectives and design 

principles described in the Framework. 

The MPA Center used existing 

information in the MPA Inventory to 

determine which MPAs meet the first 

and second criteria. The inventory is 

online at http://www.mpa.gov/ 

helpful_resources/inventory.html, and 

potentially eligible sites are posted 

online at http://mpa.gov/pdf/nationalsystem/allsitesumsheet120408.pdf. As 

part of the nomination process, the 

managing entity for each potentially 

eligible site is asked to provide 

information on the third and fourth 

criteria. 

Updates to List of National System 

MPAs 

The following MPAs have been 

nominated by their managing programs 

to join the national system of MPAs. 

Two nominated MPAs, Acadia National 

Park and Apostle Islands National 

Lakeshore have requested additional 

time to consult with stakeholders and 

tribal governments and are not included 

in this round of nominations. An 

additional MPA, the Queen Anne’s 

Revenge Shipwreck site, has withdrawn 

from the nomination process. The 

complete List of National System MPAs, 

which now includes 254 members, is 

available at http://www.mpa.gov. 

Federal Marine Protected Areas 

National Parks 

Buck Island Reef National Monument 

Cabrillo National Monument 

Canaveral National Seashore 

Cape Cod National Seashore 

Cape Hatteras National Seashore 

Cape Lookout National Seashore 

Fire Island National Seashore 

Gateway National Recreation Area 

Golden Gate National Recreation Area 

Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore 

Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and 

Preserve 

Kalaupapa National Historical Park 

Kaloko-Honokahau National Historical 

Park 

National Park of American Samoa 

Olympic National Park 

Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore 

Salt River Bay National Historical Park 

and Ecological Preserve 

San Juan Islands National Historical 

Park 

Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore 

National Wildlife Refuges 

Blackbeard Island National Wildlife 

Refuge 

Harris Neck National Wildlife Refuge 

Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Pickney Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Tybee National Wildlife Refuge 

Wassaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Wolf National Wildlife Refuge 

Partnership Marine Protected Areas 

Jobos Bay National Estuarine Research 

Reserve (Puerto Rico) 

State Marine Protected Areas 

Virgin Islands 

East End Marine Park 

Washington 

San Juan County/Cypress Island Marine 

Biological Preserve 

Response to Public Comments 

On January 7, 2010, NOAA and DOI 

(agencies) published the Nomination of 

Existing Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) 

to the National System of Marine 

Protected Areas for public comment, for 

the nomination of 32 existing MPAs. By 

the end of the 45-day comment period, 

114 individual submissions had been 

received from a variety of state and 

tribal government agencies, nongovernmental organizations, industry 

and conservation interests, advisory 

groups and the public. Given the 

breadth and multi-faceted nature of 

comments and recommendations 

received, related comments have been 

grouped below into categories to 

simplify responses. For each of the 

comment categories listed below, a 

summary of comments is provided, and 

a corresponding response provides an 

explanation and rationale about changes 

that were or were not made in the 

official List of National System Marine 

Protected Areas (MPAs) for this second 

round of nominated sites. 

Comment Category 1: Purpose and 

Scope of National System 

Comment Category 2: Concerns with 

Restrictions on Use, Access and 

Associated Economic and Cultural 

Impacts 

Comment Category 3: Concerns about 

Designating an Area as an MPA 

Comment Category 4: Benefits of Joining 

the National System 

Comment Category 5: Support for 

Nomination of Specific Sites to 

National System 

Comment Category 6: Nominating 

Additional Sites 

Comment Category 7: Questioning 

Eligibility of Specific Sites for the 

National System, the Definition of 

‘‘Marine’’ and the Mean High Tide 

Mark 

Comment Category 8: Gap Analysis 

Comment Category 9: Stakeholder 

Engagement 

Comment Category 10: Tribal Issues 

Comments and Responses 

Comment Category 1: Purpose and 

Scope of National System 

A few comments called for more 

clarity about the purpose and vision of 

the national system. One respondent 

asked if the national system of MPAs 

could assist in specific local coastal 

issues (e.g., coastal erosion). 

Response: 

The purpose of the national system is 

to support the effective stewardship, 

conservation, restoration, sustainable 

use, and public understanding and 

appreciation of the nation’s significant 

natural and cultural marine resources. 

The national system works across all 

levels of government to address 

problems that extend beyond the 

boundaries of a single MPA. Decisions 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 25, 2010 / Notices 29319 

about national system priorities 

consider the interests of and 

implications for all who use, benefit 

from, and care about our marine 

environment. 

While the national system is 

concerned with local coastal and ocean 

issues, due to the national scope of the 

system and limited resources, the 

national system does not focus on issues 

particular to one site but rather focuses 

on strengthening and coordinating 

MPAs and MPA programs. 

The purpose and scope of the national 

system, and plans for its 

implementation were developed with 

extensive stakeholder engagement from 

2004 through 2008. During this period, 

the Framework for the National System 

of Marine Protected Areas of the United 

States of America (Framework) was 

developed. Three separate public 

comment periods on the document were 

held and announced in the Federal 

Register and through other means. In 

addition, the National Marine Protected 

Areas Center (MPA Center) held 

numerous meetings with stakeholders to 

obtain input on the Framework, and 

worked closely with the Marine 

Protected Areas Federal Advisory 

Committee (MPA FAC) in open 

meetings on key concepts that were 

incorporated into the document. The 

final Framework document was 

published in November 2008. 

Comment Category 2: Concerns with 

Restrictions on Use, Access, and 

Associated Economic and Cultural 

Impacts 

Summary: 

Most comments expressed concerns 

that the inclusion of a site in the 

national system will limit access to an 

area, and in particular will impose 

additional restrictions on recreational 

fishing or boating, commercial fishing or 

coastal industry. Several other 

comments expressed concern that the 

inclusion of a site in the national system 

would adversely affect the economic or 

cultural well being of local 

communities. 

Response: 

As noted above, the purpose of the 

national system is to coordinate MPA 

agencies to support the conservation 

and management of marine resources. It 

is not intended to, nor does it have the 

authority to, impose new restrictions on 

access or use. Under Executive Order 

13158, ‘‘this national system framework 

and the work of the MPA Center is 

intended to support, not interfere with, 

agencies’ independent exercise of their 

own existing authorities.’’ 

MPAs will continue to be established, 

managed, regulated and revised under 

each site’s existing federal, state, 

commonwealth, territorial, tribal or 

local authorities and their associated 

legal processes. Decisions about 

restrictions on access and use of an 

MPA will continue to be made by its 

managing agency in accordance with the 

authority under which the MPA was 

created and the goals and objectives of 

the MPA. Two hundred and twenty five 

existing MPAs, approximately half 

federal and half state sites, joined the 

National System in early 2009 and none 

have revised their regulations as a result 

of this action. 

The inclusion of an MPA into the 

national system in no way ‘‘federalizes’’ 

any state or local areas included within 

the system. Further, the inclusion of a 

site in the national system of MPAs will 

have no adverse impact on the 

economic or cultural aspects of a 

specific locale. However, it does serve to 

highlight the importance of that site’s 

natural and cultural resources which 

contribute greatly to state and local 

cultural heritage and economic values. 

By contributing to the priority 

conservation objectives in the 

Framework, each site receives 

recognition for sustaining the natural 

and cultural resources on which local 

communities and the nation depend for 

recreational opportunities, their 

livelihood and their cultural heritage. 

Several comments cited data from the 

MPA Inventory on restrictions on 

commercial and/or recreational fishing, 

believing these to be newly proposed 

regulations as part of the nomination 

process to the national system. This is 

not the case. The MPA Inventory 

summarizes existing characteristics of 

U.S. MPAs, including existing 

regulations on fishing, public access, 

and other uses or activities. This 

information in the Inventory does not 

indicate that additional restrictions are 

being proposed for any site nominated 

to the national system. 

Comment Category 3: Concerns about 

Designating an Area as an MPA 

Summary: 

Many comments were concerned that 

inclusion in the national system of 

MPAs would designate a particular site 

as an MPA. 

Response: 

A site must already meet the 

definition of an MPA as defined by the 

Framework for the National System of 

Marine Protected Areas of the United 

States of America in order to be 

nominated to the national system. Many 

commenters appeared to assume that 

the term ‘‘MPA’’ refers to a fully 

protected marine reserve or highly 

restricted site. In fact, an MPA is 

defined by Executive Order 13158 as 

‘‘Any area of the marine environment 

that has been reserved by federal, state, 

territorial, tribal, or local laws or 

regulations to provide lasting protection 

for part or all of the natural and cultural 

resources therein.’’ Most MPAs in the 

United States allow multiple uses such 

as recreational and commercial fishing. 

Inclusion in the national system does 

not change how the site’s resources are 

managed or uses are regulated, 

including regulation of fishing. 

Comment Category 4: Benefits of 

Joining the National System 

Summary: 

Several comments noted that while 

inclusion of a site does not impose 

additional restrictions, they saw no 

benefit to joining the national system 

either. 

Response: 

The national system provides benefits 

to the nation, to participating MPAs, 

and to ocean stakeholders. Benefits to 

joining the national system include, 

among others: 

• Enhancing stewardship through 

better coordination on regional and 

national scales, improved public 

awareness, and enhanced site 

management capacity; 

• Building partnerships for MPAs to 

work together toward common 

conservation objectives; 

• Increasing support for marine 

conservation through the recognition 

provided by the national system; 

• Priority access to resources 

available for capacity building and 

stewardship improvements; 

• Protecting representative 

ecosystems and resources from all the 

nation’s ecosystem and habitat types; 

and 

• Providing a transparent process for 

future MPA planning that is sciencebased and includes a commitment to 

balanced stakeholder involvement. 

These benefits will enhance 

conservation and values of resources in 

MPAs over time as implementation of 

the national system moves forward. 

Comment Category 5: Support for 

Nomination of Specific Sites to National 

System 

Summary: 

Several comments supported the 

nomination of specific sites to the 

national system. They noted the 

significant ecological and cultural value 

of the areas, and added that the 

participation of these sites in the 

national system will lead to a 

strengthening of their conservation 

efforts, as well as enhancing the 

national system. 

Response: 

These comments support the goals of 

Executive Order 13158, which directs 

NOAA, DOI and other federal agencies 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
29320 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 25, 2010 / Notices 

to sustain the ecological, cultural and 

economic values of the nation’s ocean 

and Great Lakes resources, by 

establishing the national system. 

Managing agencies are responsible for 

nominating their individual sites. 

Comments that support the nominations 

of sites to the national system were 

forwarded to the appropriate managing 

agencies. 

Comment Category 6: Nominating 

Additional Sites 

Summary: 

One comment recommended 

additional National Parks to be included 

in the third round of nominations to the 

national system of MPAs. 

Response: 

Sites must be nominated by the site’s 

managing agency. This comment was 

forwarded to the National Park Service 

for their consideration in subsequent 

nomination phases. 

Comment Category 7: Questioning 

Eligibility of Specific Sites for the 

National System, the Definition of 

‘‘Marine’’ and the Mean High Tide Mark 

Summary: 

Several comments questioned the 

eligibility of sites for inclusion in the 

national system. Some eligibility 

concerns included whether or not sites 

met the definition of ‘‘marine’’ and 

whether a site should be included in the 

national system if the area’s boundary 

extends only to the mean low water 

mark. One comment noted the 

importance of terrestrial habitats to 

marine species, such as turtles and 

wading birds, and asked that the 

definition of ‘‘marine’’ be revised to 

more adequately protect these species. 

Response: 

According to the Framework for the 

National System of Marine Protected 

Areas of the United States of America 

(Framework), a site is eligible for 

inclusion in the national system if the 

site: (1) Meets the definition of an MPA 

as defined in the Framework; (2) has a 

management plan (can be site-specific 

or part of a broader programmatic 

management plan); (3) contributes to at 

least one priority conservation objective 

as listed in the Framework; and (4) 

meets additional criteria for cultural 

heritage MPAs (conforming to criteria 

for the National Register for Historic 

Places). 

Only the ‘‘marine’’ portion of a site is 

eligible for inclusion in the national 

system. According to the Framework, to 

be marine, a site ‘‘must be: (a) Ocean or 

coastal waters (coastal waters may 

include intertidal areas, bays or 

estuaries); (b) an area of the Great Lakes 

or their connecting waters; (c) an area of 

submerged lands under ocean or coastal 

waters or the Great Lakes or their 

connecting waters; or (d) a combination 

of the above. The term ‘‘intertidal’’ is 

understood to mean the shore zone 

between the mean low water and mean 

high water marks. An MPA may be a 

marine component part of a larger site 

that includes uplands. However, the 

terrestrial portion is not considered an 

MPA.’’ 

NOAA and DOI recognize the critical 

importance of areas above the high tide 

mark to marine species, resources, and 

ecosystem processes. Examples of such 

areas include turtle nesting beaches and 

seabird rookeries. The agencies have 

requested the Marine Protected Areas 

Federal Advisory Committee to develop 

recommendations about how to address 

this issue during their 2010–2011 

sessions. 

All sites nominated to the national 

system have geographic information 

system (GIS) boundaries available to the 

public through the MPA Inventory on 

the http://www.mpa.gov Web site. In 

addition, the MPA Center has recently 

developed an interactive MPA mapping 

tool on the above Web site to make MPA 

boundary information easily viewable 

by the general public without GIS 

expertise. 

Comment Category 8: Gap Analysis 

Summary: 

One comment noted support for the 

planned MPA gap analysis process to 

identify marine areas in need of greater 

protection. 

Response: 

The regional gap analysis process 

described in the Framework will 

identify areas in the marine 

environment that contribute to the 

priority conservation objectives of the 

national system, including resources 

currently represented in marine 

protected areas. This process will 

complement the nominations of existing 

sites to the National System of MPAs by 

providing information on resources 

currently under management by MPA 

management agencies, as well as areas 

that may be in need of additional 

protection. NOAA and DOI are currently 

developing plans for the gap analysis 

process that will also support emerging 

information needs for Coastal and 

Marine Spatial Planning activities. 

Comment Category 9: Stakeholder 

Engagement 

Summary: 

Some comments were concerned that 

the stakeholder process did not provide 

enough information and time to allow 

for informed response to nominations. 

Response: 

NOAA and DOI are committed to 

stakeholder engagement as an essential 

component of the national system. The 

MPA Center continues to work with and 

solicit input from federal, state, 

commonwealth, territorial, tribal, and 

local government partners, Fishery 

Management Councils, Advisory 

Committees, stakeholder groups, and 

the general public about their 

perspectives on the national system. 

The Center has limited resources that 

cannot support extensive stakeholder 

consultation at the local and regional 

levels, but is working with its partners 

and the managing agencies to reach out 

to local communities to address 

questions and uncertainties they may 

have related to the national system. The 

majority of comments opposed to the 

proposed nominations relate to 

concerns about potential restrictions on 

fishing or prohibitions on access to 

marine areas, and possible impacts from 

such restrictions. The MPA Center will 

continue to clarify for the public and 

local communities that nomination to 

the national system does not impose 

additional restrictions or propose 

additional regulatory authority to 

restrict uses of marine resources. 

The national system nomination 

process is transparent. All nominated 

sites were published in the Federal 

Register, and the general public was 

invited to provide public comment on 

all sites nominated for inclusion in the 

national system in a 45-day public 

comment period. In addition, the MPA 

Center used the mpa.gov web site, 

newsletters, listserves, and other 

communication mechanisms to ensure 

the widest possible outreach to the 

public. The MPA Center then forwarded 

all public comment to the MPA 

managing entity. Because no comment 

asked for an extension of the comment 

period, we believe the 45-day comment 

period provided adequate time to gather 

more information. 

Comment Category 10: Tribal Issues 

Summary: Two comments focused on 

the need to ensure that the inclusion of 

MPAs in the national system does not 

infringe upon Tribal treaty rights. One 

comment noted that the Tribe supported 

the nomination of a local MPA with the 

recognition that the Tribe will continue 

to rely upon its usual and accustomed 

areas within the MPA for economic and 

subsistence activities. Another comment 

requested a formal government to 

government consultation on the 

nomination of the Apostle Islands 

National Lakeshore. This nomination is 

not included in the current round in 

order to provide additional time for the 

requested tribal consultation. 

Response: 

Executive Order 13158 states that 

‘‘This order does not diminish, affect, or 

abrogate Indian treaty rights or United 

States trust responsibilities to Indian 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 25, 2010 / Notices 29321 

tribes.’’ NOAA and DOI are committed 

to consultations with tribes as part of 

the national system development 

process. 

Addendum: From ‘‘Framework for the 

National System of Marine Protected 

Areas of the United States’’ National 

System Goals and Priority Conservation 

Objectives 

Goal 1: For Natural Heritage Marine 

Resources—Advance comprehensive 

conservation and management of the nation’s 

biological communities, habitats, ecosystems, 

and processes and the ecological services, 

uses, and values they provide to present and 

future generations through ecosystem-based 

MPA approaches. 

Priority Conservation Objectives for Goal 

1—Conserve and manage: 

• Key reproduction areas and nursery 

grounds 

• Key biogenic habitats 

• Areas of high species and/or habitat 

diversity 

• Ecologically important geological 

features and enduring/recurring 

oceanographic features 

• Critical habitat of threatened and 

endangered species 

• Unique or rare species, habitats and 

associated communities 

• Key areas for migratory species 

• Linked areas important to life histories 

• Key areas that provide compatible 

opportunities for education and research 

Goal 2: For Cultural Heritage Marine 

Resources—Advance comprehensive 

conservation and management of cultural 

resources that reflect the nation’s maritime 

history and traditional cultural connections 

to the sea, as well as the uses and values they 

provide to present and future generations 

through ecosystem-based MPA approaches. 

Priority Conservation Objectives for Goal 

2—Conserve and manage: 

• Key cultural and historic resources listed 

on the National Register of Historic Places 

(NRHP) 

• Key cultural and historic resources 

determined eligible for the NRHP or listed on 

a State Register 

• Key cultural sites that are paramount to 

a culture’s identity and/or survival 

• Key cultural and historic sites that may 

be threatened 

• Key cultural and historic sites that can 

be utilized for heritage tourism 

• Key cultural and historic sites that are 

underrepresented 

Goal 3: For Sustainable Production Marine 

Resources—Advance comprehensive 

conservation and management of the nation’s 

renewable living resources and their habitats 

(including, but not limited to, spawning, 

mating, and nursery grounds and areas 

established to minimize bycatch of species) 

and the social, cultural, and economic values 

and services they provide to present and 

future generations through ecosystem-based 

MPA approaches. 

Priority Conservation Objectives for Goal 

3—Conserve and manage: 

• Key reproduction areas, including larval 

sources and nursery grounds 

• Key areas that sustain or restore highpriority fishing grounds 

• Key areas for maintaining natural age/sex 

structure of important harvestable species 

• Key foraging grounds 

• Key areas that mitigate the impacts of 

bycatch 

• Key areas that provide compatible 

opportunities for education and research 

Dated: May 17, 2010. 

Donna Wieting, 

Director, Office of Ocean and Coastal 

Resource Management. 

[FR Doc. 2010–12452 Filed 5–24–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Patent and Trademark Office 

[Docket No.: PTO–P–2010–0046] 

Streamlined Procedure for Appeal 

Brief Review in Ex Parte 

Reexamination Proceedings 

AGENCY: United States Patent and 

Trademark Office, Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The United States Patent and 

Trademark Office (USPTO) is 

streamlining the procedure for the 

review of appeal briefs in ex parte 

reexamination proceeding appeals to 

increase the efficiency of the appeal 

process and reduce pendency of 

appeals. The Chief Judge of the Board of 

Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) 

or his designee (collectively, ‘‘Chief 

Judge’’), will have the sole responsibility 

for determining whether appeal briefs 

filed in ex parte reexamination 

proceeding appeals comply with the 

applicable regulations, and will 

complete the determination before the 

appeal brief is forwarded to the 

examiner for consideration. The 

examiner will no longer review appeal 

briefs for compliance with the 

applicable regulations. The USPTO 

expects to achieve a reduction in ex 

parte reexamination proceeding appeal 

pendency as measured from the filing of 

a notice of appeal to docketing of the 

appeal by eliminating duplicate reviews 

by the examiner and the BPAI. We are 

expecting further reduction in pendency 

because the streamlined procedure will 

increase consistency in the 

determination, and thereby reduce the 

number of notices of noncompliant 

appeal brief and non-substantive returns 

from the BPAI that require appellants to 

file corrected appeal briefs in ex parte 

reexamination proceeding appeals. 

DATES: Effective Date: The procedures 

set forth in this notice are effective on 

May 25, 2010. 

Applicability Date: The appeal brief 

review procedure set forth in this notice 

is applicable to appeal briefs filed in ex 

parte reexamination proceedings on or 

after May 25, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Krista Zele, Case Management 

Administrator, Board of Patent Appeals 

and Interferences, by telephone at (571) 

272–9797 or by electronic mail at: 

BPAI.Review@uspto.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the 

streamlined procedure for appeal brief 

review, upon the filing of an appeal 

brief in ex parte reexamination 

proceeding appeals, the Chief Judge will 

review the appeal brief to determine 

whether the appeal brief complies with 

37 CFR 41.37 before it is forwarded to 

the Central Reexamination Unit or other 

Technology Center examiner for 

consideration. The Chief Judge will 

endeavor to complete this determination 

within one month from the filing of the 

appeal brief. To assist regular ex parte 

appeal appellants in complying with 37 

CFR 41.37, the BPAI has previously 

posted checklists for notices of appeal 

and appeal briefs and a list of eight 

reasons ex parte appeal briefs have been 

held to be noncompliant, on the USPTO 

Web site at: [http://www.uspto.gov/ip/ 

boards/bpai/procedures/ 

guidance_noncompliant_briefs.jsp]. If 

the appeal brief is determined to be 

compliant with 37 CFR 41.37, the Chief 

Judge will accept the appeal brief and 

forward it to the examiner for 

consideration. If the Chief Judge 

determines that the appeal brief is not 

compliant with 37 CFR 41.37 and sends 

appellant a notice of noncompliant brief 

requiring a corrected brief, appellant 

will be required to file a corrected brief 

within the time period set forth in the 

notice to avoid the dismissal of the 

appeal. See 37 CFR 41.37(d). The Chief 

Judge will also have the sole 

responsibility for determining whether 

corrected briefs comply with 37 CFR 

41.37, and will address any inquiries 

and petitions regarding notices of 

noncompliant briefs. 

The Chief Judge’s responsibility for 

determining whether appeal briefs 

comply with 37 CFR 41.37 is not 

considered a transfer of jurisdiction 

when an appeal brief is filed, but rather 

is only a transfer of the specific 

responsibility of notifying appellant 

under 37 CFR 41.37(d) of the reasons for 

non-compliance. The Patent Examining 

Corps retains the jurisdiction over the 

ex parte reexamination proceeding to 

consider the appeal brief, conduct an 

appeal conference, draft an examiner’s 

answer, and decide the entry of 

amendments, evidence, and information 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES