Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 183 / Friday, September 19, 2008 / Proposed Rules 54345 

voluntary participation and successful 

performance in the Mentor-Prote ́ge ́ Program, 

in accordance with NFS 1819.7209. 

(c) Mentor participation in the Program, 

described in NFS 1819.72, means providing 

technical, managerial and financial 

assistance to aid prote ́ge ́s in developing 

requisite high-tech expertise and business 

systems to compete for and successfully 

perform NASA contracts and subcontracts. 

(d) Contractors interested in participating 

in the program are encouraged to contact the 

NASA OSBP, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 

358–2088, for further information. 

(End of clause) 

1852.219–79 Mentor requirements and 

evaluation. 

As prescribed in 1819.7215, insert the 

following clause: 

MENTOR REQUIREMENTS AND 

EVALUATION 

(XX/XX) 

(a) The purpose of the NASA MentorProte ́ge ́ Program is for a NASA prime 

contractor to provide developmental 

assistance to certain subcontractors 

qualifying as prote ́ge ́s. Eligible prote ́ge ́s 

include certified small disadvantaged 

business concerns, women-owned small 

business concerns, veteran-owned or servicedisabled veteran-owned small business 

concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, 

Historically Black Colleges and Universities, 

minority institutions of higher education, 

and active NASA SBIR Phase II companies 

meeting the qualifications specified in 

defined in FAR Part 2, Definitions of Parts 

and Terms. 

(b) NASA will evaluate the contractor’s 

performance on the following factors. If this 

contract includes an award fee incentive, this 

assessment will be accomplished as part of 

the fee evaluation process. 

(1) Specific actions taken by the contractor, 

during the evaluation period, to increase the 

participation of prote ́ge ́s as subcontractors 

and suppliers; 

(2) Specific actions taken by the contractor 

during this evaluation period to develop the 

technical and corporate administrative 

expertise of a prote ́ge ́ as defined in the 

agreement; 

(3) To what extent the mentor and prote ́ge ́

have met the developmental milestones 

outlined in the agreement; and 

(4) To what extent the entities participation 

in the Mentor-Prote ́ge ́ Program resulted in 

the prote ́ge ́ receiving competitive contract(s) 

and subcontract(s) from private firms and 

agencies other than the mentor. 

(c) Semiannual reports shall be submitted 

by the mentor and the prote ́ge ́ to the 

cognizant NASA center and NASA 

Headquarters Office of Small Business 

Programs (OSBP), following the semiannual 

report template found on the Web site at 

http://www.osbp.nasa.gov. 

(d) The mentor will notify the cognizant 

NASA center and NASA OSBP in writing, at 

least 30 days in advance of the mentor’s 

intent to voluntarily withdraw from the 

program or upon receipt of a prote ́ge ́’s notice 

to withdraw from the Program; 

(e) At the end of each year in the MentorProte ́ge ́ Program, the mentor and prote ́ge ́, as 

appropriate, will formally brief the NASA 

Mentor-Prote ́ge ́ program manager, the 

technical program manager, and the 

contracting officer during a formal program 

review regarding Program accomplishments, 

as it pertains to the approved agreement. 

(f) NASA may terminate mentor-prote ́ge ́

agreements for good cause, thereby excluding 

mentors or prote ́ge ́s from participating in the 

NASA Mentor-Prote ́ge ́ program. These 

actions shall be approved by the NASA 

OSBP. NASA shall terminate an agreement 

by delivering to the contractor a letter 

specifying the reason for termination and the 

effective date. Termination of an agreement 

does not constitute a termination of the 

subcontract between the mentor and the 

prote ́ge ́. A plan for accomplishing the 

subcontract effort should the agreement be 

terminated shall be submitted with the 

agreement as required in NFS 1819.7211. 

(End of clause) 

[FR Doc. E8–21984 Filed 9–18–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7510–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[FWS–R1–ES–2008–0096; MO 9221050083– 

B2] 

RIN 1018–AW34 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Listing the Plant Lepidium 

papilliferum (Slickspot Peppergrass) 

as Endangered 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), notify the 

public of the reinstatement of our July 

15, 2002, proposed rule to list Lepidium 

papilliferum (slickspot peppergrass) as 

endangered under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). 

We announce the reopening of the 

public comment period on that 

proposed listing. 

DATES: We will accept comments 

received on or before October 20, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by one of the following methods: 

• Via the Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• By U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: 

Public Comments Processing, Attn: RIN 

1018–AW34, Division of Policy and 

Directives Management, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, 

Suite 222, Arlington, VA 22203. 

We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We 

will post all comments on http:// 

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will also post any 

personal information included with 

your comments (see the Public 

Comments section below for more 

information). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jeffery L. Foss, Field Supervisor, Snake 

River Fish and Wildlife Office, 1387 S. 

Vinnell Way, Room 368, Boise, ID 83709 

(telephone 208–378–5243; facsimile 

208–378–5262). If you use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD), you may call the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 

800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Comments 

We intend that any final action 

resulting from the proposal will be as 

accurate and as effective as possible. 

Therefore, we are seeking comments or 

suggestions from the public, other 

concerned governmental agencies, the 

scientific community, industry, or any 

other interested party concerning the 

proposed rule. We particularly seek 

comments concerning: 

(1) Biological, commercial trade, or 

other relevant data concerning any 

threat (or lack thereof) to Lepidium 

papilliferum; 

(2) Additional information concerning 

the range, distribution, and population 

size of this species; and 

(3) Current or planned activities in the 

subject area and their possible impact 

on this species. 

You may submit your comments and 

materials concerning the proposed rule 

by one of the methods listed in the 

ADDRESSES section. We will not accept 

comments sent by e-mail or fax or to an 

address not listed in the ADDRESSES

section. 

We will post your entire comment— 

including your personal identifying 

information—on http:// 

www.regulations.gov. If you provide 

personal identifying information in your 

comment, you may request at the top of 

your document that we withhold this 

information from public review. 

However, we cannot guarantee that we 

will be able to do so. 

In making a final decision on the 

proposal, we will take into 

consideration the comments and any 

additional information we receive. Such 

communications may lead to a final rule 

that differs from the proposal. 

Comments and materials we receive, 

as well as supporting documentation we 

used in preparing the proposed rule, 

will be available for public inspection 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
54346 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 183 / Friday, September 19, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

on http://www.regulations.gov, or by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours, at the Snake River Fish and 

Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Previous Federal Actions 

On July 15, 2002, we published a 

proposed rule (67 FR 46441) to list 

Lepidium papilliferum as endangered 

under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

For a description of Federal actions 

regarding Lepidium papilliferum prior 

to that proposed listing rule, please refer 

to that proposal. Here we provide a 

summary of the Federal actions 

concerning L. papilliferum from the 

2002 proposed listing rule to this action. 

We accepted public comments on the 

July 15, 2002, proposed rule for 60 days, 

until September 13, 2002. We held a 

public hearing on August 29, 2002. On 

September 25, 2002 (67 FR 60206), and 

again on July 18, 2003 (68 FR 42666), 

we reopened the public comment period 

on the proposed listing. On October 30, 

2003, we made a Candidate 

Conservation Agreement (CCA) and a 

document compiled by the Service 

entitled ‘‘Best Available Information for 

Slickspot Peppergrass’’ available for 

public review and comment (68 FR 

61821). On January 22, 2004, we 

published a withdrawal of our proposed 

rule to list Lepidium papilliferum as 

endangered (69 FR 3094). Our 

withdrawal was based on our 

conclusion that evidence of a negative 

population trend was lacking and that 

the formalized conservation plans (e.g., 

the CCA and Integrated Natural 

Resource Management Plans) had 

sufficient certainty that they would be 

implemented and effective such that the 

risk to the species was reduced to a 

level below the statutory definition of 

endangered or threatened. 

On April 5, 2004, the Western 

Watersheds Project filed a complaint 

challenging our decision to withdraw 

the proposed rule to list Lepidium 

papilliferum as endangered (Western 

Watersheds Project v. Jeffery Foss, et al., 

Case No. CV 04–168–S–EJL). On August 

19, 2005, the U.S. District Court for the 

District of Idaho reversed our decision 

to withdraw the proposed rule, 

effectively reinstating our July 15, 2002, 

proposed rule (67 FR 46441). The Court 

remanded the case to the Secretary of 

the Department of the Interior for 

reconsideration of ‘‘whether a proposed 

rule listing the slickspot peppergrass as 

either threatened or endangered should 

be adopted.’’ 

Following the August 19, 2005, 

remand order, we notified Federal, 

State, and local agencies, county 

governments, elected officials, and other 

interested parties of the District Court’s 

decision in a letter dated October 13, 

2005. We requested new scientific data, 

information, and comments about 

Lepidium papilliferum by November 14, 

2005. We also stated that scientific 

information received from the public 

would be utilized in an updated 

document entitled ‘‘Draft Best Available 

Biological Information for Slickspot 

Peppergrass (Lepidium papilliferum)’’ 

(BAI), which would combine all existing 

and new information regarding the 

species and its habitat. We accepted 

information through December 14, 2005, 

and received 13 comment letters in 

response to our request for additional 

information. From February 27, 2006, 

through March 30, 2006, we accepted 

information from peer reviewers and 

others on the draft BAI and on 

conservation efforts for the species. We 

received an additional 36 comments. On 

October 23, 2006, we opened an 

additional 22-day comment period 

through November 13, 2006 (71 FR 

62078) to allow the opportunity for 

public comment on a variety of 

documents, including peer review 

comments on the draft BAI and results 

of an expert panel workshop. We 

received 20 comments in response to 

this request for comments. 

On January 12, 2007, we withdrew 

our proposed rule to list Lepidium 

papilliferum as endangered under the 

Act (72 FR 1621). This withdrawal was 

based on our determination that the best 

available information indicated that, in 

regard to Lepidium papilliferum, ‘‘* * * 

while its sagebrush-steppe matrix 

habitat is degraded, there is little 

evidence of negative impacts on the 

abundance of Lepidium papilliferum, 

which inhabits slickspot microsites 

within this system.’’ The withdrawal 

further concluded that annual 

abundance of the plant is strongly 

correlated with spring precipitation; 

therefore, a high degree of variability in 

annual plant abundance is to be 

expected. Furthermore, evidence 

regarding the plant’s overall population 

trend was inconsistent. 

Subsequently, on April 16, 2007, the 

Western Watersheds Project filed 

another complaint challenging our 

January 2007 decision to withdraw the 

proposed rule to list Lepidium 

papilliferum as endangered (Western 

Watersheds Project v. Jeffery Foss et al., 

Case No. 07–161–E–MHW). 

On June 4, 2008, the U.S. District 

Court for the District of Idaho vacated 

the Service’s January 2007 withdrawal 

of the proposed listing of Lepidium 

papilliferum, and remanded the 

decision to the Service for further 

consideration consistent with the 

Court’s opinion. The Court’s action 

effectively reinstates the July 15, 2002, 

proposed rule to list L. papilliferum as 

endangered (67 FR 46441). The Service 

will complete its review of the best 

available scientific and commercial 

data, including information and 

comments submitted during this 

comment period, as part of the remand 

process. We will then complete a new 

listing determination. 

Author 

The primary authors of this document 

are the staff at the Snake River Fish and 

Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Authority 

The authority for this action is the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

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

Dated: September 10, 2008. 

Kenneth Stansell, 

Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. E8–21987 Filed 9–18–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 680 

[Docket No. 080416577–81187–02] 

RIN 0648–AW73 

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone Off Alaska; Bering Sea and 

Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization 

Program 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes regulations to 

implement Amendment 27 to the 

Fishery Management Plan for Bering 

Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner 

Crabs (FMP). These proposed 

regulations would amend the Crab 

Rationalization Program to: implement 

the statutory requirements of section 

122(e) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management 

Reauthorization Act that specifically 

directs NMFS to modify how individual 

processing quota (IPQ) use caps apply to 

a person who is custom processing 

Chionoecetes opilio crab in the North 

Region, clarify that for other crab 

fisheries, IPQ crab that is processed at 

a facility through contractual 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS