        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        [Docket No. FWS-ES-R8-2012-0024; 4500030113]
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List a Distinct Population Segment of the American Black Bear in Nevada as Endangered or Threatened

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Notice of 90-day petition finding.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce a 90-day finding on a petition to list a distinct population segment (DPS) of the American black bear (Ursus americanus) in Nevada as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). For the purposes of this finding, we evaluated whether the petition presents substantial information to indicate whether the petitioned entity (the DPS of the American black bear in Nevada) may be a listable entity. Based on our review, we conclude that the petition does not provide substantial information indicating that the DPS of the American black bear in Nevada may be a listable entity under the Act. Because the petition does not present substantial information indicating that the American black bear in Nevada may be a listable entity, we did not evaluate whether the information contained in the petition regarding threats was substantial. Therefore, we are not initiating a status review in response to this petition. However, we ask the public to submit to us any new information that becomes available concerning the status of, or threats to, the American black bear in Nevada or its habitat at any time.

          DATES:
          The finding announced in this document was made on July 5, 2012.

          ADDRESSES:
          This finding is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number [FWS-ES-R8-2012-0024]. Supporting documentation we used in preparing this finding is available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office, 1340 Financial Boulevard, Suite 234, Reno, Nevada 89502-7147. Please submit any new information, materials, comments, or questions concerning this finding to the above address.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Edward D. Koch, State Supervisor of the Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES), by telephone 775-861-6300 or by facsimile to 775-861-6301. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that we make a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. We are to base this finding on information provided in the petition, supporting information submitted with the petition, and information otherwise available in our files. To the maximum extent practicable, we are to make this finding within 90 days of our receipt of the petition, and publish our notice of the finding promptly in the Federal Register.
        Our standard for substantial scientific or commercial information within the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90-day petition finding is “that amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted” (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we find that substantial scientific or commercial information was presented, we are required to promptly conduct a species status review, which we subsequently summarize in our 12-month finding.
        Petition History
        On September 6, 2011, we received a petition dated September 1, 2011, from Big Wildlife and NoBearHuntNV.org, requesting that the American black bear in Nevada be designated as a DPS and listed as endangered or threatened under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioners, as required by 50 CFR 424.14(a). In a November 4, 2011, letter to the petitioner, we responded that we reviewed the information presented in the petition and determined that issuing an emergency regulation temporarily listing the species under section 4(b)(7) of the Act was not warranted. We also stated that due to a requirement to complete a significant number of listing and critical habitat actions in Fiscal Year 2012, pursuant to court orders, judicially approved settlement agreements, and other statutory deadlines, we would conduct our review of the petition when we secured funding for the action. At that point, we anticipated making an initial finding on the petition. This finding addresses the petition.
        Previous Federal Action(s)
        No previous Federal actions have been conducted specifically for American black bears in Nevada. Federal actions have been conducted for black bears in other states, as discussed below.
        On February 15, 1983 (48 FR 6752), the Service included the black bear in Pennsylvania in a list of various petitions; the Service determined that the petition to list the black bear in Pennsylvania did not provide substantial information.

        On June 21, 1990, the Service published a proposed rule (55 FR 25341) to list the Louisiana black bear (Ursus americanus luteolus) as threatened in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. In addition, the Service proposed a designation of threatened for other black bear subspecies found within the range of the Louisiana black bear (Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas) based on similarity of appearance. On January 7, 1992, a final rule was published in the Federal Register (57 FR 588) designating threatened status for the Louisiana black bear and other black bears within its range due to similarity of appearance.
        Species Information

        American black bears are large mammals with fur color that can be black or cinnamon (Hall 1946, p. 171). They are considered plantigrades (walk on whole sole of foot) and both the front and rear feet have five toes; claws are longer on the front feet than on the hind feet, and the tail is short (Hall 1946, p. 171). The profile is rather blunt; the eyes are small, and the nose pad is broad with large nostrils (57 FR 588). During summer, adult males generally weigh between 300 and 350 pounds (lbs) (135-158 kilograms (kg)) and adult females about 150 lbs (68-90 kg) (Lackey 2004, p. 8). Large males may weigh in excess of 600 lbs (272 kg), but weight varies greatly throughout the species' range (57 FR 588).
        According to Hall (1981, p. 950), there are 16 subspecies of black bear in North America. Collectively, these subspecies number approximately 800,000-900,000 bears in North America with about 400,000 in the United States (Williamson 2002, p. 12; Renda 2010a, no page number; Big Wildlife and NoBearHuntNV.org 2011, p. 6).

        The American black bear is adaptable and inhabits forests, swamps, tundra, and even the edges of suburbia (Bowers et al. 2004, p. 142; Big Wildlife and NoBearHuntNV.org 2011, p. 7). American black bears are considered omnivores, able to eat many types of plant and animal material including fruits, berries, nuts, roots, grass, seeds, grubs, birds, fish, small mammals, and carrion (Bowers et al. 2004, p. 143; Big Wildlife and NoBearHuntNV.org 2011, p. 8). They are considered intelligent, with learning capabilities (Jonkel 1978, p. 227; Big Wildlife and NoBearHuntNV.org 2011, p. 7). In addition, they are tolerant of humans (Lackey 2004, p. 13). American black bears have learned to associate humans (including their homes and vehicles) with food, leading some black bears to move into urban areas (Lackey 2004, p. 13). This can lead to conflict or damage between the two species (Beckmann and Berger 2003, pp. 595-596; Beckmann and Lackey 2004, p. 269; Lackey 2004, p. 23; Breck et al. 2008, p. 429; Big Wildlife and NoBearHuntNV.org 2011, p. 7).
        Bears, in general, are wide-ranging animals with low reproductive rates and low population densities (Jonkel 1978, pp. 227, 231). The size of the habitat needed by bears is generally related to the abundance and availability of food (Jonkel 1978, p. 238) and the age and sex of the bear (Lackey 2004, p. 13). Males will have larger home ranges than females and may overlap with other males and females (Lackey 2004, p. 13). Bears can live within home ranges that are small, provided there are many available foods (Jonkel 1978, p. 238). American black bear home ranges have been recorded to be as small as 1 square mile (mi2) (2.6 square kilometers) (km2) (Jonkel 1978, p. 238). American black bears are capable of moving considerable distances in their search for food or mates, and they are known to return to their former habitat upon relocation (Beckmann and Lackey 2004, pp. 270-271; Big Wildlife and NoBearHuntNV.org 2011, p. 7).

        Sexual maturity for American black bear males occurs at about 4-6 years of age; the age of sexual maturity for females is about 4-5 years (Lackey 2004, p. 11). American black bears mate in the spring, with the embryo(s) implanting in the fall; generally two or three cubs are born in January or February (Bowers et al. 2004, p. 142). The cubs do not emerge from the den until spring and stay with their mother until they are about 18 months old, at which time they disperse (Bowers et al. 2004, p. 142).

        American black bears in western Nevada belong to the subspecies Ursus americanus californiensis, which is found in the Sierra Nevada of California and Nevada and the Cascade Range of northern California and south central Oregon (Hall 1981, pp. 949-950). Known as the Sierra Nevada population, it is estimated to consist of 10,000-15,000 individuals (Renda 2010b, no page number). We accept the characterization of all American black bears in Nevada as subspecies U. a. californiensis based on Hall (1981, pp. 949-950) and Lackey (2004, p. 30).
        Hall (1946, pp. 171, 175) indicates that the historical distribution of American black bears in Nevada occurred near the vicinity of Lake Tahoe (Douglas and Washoe Counties, Nevada) on the border of Nevada and California. However, Lackey (2004, pp. 2-3, 15) states that the American black bear in Nevada historically occurred in several mountain ranges in the northeastern (Jarbidge and Ruby), central (Toiyabe), and western (Sierra Nevada) portions of the State.
        Currently, American black bears in Nevada are known to occur in the Carson (includes Lake Tahoe), Sweetwater, Pine Nut, and Wassuk Ranges of western Nevada (Beckmann and Berger 2003, p. 597; Lackey 2004, p. 19; Big Wildlife and NoBearHuntNV.org 2011, p. 7). Goodrich (1993 cited in Lackey 2004, p. 15) mentions these ranges and also includes the Excelsior Range in Mineral County. Confirmed recent American black bear sightings have occurred in the Delano, Independence, and Jarbidge Mountains of Elko County; the Schell Creek Range of White Pine County; and the Vya Rim of northern Washoe County (Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW), unpublished data cited in Lackey 2004, p. 15). These sightings may indicate that the American black bear in Nevada is expanding its range eastward (Lackey 2004, p. 30).
        There are currently an estimated 150-300 adult American black bears living on the Nevada side of the Lake Tahoe Basin and in the mountain ranges to the south (Sonner 2011, no page number, Big Wildlife and NoBearHuntNV.org 2011, p. 6). During the early 1990s in Nevada, wild-land American black bears (bears with almost 100 percent of their point locations outside of urban areas, in the Carson Range of the Sierra Nevada, Sweetwater Range, Pine Nut Range, and Wassuk Range) were at a density of 20-40 bears/39 mi2 (20-40 bears/100 km2) (Beckmann and Berger 2003, pp. 597-598). During the late 1990s and early 2000s, urban-interface American black bears (bears with 90 percent or more of their point locations inside urban areas defined by town and city delineation in Carson City, Incline Village, Glenbrook, Stateline, Minden, and Gardnerville, Nevada and South Lake Tahoe, California), which did not exist in the late 1980s (Goodrich 1990 cited in Beckmann and Berger 2003, p. 598), reached a density of 120 bears/39 mi2 (120 bears/100 km2) (Beckmann and Berger 2003, pp. 597-598). Wild-land American black bears were found at a density of 3.2 bears/39 mi2 (3.2 bears/100 km2) during the same period (Beckmann and Berger 2003, p. 598). The availability of food resources, such as garbage, in urban areas is suggested to have resulted in a redistribution of American black bears across the landscape in Nevada (Beckmann and Berger 2003, p. 602), likely increasing the number of American black bears in urban-interface areas while decreasing the number of American black bears in wild-land areas.

        Nevada Department of Wildlife estimates that the American black bear population in Nevada is growing at an annual rate of 16 percent (Sonner 2011, no page number). Beckmann and Berger (2003, p. 602) were uncertain if the American black bear population had increased in their western Nevada study area (Carson, Sweetwater, Pine Nut, and Wassuk Ranges). While these authors reported population numbers similar to Goodrich (1990 cited in Beckmann and Berger 2003, p. 602), they suggested that the increase in numbers may be the result of a shift of individuals from wild-land areas to urban-interface areas rather than an increase in population size. During 1997-2002, Beckmann (2002, p. 20) and Beckmann and Berger (2003, p. 602) estimated Nevada's American black bear population at about 300 in the Carson, Sweetwater, Pine Nut, and Wassuk Ranges collectively. This number is similar to an estimate of 150-290 animals in the same population based on an extrapolation of Goodrich's density estimate of 20-41 bears/39 mi2 (20-41 bears/100km2) (Goodrich 1990 cited in Beckmann 2002, p. 20; Beckmann and Berger 2003, p. 602) to the total area of available habitat. The petitioners did not provide, nor do we have in our files, the information NDOW used to determine that the American black bear population in Nevada is increasing at an annual rate of 16 percent. While the petition presents information on the total number of mortalities (104) that occurred during the period from 1997 to 2004, we do not have data that indicate the American black bear population in Nevada is declining as stated in the petition (Big Wildlife and NoBearHuntNV.org 2011, p. 9). Based on the petition and information available in our files indicating past population estimates, the current American black bear population in Nevada appears to be stable.
        Review of Petition
        The petition requests that the American black bear in Nevada be listed as a DPS under the Act. The petition states that the American black bear in Nevada is threatened by habitat loss due primarily to residential development and recreational encroachment (Big Wildlife and NoBearHuntNV.org 2011, p. 5). The petition also states that, due to increasing interactions with humans, anthropogenic killing of these bears is identified as significant and increasing (Big Wildlife and NoBearHuntNV.org 2011, p. 5). In addition, NDOW authorized, for the first time, a fall hunt in 2011; the petition asserts that hunting will further endanger this population (Big Wildlife and NoBearHuntNV.org 2011, p. 5).

        The petition asserts that the American black bear in Nevada should be listed under the Act as a DPS because Nevada's black bears are markedly separated (discrete) from other populations of American black bears due to physical and behavioral factors (Big Wildlife and NoBearHuntNV.org 2011, p. 13). The petition cites Breck et al. (2008) in support of genetic and behavioral differences related to conflict behavior between people and American black bear populations in Yosemite National Park, California, and Lake Tahoe Basin, Nevada (Big Wildlife and NoBearHuntNV.org 2011, p. 13).
        The petition also asserts that the American black bear population in Nevada is significant due to the bear's continued existence in western Nevada since the early 1990s in forested, mountain range habitat that is isolated by wide desert valleys; however, the petition notes that American black bears will occasionally use the desert valleys in Nevada for travel between mountain ranges (Big Wildlife and NoBearHuntNV.org 2011, p. 13). The petition asserts that this bear habitat in western Nevada is characteristic of the unique Great Basin ecosystem (Big Wildlife and NoBearHuntNV.org 2011, p. 13). The petition asserts that loss of the American black bear population in Nevada would result in a significant gap in the species' range because this population is genetically and behaviorally distinct from other American black bears as indicated above, and, therefore, a unique population would be lost (Big Wildlife and NoBearHuntNV.org 2011, p. 14).
        Evaluation of Listable Entity
        Under the Service's Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments Under the Endangered Species Act (61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996), three elements are considered in the decision concerning the establishment and classification of a possible DPS. These are applied similarly for additions to or removal from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. These elements include:
        (1) The discreteness of a population in relation to the remainder of the taxon to which it belongs;
        (2) The significance of the population segment to the taxon to which it belongs; and

        (3) The population segment's conservation status in relation to the Act's standards for listing, delisting (removal from the list), or reclassification (i.e., is the population segment endangered or threatened).
        In this analysis, we evaluate whether the petition provides substantial information that the American black bear in Nevada may constitute a DPS.
        Discreteness
        Under the DPS policy, a population segment of a vertebrate taxon may be considered discrete if it satisfies either one of the following conditions:
        (1) It is markedly separated from other populations of the same taxon as a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or behavioral factors. Quantitative measures of genetic or morphological discontinuity may provide evidence of this separation.
        (2) It is delimited by international governmental boundaries within which differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat, conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist that are significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act.

        The petition asserts that American black bears in Nevada should be listed under the Act as a DPS because they are markedly separate from other populations of American black bears due to physical and behavioral factors, citing Breck et al. (2008) (Big Wildlife and NoBearHuntNV.org 2011, p. 13). Review of Breck et al. (2008) does not support this assertion. Breck et al. (2008, p. 428) investigated whether food-conditioning behavior (discussed more fully in the following paragraphs) was inherited or learned through parent-offspring social learning. This study involved the collection of genetic samples (blood and hair) from two American black bear populations: Lake Tahoe Basin, Nevada, and Yosemite National Park, California. Both populations evaluated in this study comprised individuals who were not food-conditioned as well as those who were food-conditioned (Breck et al. 2008, pp. 431-432). Breck et al. (2008) used genetic data to determine relatedness of individuals through mother-offspring and sibling relationships within each population. These relationships were then used to determine how food-conditioning behavior was acquired. If behavior is inherited or if parent-offspring learning is a dominant means for obtaining behavior, then behaviors that are of significant advantage should lead to subpopulations of related individuals with similar behaviors (Breck et al. 2008, p. 428).
        Breck et al. (2008) did not analyze their genetic data to evaluate the degree of genetic divergence between the Lake Tahoe Basin, Nevada, and Yosemite National Park, California populations. In order to determine the degree of genetic similarity among populations, genetic material should be obtained from many individuals from different geographic areas to assess patterns and amounts of gene flow among populations (Allendorf and Luikart 2007, pp. 393-394). The genetic information presented in Breck et al. (2008, pp. 430-431) does not support the petition's assertion that the American black bear population in Nevada is markedly separate from other American black bear populations. We do not have additional information in our files addressing the genetics of other American black bears found in Nevada or California. Therefore, substantial information was not provided in the petition, and information available in our files does not suggest, that American black bears in Nevada may be markedly separate from other American black bears found outside of Nevada based on genetics.
        As indicated above, Breck et al. (2008, p. 428) investigated whether food-conditioning behavior was inherited or learned through parent-offspring social learning. Learning can also occur asocially (independently of others) and socially (observing unrelated individuals) (Breck et al. 2008, p. 428). The authors concluded that three of their four analyses were similar in that they revealed little evidence that food-conditioning behavior was inherited or learned from the parent-offspring relationship (Breck et al. 2008, p. 431). While their fourth analysis indicated some statistical difference for the food-conditioned category compared with the other category pairings (nonfood-conditioned compared to nonfood-conditioned; nonfood-conditioned compared to food conditioned) for American black bears at Yosemite National Park, they also concluded that it did not show strong evidence that food-conditioning behavior was inherited or learned from the parent-offspring relationship (Breck et al. 2008, p. 432). They concluded that this fourth analysis was statistically significant, but not biologically meaningful, and the result may be attributable to the large sample size of the study (Breck et al. 2008, p. 432).

        While food-conditioning behavior could be learned from the parent-offspring relationship or through inheritance, these are not the primary means of learning (Breck et al. 2008, p. 433). Breck et al. (2008, p. 433) state that, because American black bears are adaptable, it is unlikely that a behavior that can be applied under various environmental conditions and over a large geographic area would result in a genetic lineage that is distinct. Breck et al. (2008, pp. 430-431) do not support the petition's assertion that the American black bear population in Nevada may be markedly separate from other populations of American black bears outside of the State due to behavioral differences. The petition does not provide substantial information, nor do we have information in our files, to indicate that American black bears in Nevada may be markedly separate from other American black bears outside of Nevada based on behavioral factors.

        There is further lack of support for the claim that American black bear populations between Nevada and California are markedly separate because the American black bear population in Nevada is not physically separated from American black bears in California, nor is the habitat used by American black bears in Nevada unique. While Lake Tahoe (and its Basin) is divided by the State boundary between California and Nevada, it is not a complete physical barrier to American black bear movement between the two States; American black bears are found throughout the Sierra Nevada (Zielinski et al. 2005, pp. 1396, 1400) and can move between the two States in the Basin as well as to the north and south of the Basin. There is no physical barrier or terrain along the remaining State boundary north or south of Lake Tahoe (and its Basin) within the range of the subspecies that prevents cross-border movement. Beckmann (2002, pp. 39, 42-43) provides home range maps of collared Nevada and California American black bears that demonstrate individuals' use of habitat in both States on both the north and south ends of Lake Tahoe. Also, the American black bear population in Nevada is not isolated by individual mountain ranges within the State. Beckmann (2002, pp. 42-43) demonstrated overlap of American black bear home ranges in central Nevada. This wide-ranging species can travel long distances and is capable of, and has been documented, crossing desert valleys between mountain ranges in Nevada (Beckmann and Lackey 2004, p. 271).

        The petition asserts that American black bear habitat in western Nevada (forested mountain ranges isolated by valleys) is characteristic of the unique Great Basin ecosystem (Big Wildlife and NoBearHuntNV.org 2011, p. 13). American black bears are adaptable and are found in many habitat types across North America (Bowers et al. 2004, p. 142; Big Wildlife and NoBearHuntNV.org 2011, p. 7). The use of forested mountain habitats by American black bears in Nevada is not unique (Zielinski et al. 2005, p. 1385). Forested mountain ranges are not unique to Nevada, nor do they terminate discretely at the State border. The Great Basin covers a large geographic area in the western United States and includes portions of the States of Oregon, California, Nevada, Utah, and Idaho (70 FR 73190, December 9, 2005). This geographic area extends well beyond the boundaries of Nevada. The Great Basin does not lie wholly within the State of Nevada nor does it correspond to Nevada State boundaries. The petition does not provide substantial information, nor is there information available in our files, to suggest that the American black bear in Nevada may be markedly separate from other populations of American black bears outside of Nevada due to physical or geographic reasons.
        The petition does not present information to suggest there may be a markedly separate population of American black bears in Nevada due to physiological reasons. Additionally, we do not have information in our files to indicate that the American black bear in Nevada may be markedly separate from other American black bears outside of this area due to physiological reasons.
        Substantial information is not presented in the petition, nor is it available in our files, to suggest there may be a markedly separate population of American black bears in Nevada due to physical, physiological, ecological, or behavioral differences as compared to American black bears located in the Sierra Nevada of California and elsewhere. Therefore, we determine, based on the information provided in the petition and in our files that the American black bear population in Nevada may not be markedly separate from other black bear populations found outside of the State. Therefore, we conclude that the black bear population in Nevada does not meet the discreteness criterion of the 1996 DPS policy.
        There are no international governmental boundaries associated with this subspecies that are significant. The American black bear population found in Nevada lies wholly within the United States. Because this element is not relevant in this case for a finding of discreteness, it was not considered in reaching this determination.
        Significance
        If a population segment is considered discrete under one or more of the conditions described in our DPS policy, its biological and ecological significance will be considered in light of Congressional guidance that the authority to list DPSs be used “sparingly” while encouraging the conservation of genetic diversity. In making this determination, we consider available scientific evidence of the discrete population segment's importance to the taxon to which it belongs. Since precise circumstances are likely to vary considerably from case to case, the DPS policy does not describe all the classes of information that might be used in determining the biological and ecological importance of a discrete population. However, the DPS policy does provide four possible reasons why a discrete population may be significant. As specified in the DPS policy (61 FR 4722), this consideration of the population segment's significance may include, but is not limited to, the following:
        (1) Persistence of the discrete population segment in an ecological setting unusual or unique to the taxon;

        (2) Evidence that loss of the discrete population segment would result in a significant gap in the range of a taxon;

        (3) Evidence that the discrete population segment represents the only surviving natural occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant elsewhere as an introduced population outside its historical range; or
        (4) Evidence that the discrete population segment differs markedly from other populations of the species in its genetic characteristics.
        A population segment needs to satisfy only one of these criteria to be considered significant. Furthermore, the list of criteria is not exhaustive; other criteria may be used as appropriate.
        Because we must find a population to be both discrete and significant to qualify as a DPS, and we did not find the population to be discrete, we will not address the potential significance of the American black bear in Nevada to the remainder of the taxon, nor will we evaluate the population's conservation status.
        Conclusion of Distinct Population Segment Review
        Based on the information provided in the petition and in our files, we find that the petition does not provide substantial information to indicate that the American black bear population in Nevada meets the discreteness criterion of the DPS policy. Since both discreteness and significance are required to satisfy the DPS policy, we have determined that the American black bear population in Nevada does not qualify as a DPS under our policy and, therefore, is not a listable entity under the Act. As a result, no further analysis under the DPS policy is necessary.
        Finding
        We reviewed the information presented in the petition, and we evaluated that information in relation to information readily available in our files. On the basis of our review, we find that neither the petition, nor information readily available in our files, suggests that the American black bear population in Nevada meets the criteria for being discrete under our DPS policy. Available information from the petition and our files does not suggest there may be a markedly separate population of American black bears in Nevada compared with other populations due to physical, physiological, ecological, or behavioral differences. The American black bear in Nevada is not found to be markedly separate from other American black bear populations because it is not physically separate from other adjacent populations due to various kinds of barriers, it is not genetically different and does not demonstrate physiological or behavioral differences, nor does it occur in ecological settings in Nevada that are dissimilar from other areas occupied by the American black bear. Because the petition does not present substantial information that the American black bear in Nevada may be a DPS, we did not evaluate whether the information contained in the petition regarding the conservation status was substantial. We conclude that the American black bear in Nevada does not satisfy the elements of being a DPS under our 1996 policy and, therefore, is not a listable entity under section 3(16) of the Act.

        We encourage interested parties to continue to gather data that will assist with the conservation of the American black bear in Nevada. If you wish to provide information regarding the American black bear in Nevada, you may submit your information or materials to the State Supervisor, Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES), at any time.
        References Cited

        A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
        Author

        The primary authors of this notice are the staff of the Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES).
        Authority

        The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

          Dated: June 19, 2012.
          Daniel M. Ashe,
          Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

      [FR Doc. 2012-16335 Filed 7-3-12; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 660
        [Docket No. 200127-0031]
        RIN 0648-BI04
        Fisheries Off West Coast States; West Coast Salmon Fisheries; Rebuilding Chinook Salmon Stocks

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes to approve and implement rebuilding plans recommended by the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) for two overfished stocks: Klamath River fall-run Chinook salmon (KRFC) and Sacramento River fall-run Chinook salmon (SRFC). NMFS determined in June 2018 that these stocks were overfished. This document also announces the availability for public review and comment of a draft environmental assessment (EA) analyzing the environmental impacts of implementing these rebuilding plans.

          DATES:
          Public comments must be received by March 5, 2020.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2019-0080, by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2019-0080, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments
          • Mail: Peggy Mundy, NMFS West Coast Region, Sustainable Fisheries Division 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115.

            Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments considered are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

          The Council and NMFS prepared a draft environmental assessment (EA) which includes a regulatory flexibility analysis (RFA). Electronic copies of these documents may be obtained from the West Coast Regional Office website at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/west-coast/laws-and-policies/west-coast-region-national-environmental-policy-act-documents.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Peggy Mundy at 206-526-4323.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Background
        The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) established a national program for the conservation and management of the fishery resources of the United States to prevent overfishing and to rebuild overfished stocks. To that end, the MSA requires fishery management plans to specify objective and measurable criteria for identifying when the fishery to which the plan applies is overfished (MSA section 303(a)(10)). The MSA includes national standards which must be followed in any FMP. NMFS has developed guidelines, based on the national standards, to assist in the development and review of FMPs, amendments, and regulations prepared by the Councils and the Secretary (50 CFR 600.305(a)(1)). National Standard 1 (NS1) addresses the need under the MSA for FMPs to specify conservation and management measures that shall prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield (OY) from each fishery for the U.S. fishing industry (50 CFR 600.310). The NS1 guidelines include status determination criteria (SDC) and other reference points that are used to determine if overfishing has occurred, or if the stock or stock complex is overfished (50 CFR 600.310(e)(2)) and specifies Council actions required to address overfishing and rebuilding for stocks and stock complexes (50 CFR 600.310(j)).

        Ocean salmon fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) (3 to 200 nautical miles offshore) off Washington, Oregon, and California are managed under the Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Council) Pacific Coast Salmon Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The FMP identifies stocks that are in the fishery and the SDC and reference points that are used to determine when a stock is overfished and when it is rebuilt. For salmon, these metrics are based on the stock's spawning escapement (i.e., fish that escape the ocean and in-river fisheries to spawn) and the abundance of adult spawners that is expected, on average, to produce maximum sustained yield (MSY), which is expressed as SMSY.

        The SDC for overfished is defined in the FMP to be when the three-year geometric mean of a salmon stock's annual spawning escapements falls below the reference point known as the minimum stock size threshold (MSST), where MSST is generally defined as 0.5*SMSY or 0.75*SMSY—depending on the stock. The default SDC in the FMP for determining that an overfished stock is rebuilt is when the three-year geometric mean spawning escapement exceeds SMSY. Stock-specific values for the SMSY and MSST reference points are listed in Table 3-1 of the FMP, which is available on the Council's website (www.pcouncil.org). The status of salmon stocks is assessed annually. When NMFS determines that a stock is overfished, by virtue of meeting the overfished criteria in the FMP, described above, NMFS notifies the Council. The MSA requires Councils to develop and implement a rebuilding plan within two years of being notified by NMFS that a stock is overfished.
        Overfished Determination for KRFC and SRFC

        The annual stock assessments for KRFC and SRFC in 2018 used escapement data for 2015 through 2017 to determine if the stocks were overfished. The three-year geometric mean spawning escapement for KRFC for the period 2015-2017 was 19,358, which is less than the stock's MSST of 30,525 (Table 1). The three-year geometric mean spawning escapement for SRFC for the period 2015-2017 was 76,714, which is less than the stock's MSST of 91,500 (Table 1). NMFS notified the Council that these stocks were overfished on June 18, 2018, and the overfished determination was announced in the Federal Register on August 6, 2018 (83 FR 38292). To be determined to be rebuilt, these stocks must achieve a three-year geometric mean escapement of SMSY or greater. SMSY for KRFC is 40,700. SMSY for SRFC is 122,000.

          Table 1—Reference Points and 2015-2017 Geometric Mean Spawning Escapement for KRFC and SRFC

            Stock
            Spawning escapement
            2015-2017Geometric mean

            MSST(overfished threshold)

            SMSY
              (target for rebuilt)

            KRFC
            19,358
            30,525
            40,700

            SRFC
            76,714
            91,500
            122,000

        Fishery Management for KRFC and SRFC

        Ocean salmon fisheries impact both KRFC and SRFC stocks in the EEZ off Oregon and California. The Council uses the same harvest control rule for KRFC and SRFC, to manage impacts from ocean salmon fisheries on both stocks. This control rule was implemented under FMP Amendment 16 (76 FR 81851, December 29, 2011). The control rule provides a multi-step, exploitation rate-based model (exploitation rate is the proportion of a stock's abundance—fishery mortality plus escapement—that occurs as mortality across all fisheries throughout the range of the stock) that allows some harvest impact at all abundance levels, providing opportunity to access more abundant salmon stocks that are typically available in the Council management area when the status of one stock may otherwise preclude all ocean salmon fishing in a large region. This type of control rule is referred to in the FMP as providing de minimis fishing provisions; i.e., allowing fisheries that will have minimal impact on a stock that is forecast at low abundance. Under this control rule, as stock size declines, the allowable exploitation rate declines, stepwise, as both stock size and exploitation rate approach zero. Details of the control rule are found in the FMP which is available on the Council's website (www.pcouncil.org).

          KRFC. The FMP describes KRFC as a major contributor to ocean salmon fisheries from Humbug Mountain, OR, to Horse Mountain, CA, as well as to in-river tribal and recreational fisheries in the Klamath River Basin. For the period 1986-2017, harvest of KRFC was distributed as follows: Ocean fisheries—56 percent, tribal in-river fisheries—36 percent, and recreational in-river fisheries—8 percent.

          SRFC. The FMP describes SRFC as the single largest contributor to ocean salmon fisheries off California and a significant contributor to ocean salmon fisheries off southern and Central Oregon. The primary impact of ocean salmon fisheries on SRFC is south of Point Arena, CA, with a considerable overlap with KRFC between Point Arena, CA, and Horse Mountain, CA. The SRFC stock is also targeted in in-river recreational fisheries in the Sacramento River Basin. For the period 1986-2017, harvest of SRFC was distributed as follows: Ocean fisheries—92 percent, and recreational in-river fisheries—8 percent.
        Rebuilding Plans
        The Council transmitted their recommended rebuilding plans to NMFS on August 14, 2019. The plans were developed over the course of several Council meetings in 2018 and 2019 and were informed by the analyses of the Council's Salmon Technical Team (STT). The STT held public meetings and work sessions with state and Federal agencies, tribal governments, and the general public to assess available information on various factors that could impact the productivity of these stocks and lead to the overfished determination. These factors included: Freshwater survival, marine survival, harvest impacts, and assessment and fishery management errors.

        Overfishing on KRFC and SRFC, defined as the exploitation rate on a stock exceeding the maximum fishing mortality threshold (MFMT), did not occur during the years that lead to the overfished determination. The STT's report concluded that the overfished situation for these stocks was caused by: (1) Low flows and high water temperatures in the freshwater environment which resulted in low smolt survival for both stocks, disease issues in the Klamath River, and pre-spawn mortality of migrating adults in the Sacramento River; (2) warm, unproductive ocean conditions that compromised survival in the marine environment for both stocks; (3) hatchery practices in the Sacramento River that resulted in straying of migrating salmon which lead to higher than expected in-river fishing mortality for SRFC; and (4) stock assessment errors that resulted in over-forecasting of SRFC and underpredictions of both ocean and in-river fishery mortality rates. Because SRFC would not have met the criteria for overfished status in the absence of assessment and management error, aspects of the fishery assessment and management process contributed to the stock's overfished status. The STT's report is contained within the draft EA (see ADDRESSES).
        The Council considered three alternatives for the rebuilding plan for each stock: (1) Existing control rule, (2) buffered exploitation rate and escapement goal, and (3) no fishing that affects the overfished stocks (including in state waters). The Council's recommendation for both KRFC and SRFC, which NMFS proposes to approve, is continuation of the existing control rule, as it meets the MSA requirement to rebuild the stock as quickly as possible, taking into account the status and biology of any overfished stock and the needs of fishing communities (50 CFR 600.310(j)(3)(i)). This alternative would continue to use the existing control rule to manage fishery impacts to KRFC and SRFC when setting annual management measures (76 FR 81851, December 29, 2011).

        When a stock or stock complex is overfished, a Council must specify a time period for rebuilding the stock or stock complex based on factors specified in MSA section 304(e)(4). This target time for rebuilding (Ttarget) shall be as short as possible, taking into account: The status and biology of any overfished stock, the needs of fishing communities, recommendations by international organizations in which the U.S. participates, and interaction of the stock within the marine ecosystem. In addition, the time period shall not exceed 10 years, except where biology of the stock, other environmental conditions, or management measures under an international agreement to which the U.S. participates, dictate otherwise (50 CFR 600.310(j)(3)(i)). The NS1 guidelines also describe the following rebuilding benchmarks: the minimum time to rebuild (Tmin) and the maximum time to rebuild (Tmax) (50 CFR 600.310(j)(3)(i)). These benchmarks serve to establish the range of target times to rebuild that the Council may consider. Under the NS1 guidelines, Tmin is calculated by assuming no fishery mortality, regardless of the source of the mortality. It is not possible, however, for the Council and NMFS to implement a Tmin scenario, because the MSA only provides regulatory authority over fisheries in the EEZ. Therefore, the Council and NMFS have no authority to suspend fisheries in state waters; however, the Council analyzed a no fishing alternative to identify TMIN and to serve as a bookend in the analysis of rebuilding probabilities.
        Council-area salmon fisheries are set annually each April. The Council's Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation Document for the Pacific Coast Salmon Fishery Management Plan (SAFE document) is released annually in February and provides escapement data for the previous year. Analyses to determine rebuilding times in the Council's recommended rebuilding plans used available escapement data in the SAFE document issued February 2019, which included escapement data for KRFC and SRFC through 2018. When the Council developed annual management measures for 2019, the same control rule was used to limit impacts to KRFC and SRFC as recommended in the Council's rebuilding plans; therefore, the plans set rebuilding year one as 2019.
        KRFC

          T
          min. The Council's analysis determined that, with no fishing mortality, there was a 60 percent probability that KRFC would rebuild in one year. Therefore, Tmin = one year or 2019.

          T
          max. NS1 guidelines state that if Tmin for the stock or stock complex is 10 years or less, then Tmax is 10 years (50 CFR 600.310(j)(3)(i)(B)(1)). Since Tmin for KRFC is one year or 2019, Tmax = 10 years or 2028.

          T
          target. The Council has recommended the existing control rule to rebuild KRFC. The control rule sets the annual allowable exploitation rate based on the forecast of potential spawners (i.e., the adult escapement expected in the absence of fisheries) to achieve a minimum spawning escapement of 40,700 (SMSY for this stock). This control rule has been in place since the 2012 fishing year. In the seven years for which we have escapement data for KRFC under this control rule (2012 through 2018), four of those years had escapement above SMSY. As described in the EA, the years in which KRFC failed to meet escapement goals are the years that led to the overfished determination, when cohorts were adversely affected by freshwater and marine environmental conditions (Table 2).

          Table 2—KRFC Spawning Escapement Achieved Under the Existing Control Rule in the Years 2012 Through 2018

            Year
            KRFCspawning
              escapement
              (SMSY = 40,700
              spawners)

            2012
            121,543

            2013
            59,156

            2014
            95,104

            2015
            28,112

            2016
            13,937

            2017
            19,904

            2018
            53,624

          Source: Review of 2018 Ocean Salmon Fisheries, Council SAFE Document, February 2019.

        The Council's analysis, contained in the draft EA (see ADDRESSES), used 2019 as year one in calculating Ttarget. Under the existing control rule, there is a 61 percent probability that KRFC will meet the rebuilt criteria by year two (Ttarget = 2020). This means that the three-year geometric mean of KRFC escapement for 2018-2020 is expected to meet or exceed SMSY. The spawning escapement from 2020 will be included in the 2021 stock assessment.

          MSA consistency. As mentioned above, the MSA requires overfished stocks to be rebuilt in as short a time as possible, while taking into account the needs of fishing communities. The Council considered an alternative that would buffer the existing control rule for KRFC by decreasing the maximum exploitation rate by 20 percent and increasing SMSY escapement by 20 percent. The Council's analysis of this alternative demonstrated this would result in a reduction of up to 25 percent in ocean harvest-related economic activity each year during the rebuilding period over the existing control rule. However, this reduction in harvest would not rebuild KRFC sooner than the existing control rule; the Council's analysis indicates that Ttarget would be achieved in 2020 under either scenario. Under the no fishing alternative, which the Council could not implement in actuality, there would be a complete loss of ocean harvest-related economic activity in California and in Oregon, south of Cape Falcon, OR, during the rebuilding period, and rebuilding would only be achieved one year sooner than under the existing control rule. Therefore, due the negative economic impacts of the no fishing and buffered control rule alternatives and negligible difference in rebuilding time, the existing control rule meets the MSA requirement to have a rebuilding period that is as short as possible while considering the needs of fishing communities.
        SRFC

          T
          min. The Council's analysis determined that, with no fishing mortality, there was a 90 percent probability that SRFC would rebuild in two years. Therefore, Tmin = two years or 2020.

          T
          max. NS1 guidelines state that if Tmin for the stock or stock complex is 10 years or less, then Tmax is 10 years (50 CFR 600.310(j)(3)(i)(B)(1)). Since Tmin for SRFC is two years or 2020, Tmax = 10 years or 2028.

          T
          target. The Council has recommended the existing control rule to rebuild SRFC. The control rule sets the annual allowable exploitation rate based on the forecast of potential spawners (i.e., the adult escapement expected in the absence of fisheries) to achieve a minimum spawning escapement of 122,000 (SMSY for this stock). This control rule has been in place since the 2012 fishing year. In the seven years for which we have escapement data for SRFC under this control rule (2012 through 2018), three of those years had escapement above SMSY. As described in the EA, the years in which SRFC failed to meet the escapement goal are the years that led to the overfished determination, when cohorts were adversely affected by freshwater and marine environmental conditions, escapement greatly improved in 2018 compared with the previous two years, but still fell below SMSY (Table 3).

          Table 3—SRFC Spawning Escapement Achieved Under the Existing Control Rule in the Years 2012 Through 2018

            Year
            SRFCspawning
              escapement
              (SMSY = 122,000
              spawners)

            2012
            285,429

            2013
            406,846

            2014
            212,468

            2015
            114,085

            2016
            89,699

            2017
            42,714

            2018
            105,739

          Source: Council SAFE Documents, February 2018 and 2019

        The Council's analysis, contained in the draft EA (see ADDRESSES), used 2019 as year one in calculating Ttarget. Under the existing control rule, there is a 58 percent probability that SRFC will meet the rebuilt criteria by year three (Ttarget = 2021). This means that the three-year geometric mean of KRFC escapement for 2019-2021 is expected to meet or exceed SMSY. The spawning escapement from 2021 will be included in the 2022 stock assessment.

          MSA consistency. As mentioned above, the MSA requires overfished stocks to be rebuilt in as short a time as possible, while taking into account the needs of fishing communities. The Council considered an alternative that would buffer the existing control rule for SRFC by decreasing the maximum exploitation rate by 30 percent and increasing SMSY escapement by 30 percent. The Council's analysis of this alternative demonstrated this would result in a reduction of up to 32 percent in ocean harvest-related economic activity each year during the rebuilding period over the existing control rule. This reduction in harvest would rebuild SRFC only one year sooner than the existing control rule; the Council calculated Ttarget would be achieved in 2020 under the buffered control rule, compared to achieving Ttarget in 2021 under the existing control rule. Under the no fishing alternative, which the Council could not implement in actuality, there would be a complete loss of ocean harvest-related economic activity south of Cape Falcon, OR, during the rebuilding period, and rebuilding would only be achieved one year sooner than under the existing control rule. Therefore, due to the negative economic impacts of the no fishing and buffered control rule alternatives and negligible difference in rebuilding time, the existing control rule meets the MSA requirement to have a rebuilding period that is as short as possible while considering the needs of fishing communities.
        National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

        The draft EA for this action is an integrated document that includes the Council's analysis of the overfished stocks, analysis of environmental and socioeconomic effects under NEPA, the regulatory impact review, and regulatory flexibility analysis. The draft EA for this action is posted on the NMFS West Coast Region website (see ADDRESSES).
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the MSA, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Pacific Salmon Fishery Management Plan, other provisions of the MSA, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        This proposed rule is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
        The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
        Using the catch area description in the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission Information Network (PacFIN), the most recent year of complete fishing data, 2018, had 653 distinct commercial vessels land fish caught south of Cape Falcon. These vessels had a combined ex-vessel revenue of $10 million; therefore, no vessel met NMFS' threshold for being a large entity, which is $11 million in annual gross receipts. The proposed rule would not change harvest policy; thus, by definition, there would be no direct or indirect economic impact from the rebuilding plan.
        Because all directly regulated entities are small, these regulations are not expected to place small entities at a significant disadvantage to large entities. The Council recommended, and NMFS proposes approving, the status quo alternative rebuilding plans for KRFC and SRFC; therefore, this proposed rule is largely administrative, to establish the rebuilding plan parameters required under NS1. Because NMFS is proposing to approve the status quo alternative, these regulations do not change salmon harvest policy and economic activity is not expected to change from the baseline as a result of these regulations; thereore, this action is also not expected to significantly reduce profit for the substantial number of directly regulated entities.
        As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.
        This proposed rule was developed after meaningful collaboration with the tribal representative on the Council who has agreed with the provisions that apply to tribal vessels.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660
          Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

           Dated: January 28, 2020.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 660 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 660—FISHERIES OFF WEST COAST STATES

         1. The authority citation for part 660 continues to read as follows:

           Authority:
           16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. and 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq.

         2. Add § 660.413 to read as follows:

          § 660.413
           Overfished species rebuilding plans.
          For each overfished salmon stock with an approved rebuilding plan, annual management measures will be established using the standards in this section, specifically the target date for rebuilding the stock to its maximum sustainable yield (MSY) level and the harvest control rule to be used to rebuild the stock.
          (a) Klamath River Fall-run Chinook Salmon (KRFC). KRFC was declared overfished in 2018. The target year for rebuilding the KRFC stock is 2020. The harvest control rule during the rebuilding period for the KRFC stock is the de minimis control rule specified in the FMP and at § 660.410(c), which allows for limited fishing impacts when abundance falls below SMSY. The control rule describes maximum allowable exploitation rates at any given level of abundance. The control rule is presented in Figure 1 of subpart H of this part.

          (1) The Klamath River fall-run Chinook salmon control rule uses reference points FABC, MSST, SMSY, and two levels of de minimis exploitation rates, F = 0.10 and F = 0.25. The maximum allowable exploitation rate, F, in a given year, depends on the pre-fishery ocean abundance in spawner equivalent units, N. At high abundance the control rule caps the exploitation rate at FABC, at moderate abundance the control rule specifies an F that results in SMSY spawners, and at low abundance (i.e., when expected escapement is below SMSY) the control rule allows for de minimis exploitation rates with the abundance breakpoints defined as: A = MSST/2; B = (MSST + SMSY)/2; C = SMSY/(1−0.25); D = SMSY/(1−FABC); as shown in Figure 1 of subpart H of this part. For N between 0 and A, F increases linearly from 0 at N = 0, to 0.10 at N = A. For N between A and MSST, F is equal to 0.10. For N between MSST and B, F increases linearly from 0.10 at N = MSST, to 0.25 at N = B. For N between B and C, F is equal to 0.25. For N between C and D, F is the value that results in SMSY spawners. For N greater than D, F is equal to FABC.

          (2) [Reserved]
          (b) Sacramento River Fall-run Chinook Salmon (SRFC). SRFC was declared overfished in 2018. The target year for rebuilding the SRFC stock is 2021. The harvest control rule during the rebuilding period for the SRFC stock is the de minimis control rule specified in the FMP and at 660.410(c), which allows for limited fishing impacts when abundance falls below SMSY. The control rule describes maximum allowable exploitation rates at any given level of abundance.

          (1) The Sacramento River fall-run Chinook salmon control rule uses the reference points FABC, MSST, SMSY, and two levels of de minimis exploitation rates, F = 0.10 and F = 0.25. The maximum allowable exploitation rate, F, in a given year, depends on the pre-fishery ocean abundance in spawner equivalent units, N. At high abundance the control rule caps the exploitation rate at FABC, at moderate abundance the control rule specifies an F that results in SMSY spawners, and at low abundance (i.e., when expected escapement is below SMSY) the control rule allows for de minimis exploitation rates with the abundance breakpoints defined as: A = MSST/2; B = (MSST + SMSY)/2; C = SMSY/(1−0.25); D = SMSY/(1−FABC); as shown in Figure 1 of subpart H of this part. For N between 0 and A, F increases linearly from 0 at N = 0, to 0.10 at N = A. For N between A and MSST, F is equal to 0.10. For N between MSST and B, F increases linearly from 0.10 at N = MSST, to 0.25 at N = B. For N between B and C, F is equal to 0.25. For N between C and D, F is the value that results in SMSY spawners. For N greater than D, F is equal to FABC.

          (2) [Reserved]

            EP04FE20.009

      [FR Doc. 2020-01908 Filed 2-3-20; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 3510-22-P