        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        [FWS-R3-ES-2008-0030; 1111 FY07 MO-B2]
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the U.S. Population of Coaster Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) as Endangered

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Notice of 90-day petition finding and initiation of status review.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 90-day finding under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), concerning the petition to list as endangered a population of brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) known as coaster brook trout throughout its known historic range in the conterminous United States. We find that the petition contains substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the U.S. population of coaster brook trout may be warranted. Therefore, with the publication of this notice, we are initiating a status review of the coaster brook trout. At the conclusion of the status review, we will issue a 12-month finding on the petition. To ensure that the status review of the coaster brook trout is comprehensive, we are soliciting scientific and commercial information regarding the coaster brook trout throughout its range. We will make a determination on critical habitat for this species if we initiate a listing action.

          DATES:

          We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before May 19, 2008. We must receive requests for public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in the ADDRESSES section by May 5, 2008.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R3-ES-2008-0030, 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 post any personal information you provide us (see the Public Comments section below for more information).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Ms. Jessica Hogrefe, East Lansing Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2651 Coolidge Road—Suite 101, East Lansing, MI 48823-6316; telephone 517-351-8470; facsimile 517-351-1443. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at (800) 877-8339.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Public Comments

        When we make a finding that a petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted, we are required to promptly commence a review of the status of the species. To ensure that the status review is complete and based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we are soliciting information on coaster brook trout throughout its range. We request any additional information, comments, and suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested parties concerning the status of coaster brook trout. We are seeking information regarding:
        (1) The species' historical and current population status, distribution, and trends; its biology and ecology; and habitat selection;
        (2) The effects of potential threat factors that are the basis for a listing determination under section 4(a) of the Act, which are:
        (a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the species' habitat or range;
        (b) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
        (c) Disease or predation;
        (d) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
        (e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
        (3) Management programs for the conservation of the coaster brook trout.
        We will base our 12-month finding on a review of the best scientific and commercial information available, including all information received during the public comment period.

        You may submit your comments and materials concerning this finding by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. Comments must be submitted to http://www.regulations.gov before midnight Eastern Time on the date specified in the DATES section. We will not accept comments sent by e-mail or fax or to an address not listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will not accept anonymous comments; your comment must include your first and last name, city, state, country, and postal (zip) code. Finally, we will not consider hand-delivered comments that we do not receive, or mailed comments that are not postmarked, by the date specified in the DATES section.

        We will post your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—on http://www.regulations.gov. If you provide personal identifying information in addition to the required items specified in the previous paragraph, such as your street address, phone number, or e-mail address, 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.

        Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this finding, will be available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, East Lansing Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
        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 to indicate that the petitioned action may be warranted. We are to base this finding on information provided in the petition and supporting information submitted with the petition. 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 this finding in the Federal Register.
        Our standard for substantial scientific or commercial information for a 90-day petition finding, as defined by the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 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 the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information, we are required to promptly commence a review of the species status.
        The Sierra Club Mackinac Chapter, Huron Mountain Club, and Marvin J. Roberson filed a petition dated February 22, 2006, with the Secretary of the Interior to list as endangered the naturally spawning lake-dwelling coaster brook trout throughout its known historic range in the conterminous United States and to designate critical habitat under the Act. The petition clearly identifies itself as such and includes the requisite identification information for the petitioners, as required in 50 CFR 424.14(a). On behalf of the petitioners, Peter Kryn Dykema, Secretary of the Huron Mountain Club, submitted supplemental information dated May 23, 2006, in support of the original petition. This supplemental information provides further information on the species status and biology, particularly for the Salmon Trout River.
        In a letter to the petitioners dated April 27, 2006, we explained that we would not be able to address their petition at that time, due to the need to address higher priority listing actions. In 2007, the Service directed funds to address the coaster brook trout 90-day finding. On September 13, 2007, we received a 60-day notice of intent to sue over the Service's failure to make a determination within 1 year of receiving the petition, as to whether the coaster brook trout warrants listing. As described above, under section 4 of the Act, the Service is to make a finding, to the maximum extent practicable within 90 days of receiving a petition, regarding whether it presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. Further, the Act requires that within 12 months after receiving a petition found to present substantial information, the Service must make a finding as to whether the petitioned action is warranted. A complaint was filed in U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia on December 17, 2007, for failure to make a timely finding.
        In making this finding, we considered information provided by the petitioners, as well as information readily available in our files at the time of the petition review. We evaluated that information in accordance with 50 CFR 424.14(b). Our process for making this 90-day finding under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act and the associated regulations is based on using the “substantial scientific and commercial information” threshold described above. This finding does not consider critical habitat, because any decision concerning the need for, or identification of, areas to consider for critical habitat would occur only if we decide to prepare a proposed rule to list the species. This notice constitutes our 90-day finding for the petition to list the U.S. population of coaster brook trout.
        Species Information
        Brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) are a member of the char genus in the family Salmonidae; they live in well-oxygenated streams, rivers, and lakes of northeastern North America (Scott and Crossman 1973, pp. 30, 213). Some brook trout populations are adfluvial or anadromous, migrating from lakes and oceans (respectively) into tributary streams for feeding and spawning (Lake Superior Brook Trout Subcommittee 1997, pp. 4-5; Ryther 1997, pp. 1-34). Coaster brook trout are a life history form of brook trout that spend a portion of their life cycle in the Great Lakes (Becker 1983, p. 320). These brook trout are known as “coasters” because they spend part of their life cycle along the coast of a lake. Some coaster brook trout subpopulations or runs are adfluvial and migrate from Lake Superior to tributary streams to spawn; other coaster brook trout subpopulations are lacustrine and remain in Lake Superior throughout their life cycle (Quinlan 1999, p. 15). Coaster brook trout mature later, live longer, and grow larger than stream resident brook trout (Becker 1983, p. 318; Lake Superior Brook Trout Subcommittee 1997, p. 10).

        Historically, coaster brook trout occurred in Lakes Huron, Michigan, and Superior (Bailey and Smith 1981, p. 1549) and in more than 50 streams along the Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota shores of Lake Superior (Newman et al. 2003, pp. 34-38). They have been extirpated in Lakes Huron and Michigan (Quinlan 2008). Self-sustaining subpopulations or spawning runs remain in four streams in the U.S. portion of Lake Superior (Quinlan 2008). Population levels in these streams are considered low (Quinlan 2008). No harvest is allowed in the four streams with coaster brook trout subpopulations in the United States, (Dykema 2006, p. 2; National Park Service 2007, p. 10). Coaster brook trout may be harvested within the waters of Lake Superior itself through angling, subject to a 20-inch (51-centimeter) minimum size limit (Baker 2007). Few coaster brook trout from the Salmon Trout River subpopulation exceed this size limit (Huckins and Baker 2004, p. 21). Additionally, no harvest is allowed in Lake Superior waters that are within 4.5 miles (7.2 kilometers) of Isle Royale National Park (National Park Service 2007, p. 10).

        In Canada, coaster brook trout populations historically occurred in approximately 60 streams (Newman et al. 2003, pp. 31-33). Data suggest that spawning runs remain in a few Canadian streams in Lake Superior, and numbers in these streams are described in general terms as being very low overall (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources undated, p. 1). Coaster brook trout populations are also present in Lake Nipigon (Ontario). Recent estimates suggest that the Lake Nipigon spawning population has declined 75 percent compared to the population level in the 1930s (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources undated, p. 1). However, neither the petition nor information readily available to the Service provides information regarding the population size in the 1930s, making it difficult to determine the accuracy of the estimated decline. Coaster brook trout in Canada may be harvested by anglers in both Lake Superior and its tributaries, subject to size, bag, and seasonal limits (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 2008, pp. 48-49). Coaster brook trout are not being considered for protection under Canada's Species at Risk Act (Chase 2008).
        Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment
        The petitioners asked us to list the naturally spawning anadromous (lake-run) coaster brook trout throughout its known historical range in the conterminous U.S.; they asserted that the Salmon Trout River coaster population is reproductively isolated from the in-stream resident brook trout population and should be considered a Distinct Population Segment (DPS). Section 3 of the Act defines the term “species” to include “any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.” 16 U.S.C. 1532(16). In determining whether an entity constitutes a DPS and is, therefore, listable under the Act, we follow the Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments Under the Endangered Species Act (DPS Policy) (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996). The policy identifies three elements we are to consider in making a decision regarding the status of a possible DPS for listing under the Act: (1) The discreteness of the population segment in relation to the remainder of the species to which it belongs; (2) The significance of the population segment to the species to which it belongs; and (3) The population segment's conservation status in relation to the Act's standards for listing (that is, whether the population segment, when treated as if it were a species, is endangered or threatened) (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996). This finding considers whether the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information that the petitioned coaster brook trout may be a DPS, and if so, whether the information indicates that listing may be warranted.
        Discreteness
        Under the DPS Policy, a population segment of a vertebrate species may be considered discrete if it satisfies either one of the following two conditions: (1) It is markedly separated from other populations of the same taxon as a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or behavioral factors; or (2) It is delimited by international governmental boundaries within which significant differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat, conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996).

        The petition asserts that coaster brook trout are “distinguished from stream resident brook trout by behavior” and information submitted in association with the petition notes that coaster brook trout “are distinguished from stream resident brook trout by behavior, i.e. anadromy—and by physiology (they grow much larger, and may be longer-lived).” Information in our files supports this assertion because, unlike resident brook trout that remain in streams, coaster brook trout are adfluvial or lacustrine, spending part or all of their life cycle in the Great Lakes (Becker 1983, p. 320; Newman et al. 2003, p. 39). Therefore, we find that the petition presents substantial information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the U.S. population of coaster brook trout may be discrete from stream resident brook trout because of differences in behavior and physiology.
        The petition also asserts that coaster brook trout (of the Salmon Trout River) are “separated from coaster populations in the Nipigon River area [in Canada] by an international boundary.” Further, the petition states that coaster brook trout programs currently are administered and implemented by a wide variety of Federal, State, private, and international institutions, and that the result has been duplicated effort, inadequate communication, and sometimes contradictory policies and practices. Finally, the petition states that the entire reach of the Salmon Trout River in Marquette County (MI) is owned by the Huron Mountain Club (HMC, one of the petitioners) and that, since 1995, HMC has prohibited its members from killing coaster brook trout there.
        Information in our files or otherwise readily available to us supports the statement that the coaster brook trout described in the petition (in the Salmon Trout River and on Isle Royale) are separated from coaster brook trout subpopulations in the Nipigon River area and elsewhere in Canada by an international boundary, and in addition, this information indicates that the boundary delimits differences in control of exploitation and regulatory mechanisms (Lake Superior Brook Trout Subcommittee 1997, p. 4; Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 2008 p. 48-49). More specifically, differences in control of exploitation and regulatory mechanisms between the United States and Canada relate to allowable harvest of coaster brook trout and the fishing regulations that dictate this harvest.

        In the United States, coaster brook trout: (1) May not be harvested in the four remaining streams with coaster brook trout subpopulations (Dykema 2006, p. 2; National Park Service 2007, p. 10); (2) may be harvested in the U.S. waters of Lake Superior within the lake itself, subject to a 20-inch (51-centimeter) minimum size limit (Baker 2007); and (3) may not be harvested in Lake Superior waters within 4.5 miles (7.2 kilometers) of Isle Royale National Park, which would protect the subpopulations of Isle Royale National Park (National Park Service 2007, p. 10). The lack of coasters in the Salmon Trout River subpopulation that exceed the 20-inch (51-centimeter) size limit (Huckins and Baker 2004, p. 21) indicates that few coasters meet the minimum size limit in the U.S. waters of Lake Superior where harvest is allowed.
        In comparison, coaster brook trout in Canada may be harvested within Lake Superior itself and its tributaries, subject to size, bag, and seasonal limits (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 2008, p. 48-49), but we have no information indicating that there are any locations in Canadian waters occupied by coaster brook trout where their harvest is not allowed. Therefore, we find there is substantial scientific and commercial information indicating that the petitioned U.S. coaster brook trout may be discrete from coaster brook trout in Canada because of an international boundary that delimits differences in control of exploitation and regulatory mechanisms.
        Significance
        Under our DPS Policy, in addition to our consideration that a population segment is discrete, we consider its biological and ecological significance to the species to which it belongs. The DPS policy states that if a population segment is considered discrete under one or more of the discreteness criteria, its biological and ecological significance will then be considered in light of Congressional guidance that the authority to list DPSs be used “sparingly” while encouraging the conservation of genetic diversity. Under the DPS policy, our consideration of significance may include, but is not limited to: (1) Evidence of the persistence of the discrete population segment in an ecological setting that is unique or unusual for the taxon; (2) Evidence that loss of the population segment would result in a significant gap in the range of the taxon; (3) Evidence that the 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 (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996).
        Information Provided in the Petition on Significance
        The petition asserts that the coaster brook trout of the Salmon Trout River are significant to the brook trout taxon because their loss “would result in a significant gap in the range of the taxon.” Information in our files indicates that lake-dwelling coaster brook trout historically occurred in Lakes Superior, Huron, and Michigan (Bailey and Smith 1981, p. 1549), but are now extirpated from Lakes Huron and Michigan (Quinlan 2008). The coaster brook trout described in the petition (in the Salmon Trout River and on Isle Royale) are the last remaining lake-dwelling brook trout in Lake Superior (Newman et. al. 2003, p. 39); thus if the coaster subpopulations in the Salmon Trout River and on Isle Royale disappear, lake-dwelling brook trout would be extirpated throughout the U.S. waters of the Great Lakes. Therefore, we find that the petition presents substantial information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the U.S. coaster brook trout may be significant to the species to which it belongs, based on evidence that loss of the U.S. population of coaster brook trout may result in a significant gap in the range of the taxon.
        DPS Conclusion
        We have reviewed the information presented in the petition and have evaluated it in accordance with 50 CFR 424.14(b). In a 90-day finding, the question is whether a petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. We do not make final determinations regarding DPSs at this stage; rather, we determine whether a petition presents substantial information that a population may be a DPS. Based on our evaluation described above, we conclude that the petition and information readily available to us do present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the U.S. population of coaster brook trout may be discrete and significant within the meaning of our DPS policy, and therefore may constitute a DPS.
        To meet the third element of the DPS policy, we evaluate the level of a population segment's conservation status in relation to the Act's standards for listing. This involves an analysis, referred to as a threats analysis, pursuant to the five listing factors specified in section 4 of the Act. We thus proceeded with an evaluation of whether the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the U.S. population of coaster brook trout may be warranted. Our threats analysis and conclusion follow.
        Five-Factor Analysis
        Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. We may list a taxon on the basis of any one of the following factors: (A) Present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range; (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) Disease or predation; (D) Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) Other manmade or natural factors affecting its continued existence. Consistent with our regulations for making 90-day findings (50 CFR 424.14(b)), we evaluated whether the threats to the U.S. population of coaster brook trout presented in the petition would lead a reasonable person to believe that the petitioned action may be warranted. The following evaluation of these threats was based on information provided or cited in the petition and found to be substantial, and information from our files used to evaluate the information in the petition.
        Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of the Species' Habitat or Range
        The petition asserts that the following conditions under Factor A threaten the coaster brook trout: Dams and river diversions; toxic pollution related to organophosphorus compounds (that is, as used in pesticides), deoxygenation via decomposition of organic material and other effluents from paper mills and other sources, and mercury (from fungicides and wood pulp treatment); stream acidification via acid rain, acid spills, and the proposed Kennecott's sulfide mine; changes in water temperature and flow due to deforestation and reservoir release, and dams and diversions; and siltation.

        The information presented in the petition regarding dams and diversions, toxic pollution, deoxygenation via decomposition of organic material, acid level changes in streams, and changes in water temperature and flow is general. The petition does not explain how the concerns expressed would result in the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the habitat or range of the U.S. coaster brook trout. Also, the petition acknowledges that, with regard to toxic pollution, deoxygenation, and changes in water temperature and flow, little research has been done on their possible impacts to coaster brook trout in the Upper Great Lakes.
        The petitioners assert that siltation due to increases in road building may threaten coaster brook trout in the Salmon Trout River. In particular, the petitioners cite a road wash-out in 2005 that deposited 80 tons of sediment into the river. The petitioners assert that siltation can affect the reproductive success of coaster brook trout by filling in holding areas of migrating adults; filling hollows that afford protection for juveniles; filling interstitial spaces in the substrate that are required for proper water flow and egg oxygenation; and decreasing the amount of rooted plants and algae, which in turn may reduce the biomass of benthic invertebrates (food for young coaster brook trout). Additionally, the petitioners assert that siltation can interfere with fish respiration and impact water flow and clarity, which may subsequently impede migration and feeding. Two references are given to support the above statements regarding the effects of siltation on fish (Mills 1989, Shearer 1992); these citations were not listed in the References section of the petition. Additionally, we did not have these two references in our files, and we could not find them using a literature search. However, readily available sources in our files corroborated the effects of siltation on fish reproduction, respiration, and feeding (Waters 1995, pp. 79-118). Similarly, although no reference was provided for the 2005 siltation event, we concur that the event took place and that future road washouts in the Salmon Trout River could result in impacts to the coaster brook trout downstream (Baker 2007). Therefore, based principally on information related to siltation, we find that the petition presents substantial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted due to the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the habitat or range of the U.S. coaster brook trout.
        Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes
        With regard to Factor B, the petition asserts that sport fishing and commercial fishing threaten the coaster brook trout. However, the information presented is limited to noting that a commercial fishery existed on many rivers used by coaster brook trout in the 19th century, and that the extremely low number of extant coaster brook trout means almost none will be caught by commercial vessels. The petition also states that both the Huron Mountain Club and Isle Royale National Park have restrictions on keeping coaster brook trout that may be caught during sport fishing. The petition does not present any information indicating there is overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes, and we have no information in our files indicating that there is any such overutilization. Consequently, we find that the petition does not present substantial information for Factor B.
        Factor C. Disease or Predation
        The petition does not provide information pertaining to Factor C. Therefore, we find that the petition does not present substantial information in relation to this factor.
        Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

        With regard to Factor D, the petition asserts the following: there is no single government entity with overall program authority for managing coaster brook trout; there is inadequate authority to prevent conflicting government policies and programs, land-use practices, and toxic pollution; there is over-reliance on hatchery production and stocking; program funding is inadequate; and there is a lack of public education and involvement in coaster brook trout restoration. The petition also asserts that existing programs are inadequate to provide for the long-term viability of Salvelinus fontinalis in the U.S. and the restoration and protection of its habitat. Other than the two sentences making these very general assertions, the petition presents no information or explanation as to why the petitioned coaster brook trout is threatened as a result of the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. Therefore, we find that the petition does not present substantial information in relation to Factor D.
        Factor E. Other Manmade or Natural Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
        The petition asserts that the following factor under Factor E threatens the coaster brook trout: Competition with rainbow trout, coho salmon, and brown trout. However, the petition concludes that it is doubtful “that competition played a large role in reducing coaster brook trout and there is no direct evidence to suggest that this has happened along large areas of the Lake Superior shoreline” (p. 20). Consequently, the petition does not provide substantial information with respect to competition.

        The petition also asserts that small population size may threaten the continued survival of the coaster brook trout population in the Salmon Trout River. Recent surveys have estimated that the average annual spawning population in the Salmon Trout River is fewer than 200 individuals; this average may be an underestimate given limitations of the gear and methods (Huckins, 2006). The petition compares this average annual spawning population to the number of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) that spawned in the Jarbidge River annually when it was emergency-listed (50-125 individuals) (63 FR 42757; August 11, 1998). The petition also compares the average to the definitions of a strong subpopulation (greater than 500 spawners) and depressed population (fewer than 500 spawners) given in the Determination of Threatened Status for the Klamath River and Columbia River Distinct Population Segments of Bull Trout (63 FR 31647; June 10, 1998).”

        Information in our files supports the conclusion of a depressed subpopulation in the Salmon Trout River (Lake Superior Brook Trout Subcommittee 1997, p. 4). Surveys also indicate that coaster brook trout numbers are low in the three locations where self-sustaining populations occur on Isle Royale (National Park Service 2007, p. 10; Quinlan 2008). The annual spawning population at Tobin Harbor may be less than 150 (National Park Service 2007; p. 10). The sizes of the annual spawning populations at Siskiwit River and Washington Creek are unknown but believed to be low (Quinlan 2008). Although coaster brook trout have been stocked into several streams along the U.S. shoreline of Lake Superior including Whittlesey Creek (WI) and Grand Portage Creek (MN), none of these stocking programs has resulted in self-sustaining populations (Newman et al. 2003, p. 39; Quinlan 2008). Therefore, based on population size, we find that the petition presents substantial information relative to Factor E.
        Finding

        We have reviewed the petition, supporting information provided by the petitioners, and information that was readily available in our files or elsewhere (such as the Internet). As described above, the petition presents evidence of siltation in the Salmon Trout River that indicates the present or threatened destruction or modification or curtailment of the habitat or range of coaster brook trout, with impact to fish reproduction, respiration, and feeding (Waters 1995, pp. 79-118). The petition also presents information regarding population size, which indicates the small number estimated to remain poses a risk to the continued survival of the petitioned population of coaster brook trout. We find that the petition presents substantial information to indicate that the petitioned action may be warranted, based on threats posed by siltation and small population size. Therefore, we are initiating a status review of coaster brook trout to determine whether listing the species under the Act is warranted. To ensure that the status review is comprehensive, we are soliciting scientific and commercial information regarding this species.
        References

        A complete list of all references cited herein is available on request from the East Lansing Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
        Author
        The primary author of this document is the staff of Region 3 Endangered Species Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1 Federal Drive, Fort Snelling, MN 55111.

          Authority:

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

          Dated March 12, 2008.
          H. Dale Hall,
          Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

       [FR Doc. E8-5618 Filed 3-19-08; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
        49 CFR Parts 350
        [Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0470]
        RIN 2126-AB84
        State Inspection Programs for Passenger-Carrier Vehicles; Withdrawal

          AGENCY:
          Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

          ACTION:
          Advance notice of proposed rulemaking; withdrawal.

          SUMMARY:
          FMCSA withdraws its April 27, 2016, advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) concerning the establishment of requirements for States to implement annual inspection programs for commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) designed or used to transport passengers (passenger-carrying CMVs). FMCSA sought information from all interested parties that would enable the Agency to assess the risks associated with improperly maintained or inspected passenger-carrying CMVs. The ANPRM also sought public comments concerning the effectiveness of the current FMCSA annual inspection standards, and data on the potential costs and benefits of a Federal requirement for each State to implement a mandatory inspection program. FMCSA inquired about how the Agency might incentivize States to adopt such programs. After reviewing all the public comments, and in consideration of the comments provided by individuals attending the three public listening sessions held in 2015, FMCSA has determined there is not enough data and information available to support moving forward with a rulemaking action.

          DATES:
          The ANPRM “State Inspection Programs for Passenger-Carrier Vehicles,” published on April 27, 2016 (81 FR 24769), is withdrawn as of May 1, 2017.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Ms. Loretta Bitner, Chief, Commercial Passenger Carrier Safety Division at 202-385-2428, or via email at Loretta.Bitner@dot.gov, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Docket Services, telephone (202) 366-9826.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background/Topics Addressed During the Comment Period

        In accordance with § 32710 of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) (Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405, 815), FMCSA published an ANPRM in the Federal Register on April 27, 2016 (81 FR 24769). The Agency sought information from industry and other stakeholders on the maintenance and inspection of passenger-carrying CMVs that would help FMCSA decide whether to propose a rule that mandates States to impose an annual inspection process.
        FMCSA requested information from commercial passenger carriers and other stakeholders in order to consider proposing a rule that would require the States to establish annual inspection programs for passenger-carrying CMVs. The requested information was necessary to assist FMCSA in quantifying the economic benefits and costs of potentially moving forward with establishing an inspection program and in assessing risks associated with improperly maintained or inspected passenger-carrying CMVs. The ANPRM also was intended to provide information on the effectiveness of existing Federal inspection requirements in mitigating risks and ensuring safe and proper operations.1
           In the effort to gather relevant data, FMCSA posed a series of questions addressing the following matters:

            1 Subsequent to publication of the ANPRM, FMCSA issued a rule that eliminated the option of relying on roadside inspections as satisfying the periodic inspection requirement. See 81 FR 47722 (July 22, 2016).

        • Existing State Mandatory Vehicle Inspection Programs for Passenger-Carrying CMVs.
        • Measuring Effectiveness of Inspection Programs.
        • Inspection Facilities and Locations.
        • Costs.
        • Uniformity of Mandatory Vehicle Inspections Programs.
        • Current Federal Standards.
        • Federal Authority.
        Discussion of Comments
        The Agency received 22 public comments, with 10 commenters expressing general opposition to the mandatory State inspection requirement discussed in the ANPRM. Seven commenters supported the establishment of such a requirement; four commenters neither supported nor opposed a possible requirement, and one commenter's issue was out-of-scope. Many commenters indicated that the existing standards for annual inspections prescribed in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) or their own programs were sufficient. Commenters also indicated that current standards are effective at mitigating risk when properly enforced. Several commenters made their support contingent on factors such as uniformity in inspection standards, standardization of inspector training, a self-inspection option, and required reciprocity, whereby States would be required to recognize inspections conducted outside their States.
        Several commenters, including State agencies in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Texas, addressed questions aimed at measuring the effectiveness of inspection programs. However, none of these commenters was able to determine whether the establishment of an inspection program reduced the number of safety violations detected. Michigan's Department of Motor Vehicles indicated it improved its inspection process by educating carriers on the required State inspection criteria in 2013; it has since observed a 10% increase in vehicles passing their initial safety inspection.
        Few commenters addressed how FMCSA might incentivize the States to establish mandatory inspection programs. The South Carolina Transport Police noted that a mandate would be a strain on its resources. The Michigan Department of Transportation noted that a program should be subsidized with Federal funding. A representative from Pennsylvania suggested providing additional Federal highway funding to those States with well-defined programs.
        FMCSA Decision
        FMCSA withdraws the April 2016 ANPRM because the Agency is not aware of data or information that supports the development of a notice of proposed rulemaking to require the States to establish mandatory annual inspection programs for passenger-carrying vehicles.
        The Agency held a series public listening sessions 2
           concerning this subject prior to publication of the ANPRM. Those sessions provided interested parties with the opportunity to share their views on the merits of requiring State inspections of passenger CMVs. Transcripts of the sessions are available in the public docket noted above. Stakeholders' remarks and comments proved valuable in developing the questions posed in the ANPRM, but the information they provided was not sufficient to support moving beyond the ANPRM. The Agency received a broad range of comments identifying issues FMCSA would need to consider in a rulemaking, such as the costs of mandatory inspection programs, the value of a nation-wide uniform inspection standard, and the need for national training of inspectors to eliminate inconsistencies in how inspection standards are applied. Both industry and the enforcement community expressed concerns about the cost of an inspection program. Stakeholders' estimates of costs for program administration and individual inspections varied significantly.

            2 The listening sessions were conducted at the American Bus Association Marketplace in St. Louis, Missouri on January 13, 2015, a United Motor Coach Association meeting in New Orleans, Louisiana on January 18, 2015, and a Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance workshop in Jacksonville, Florida on April 14, 2015.

        The Agency does not foresee the availability of Federal funding to incentivize the States to adopt such programs under its existing grant programs.

          Issued under the authority of delegation in 49 CFR 1.87 on: April 25, 2017.
          Daphne Y. Jefferson,
          Deputy Administrator.

      [FR Doc. 2017-08724 Filed 4-28-17; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 660-
        [Docket No. 030602142-3142-01; I.D. 051403C]
        RIN 0648-AQ68
        Fisheries Off West Coast States and in the Western Pacific; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; Amendment 17

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS issues this proposed rule to implement Amendment 17 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP).  Amendment 17 would revise the Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Council's) annual groundfish management process so that it would become a biennial process.  Amendment 17 is intended to ensure that the specifications and management measures process comports with a Court ruling, to make the Council's development process for specifications and management measures more efficient so that more time is available for other management activities, and to streamline the NMFS regulatory process for implementing the specifications and management measures.

          DATES:
          Comments must be submitted in writing by July 28, 2003.

          ADDRESSES:
          Comments on Amendment 17 or supporting documents should be sent to D. Robert Lohn, Administrator, Northwest Region, NMFS, Sand Point Way NE., BIN C15700, Seattle, WA 98115-0070.
          Copies of Amendment 17 and the environmental assessment/ regulatory impact review/initial regulatory flexibility analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) are available from Donald McIsaac, Executive Director, Pacific Fishery Management Council, 2130 SW Fifth Ave., Suite 224, Portland, OR 97201.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Yvonne deReynier (Northwest Region, NMFS), phone:  206-526-6140; fax:  206-526-6736 and; e-mail: yvonne.dereynier@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Electronic Access
        This Federal Register document is also accessible via the Internet at the website of the Office of the Federal Register's website at: http://www/access/gpo.gov/su_docs/aces140.html.
        Background
        NMFS is proposing this rule to implement Amendment 17 to the FMP, which would set the Council's groundfish management process and the NMFS implementation process for specifications and management measures for a biennial period.  Amendment 17 would also structure Council development of specifications and management measures so that NMFS has adequate time to implement the biennial specifications and management measures through a notice-and-comment rulemaking.  The regulations to implement Amendment 17 would primarily revise references in the Federal groundfish regulations at 50 CFR 660.301-360 to the annual specifications and management measures process so that they reflect the new biennial specifications and management measures process.  This proposed rule is based on recommendations of the Council, under the authority of the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.  (Magnuson-Stevens Act).  The background and rationale for the Council's recommendations are summarized below.  Further detail appears in the EA/RIR/IRFA prepared by NMFS for Amendment 17.
        Since 1990, the Council has set Pacific coast groundfish harvest levels through an annual regulatory process.  This annual process establishes harvest “specifications,” which are harvest levels or limits such as acceptable biological catches (ABCs), optimum yields (OYs), or allocations for different user groups.  Management measures, such as trip limits, closed times and areas, and gear restrictions are also set in the annual regulatory process.  Management measures are partnered with the specifications in the annual process because these measures are specifically designed to allow the fisheries to achieve, but not to exceed, harvest levels established in the specifications.

        The Council has historically developed its recommendations for the annual specifications and management measures in a two-meeting process (usually its September and November meetings), followed by a NMFS final action effective January 1 and published in the Federal Register.  Following publication, this final action was made available for public comment and correction after the effective date of the action.  In 2001, NMFS was challenged on this process in Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Evans and the Court found that the process violated the Administrative Procedure Act requirement for notice and comment.
        NMFS responded in both 2002 and 2003 by publishing the specifications and management measures as a proposed rule, followed by a public comment period and a final rule.  In neither year was NMFS able to publish the proposed rule, take public comment, and publish the final rule between the Council's final decision and January 1.  Thus for both years, the proposed rule had to be accompanied by an emergency rule to implement groundfish management measures for the period between January 1 and the effective date of the final rule, March 1.
        During 2002, the Council considered how it might revise its specifications and management measures development process consistent with the court's ruling in order to allow prior public notice and comment on the specifications and management measures regulatory package.  In addition to needing to revise the notice and comment procedure associated with the specifications and management measures, the Council wished to take a new look at efficiency in the annual management process.  Groundfish management workload levels have grown in recent years, particularly those associated with setting annual harvest levels for both depleted and healthy stocks.  Because of the increasing workload associated with developing specifications and management measures, the Council and NMFS have had less time for addressing many other important groundfish fishery management issues.
        NMFS has recently asked all of the fishery management councils to consider how they might streamline their processes for developing regulatory recommendations.  To meet this agency-wide request, the Council decided that it would consider whether specifications and management measures could be published for multi-year, rather than single year, periods.  To initially investigate both expanded public notice and comment for NMFS specifications regulations and multi-year management periods, the Council created the Ad-Hoc Groundfish Multi-Year Management Committee (Committee.)  The Committee included representatives from the fishing industry, the conservation community, the states of Washington, Oregon, and California and NMFS.
        The Committee held public meetings in Portland, OR over December 13-14, 2001, and over January 31 - February 1, 2002.  During those meetings, the Committee discussed the many issues associated with changing the specifications and management measures notice and comment process and with the possibility of making a transition to multi-year management.  In its meetings, the Committee developed a suite of options to address its two management challenges in a potential FMP amendment.  At its March 2002 meeting, the Council requested that NMFS analyze the Committee's management options as draft Amendment 17 to the FMP.  These options were analyzed and made available to the public for broader comment.  Amendment 17 and its associated EA/RIR/IRFA were available for public consideration and discussed by the Council at its June and September 2002 meetings.  In November 2002, the Council finalized its recommendations on Amendment 17. The Council's recommendation was for a three-meeting Council process for developing specifications and management measures, a notice and comment period for the harvest specifications, and a biennial management period.  Amendment 17 is essentially administrative in nature, and is intended to revise Council and NMFS processes associated with the specifications and management measures.  Under Amendment 17, the Council will develop its recommendations for specifications and management measures in a three-meeting process, at their November-April-June meetings for implementation the January 1 following their final decision in June.  Once a specifications and management measures package were implemented, it would apply for a two-year period.  Harvest specifications like acceptable ABCs and OYs would continue to apply for 1-year periods.  For each biennial management period, the ABC/OY for a particular species would be set for each of the two years within that period.  However, the management measures established during the biennial process will still be adjusted as the season progresses, in order to achieve but not exceed OYs.  If Amendment 17 is approved, the first biennial management period implemented by this FMP amendment would be 2005-2006.  Thus by example, specifications and management measures for 2005-2006 would be developed by the Council between November 2003 and June 2004, with notice and comment rulemaking occurring between July 2004 and November 2004, and a final rule becoming effective by January 1, 2005.

        NMFS and the states conduct stock assessments on a schedule intended in part to complement the Council's annual specifications and management measures process.  Not all groundfish stocks have stock assessments.  In general,  assessment authors conduct new assessments each year on one-third of those species that have stock assessments.  Thus, each assessed species will have a new assessment roughly every three years.  Assessment models and results are independently reviewed by the Council's Stock Assessment Review (STAR) panels, which are made up of scientific professionals and reviewers from the Council's groundfish advisory bodies.  It is the responsibility of the STAR panels to review draft stock assessment documents and relevant information to determine if they use the best available scientific data effectively to provide a good quality assessment of the condition of the stock.  In addition, the STAR panels review the assessment documents to see that they are sufficiently complete and to identify research that may be needed to improve assessments in the future.  The STAR process is a key element in an overall process designed to make timely use of new fishery and survey data, to analyze and understand these data as completely as possible, to provide opportunity for public comment, and to assure that the assessment results are as accurate and error-free as possible.
        Amendment 17's 2-year management schedule would allow stock assessment authors to revise their assessment schedules such that they deliver assessments on all assessed stocks every other year.  New and updated stock assessments would be reviewed through the STAR process prior to the November Council meeting at the start of the Council's management process.  In alternate years when stock assessment authors are not delivering assessments to the Council process, they would have time to revise and enhance stock assessment models, as well as to develop new models on habitat and ecosystem functions as they affect groundfish stock status.  Under the current process, models and stock assessments are evaluated by the STAR process every year, giving stock assessment authors little time away from the process to consider model refinement.
        One of the challenges the Council faced in developing Amendment 17 was how to create a biennial management process that still allowed an annual review of harvest levels against the most recent scientific information.  To address this issue, the Council has recommended a process that would take advantage of the initial November specifications development meeting to check current management levels against the most recently available scientific information.  For example:  The first biennial management cycle would be January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2006, with the second management cycle being January 1, 2007, through December 31, 2008.  In 2005, the Council would begin developing specifications and management measures for 2007-2008.  The Council would review the new stock assessments intended for the 2007-2008 cycle and check them against the harvest levels they had set for 2006 to ensure that they were adequate to meet rebuilding goals for overfished species and not result in overfishing.  The Council will be discussing this process further during 2003 to set parameters for what portions of the specifications and management measures may or may not be revised through this mid-cycle checkpoint process.  Depending on the checkpoint process the Council develops, there may be an additional rulemaking associated with Amendment 17.
        Revisions to FMP and Federal Regulations Under Amendment 17
        Because Amendment 17 deals only with the process by which the Council recommends the specifications and management measures, revisions to the FMP and to Federal regulations are fairly minimal.  In the FMP, references to the annual specifications process are revised and the biennial fishing period is defined as being the new time unit for specifications and management measures implementation.  Similarly, Federal regulations are proposed to be amended via this rule so that references to the annual management cycle are replaced with references to a biennial management cycle.  Amendment 17 does not introduce new regulations or revisions to existing regulations that affect how the groundfish fleets conduct their fishing operations, which is the primary focus of Federal groundfish fishery regulations.
        Classification
        At this time, NMFS has not determined whether Amendment 17, which this proposed rule would implement, is consistent with the national standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.  NMFS, in making that determination, will take into account the data, views, and comments received during the comment period.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

        NMFS prepared an IRFA that describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. The IRFA is available from NMFS (see
          ADDRESSES).  A summary of the IRFA follows:

        A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained in the SUMMARY and at the beginning of this section of this proposed rule.  There are no recordkeeping, reporting, or other compliance issues forthcoming from this proposed rule.  This proposed rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with other Federal rules.
        A fish-harvesting business is considered a “small” business by the Small Business Administration (SBA) if it has annual receipts not in excess of $3.5 million.  Approximately 2,000 commercial vessels participate in the West Coast groundfish fisheries.  Of those, about 500 vessels are registered to limited entry permits issued for either trawl, longline, or pot gear.  About 1,500 vessels land groundfish against open access limits while either directly targeting groundfish or taking groundfish incidentally in fisheries directed at non-groundfish species.  All but 10-20 of those vessels are considered small businesses by the SBA.  Since this is an administrative action, this proposed rule is not expected to yield disproportionate economic impacts between those small and large entities.  In the 2001 recreational fisheries, there were 77 Washington charter vessels engaged in salt water fishing outside of Puget Sound, 232 charter vessels active on the Oregon coast and 415 charter vessels active on the California coast.

        This rule is administrative in nature and is expected to have  only a minimal economic impact on small entities.  The proposed rule would maximize time for stock assessment scientists, Council staff, and NMFS staff to prepare documentation needed to implement specifications and management measures without disrupting the historic January 1 season start date.  Under the proposed measure, vessel operators should be able to take advantage of whichever seasonal markets best fit their needs.  Small vessel operators should not be forced to fish during inclement weather because of concerns about fishery closures during spring and summer months.  Vessel operators afforded the privilege of fishing for both Dungeness crab and groundfish, or groundfish and shrimp, should be able to time their fishing trips based on the migratory patterns of their target species and the needs of their own marketing strategies and those of their associated processors.  While implementing multi-year groundfish management will not alleviate all season-related management problems for fisheries participants, it should be a positive step toward improving the stability and certainty of seasonal groundfish allocations for participating harvesters.  The improved science and management made possible with multi-year planning will help mitigate the closure cycle by stabilizing groundfish allocations and landings throughout the season.
        The Council considered 4 alternatives to the proposed measure including a status quo alternative.  All alternatives, with the exception of the status quo, would implement biennial specifications.  Two of these alternatives considered a March 1 start date with different Council meeting schedules, and one alternative considered a May 1 start date.  Given closure trends under the status quo, a March 1 start date would likely result in early allocation attainment and closures during December-February.  The negative effects of this closed period would primarily be felt by vessels and processors that rely on the mid-winter flatfish fishery.  Many West Coast flatfish species aggregate more closely during the winter months, lowering the bycatch rates of non-flatfish species in flatfish-directed fisheries.  As with the status quo, recreational fishing tends to be slow during the winter months.  Given closure trends under the status quo, a May 1 start date would likely result in early allocation attainment and closures during February-April period.  This schedule would keep the fisheries open through stronger flatfish months and allow participants to switch between flatfish and Dungeness crab at will.  A February-April groundfish closure could also have the negative effect of a very lean 3-month period between Dungeness crab fishing/processing season and the shrimp, salmon and albacore seasons.  For some of the small boat fishers, this alternative could also mean a lack of fishing opportunity in their traditional start-up fishing months.  Early spring recreational fishing opportunities could also be curtailed under this schedule.
        The economic effects of changing the fishing year start date vary with each option and vary by which fishery sectors they affect.  In general, the difference between the economic effects of a January 1 start date and a March 1 start date are neutral.  A May 1 start date, however, would notably shift fishing effort and could result in small businesses having to reconsider their business practices and reschedule their fishing operations.
        The Council will retain a one-year specification of ABC and OY.  This represents no change and will have no economic impact to vessels affected by the proposed rule.  The Council also considered a two-year specification period.  However, since early attainment of OY could lengthen closure periods under a two-year specification of these targets, this alternative would be expected to have a potentially adverse economic impact on  vessel profitability.  With two-year OYs, management measures would need to be more conservative at the start of the two-year fishing period to hedge against early closures during the second year in the fishing period.  The Council also considered a mixture of one-year and two-year specifications for different groundfish species.  This approach could also have a potentially adverse economic impact on vessel profitability for vessels fishing under two-year specifications for the reasons listed above.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660
          Administrative practice and procedure, American Samoa, Fisheries, Fishing, Guam, Hawaiian Natives, Indians, Northern Mariana Islands, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated:  June 9, 2003.
          Rebecca Lent,
          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 AND IN THE WESTERN PACIFIC

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

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

        2. In § 660.302, a new definition for “Biennial fishing period” is added and the definitions for “Fishing year,” and “Reserve,” are revised to read as follows:

          § 660.302
          Definitions.

            Biennial fishing period means a 24-month period beginning at 0001 local time on January 1 and ending at 2400 local time on December 31 of the subsequent year.

            Fishing year is the year beginning at 0001 local time on January 1 and ending at 2400 local time on December 31 of the same year.  There are two fishing years in each biennial fishing period.

            Reserve means a portion of the harvest guideline or quota set aside at the beginning of the fishing year or biennial fishing period to allow for uncertainties in preseason estimates.

        3.  In § 660.321, paragraphs (a) through (c) are revised to read as follows:

          § 660.321
          Specifications and management measures.
          (a) General. NMFS will establish and adjust specifications and management measures biennially or annually and during the fishing year. Management of the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery will be conducted consistent with the standards and procedures in the PCGFMP and other applicable law. The PCGFMP is available from the Regional Administrator or the Council.
          (b) Biennial actions. The Pacific Coast Groundfish fishery is managed on a biennial, calendar year basis.  Harvest specifications and management measures will be announced biennially, with the harvest specifications for each species or species group set for two sequential calendar years.  In general, management measures are designed to achieve, but not exceed, the specifications, particularly optimum yields (harvest guidelines and quotas), commercial harvest guidelines and quotas, limited entry and open access allocations, or other approved fishery allocations, and to protect overfished and depleted stocks.
          (c) Routine management measures. Management measures designated “routine” at § 660.323(b) may be adjusted during the fishing year after recommendation from the Council, approval by NMFS, and publication in the Federal Register.

        4.  In § 660.323, paragraphs (a)(2)(ii)(C)(1), (a)(3)(i)(A)(1), (a)(3)(vi) introductory text, paragraph (b) introductory text, and paragraphs (b)(1)(i) introductory text and (b)(1)(ii) are revised to read as follows:

          § 660.323
          Catch restrictions.
          (a)* * *
          (2)* * *
          (ii)* * *
          (C) Cumulative limits. (1) A vessel participating in the primary season will be constrained by the sablefish cumulative limit associated with each of the permits registered for use with that vessel. The Regional Administrator will biennially or annually calculate the size of the cumulative trip limit for each of the three tiers associated with the sablefish endorsement such that the ratio of limits between the tiers is approximately 1:1.75:3.85 for Tier 3:Tier 2:Tier 1, respectively.  The size of the cumulative trip limits will vary depending on the amount of sablefish available for the primary fishery and on estimated discard mortality rates within the fishery.  The size of the cumulative trip limits for the three tiers in the primary fishery will be announced in the Federal Register.
          * * * * *
          (3)* * *
          (i)* * *
          (A)* * *
          (1) Procedures. The primary seasons for the whiting fishery north of 40°30′ N. lat. generally will be established according to the procedures of the PCGFMP for developing and implementing harvest specifications and apportionments.  The season opening dates remain in effect unless changed, generally with the harvest specifications and management measures.

          (vi) Bycatch reduction and full utilization program for at-sea processors (optional). If a catcher/processor or mothership in the whiting fishery carries more than one NMFS-approved observer for at least 90 percent of the fishing days during a cumulative trip limit period, then groundfish trip limits may be exceeded without penalty for that cumulative trip limit period, if the conditions in paragraph (a)(3)(vi)(A) of this section are met. For purposes of this program, “fishing day” means a 24-hour period, from 0001 hours through 2400 hours, local time, in which fishing gear is retrieved or catch is received by the vessel, and will be determined from the vessel's observer data, if available. Changes to the number of observers required for a vessel to participate in the program will be announced prior to the start of the fishery, generally concurrent with the harvest specifications and management measures.  Groundfish consumed on board the vessel must be within any applicable trip limit and recorded as retained catch in any applicable logbook or report. [Note:  For a mothership, non-whiting groundfish landings are limited by the cumulative landings limits of the catcher vessels delivering to that mothership.]

          (b) Routine management measures. In addition to the catch restrictions in this section, other catch restrictions that are likely to be adjusted on a biennial or more frequent basis may be imposed and announced by a single notification in the Federal Register if good cause exists under the APA to waive notice and comment, and if they have been designated as routine through the two-meeting process described in the PCGFMP.  The following catch restrictions have been designated as routine:
          (1) Commercial limited entry and open access fisheries—(i)  Trip landing and frequency limits, size limits, all gear. Trip landing and frequency limits have been designated as routine for the following species or species groups:  widow rockfish, canary rockfish, yellowtail rockfish, Pacific ocean perch, yelloweye rockfish, splitnose rockfish, bocaccio, cowcod, minor nearshore rockfish or shallow and deeper minor nearshore rockfish, shelf or minor shelf rockfish, and minor slope rockfish; DTS complex which is composed of Dover sole, sablefish, shortspine thornyheads, and longspine thornyheads; petrale sole, rex sole, arrowtooth flounder, Pacific sanddabs, and the flatfish complex, which is composed of those species plus any other flatfish species listed at § 660.302; Pacific whiting; lingcod; and “other fish” as a complex consisting of all groundfish species listed at § 660.302 and not otherwise listed as a distinct species or species group.  Size limits have been designated as routine for sablefish and lingcod.  Trip landing and frequency limits and size limits for species with those limits designated as routine may be imposed or adjusted on a biennial or more frequent basis for the purpose of keeping landings within the harvest levels announced by NMFS, and for the other purposes given in paragraph (b)(1)(i)(A) and (B) of this section.

          (ii) Differential trip landing and frequency limits based on gear type, closed seasons. Trip landing and frequency limits that differ by gear type and closed seasons may be imposed or adjusted on a biennial or more frequent basis for the purpose of rebuilding and protecting overfished or depleted stocks.

        5.  In § 660.324, paragraphs (d) and (j) are revised to read as follows:

          § 660.324
          Pacific Coast treaty Indian fisheries.

          (d) Procedures. The rights referred to in paragraph (a) of this section will be implemented by the Secretary, after consideration of the tribal request, the recommendation of the Council, and the comments of the public.  The rights will be implemented either through an allocation of fish that will be managed by the tribes, or through regulations in this section that will apply specifically to the tribal fisheries.  An allocation or a regulation specific to the tribes shall be initiated by a written request from a Pacific Coast treaty Indian tribe to the Regional Administrator, prior to the first  Council meeting in which biennial harvest specifications and management measures are discussed for an upcoming biennial management period.  The Secretary generally will announce the annual tribal allocations at the same time as the announcement of the harvest specifications.  The Secretary recognizes the sovereign status and co-manager role of Indian tribes over shared Federal and tribal fishery resources. Accordingly, the Secretary will develop tribal allocations and regulations under this paragraph in consultation with the affected tribe(s) and, insofar as possible, with tribal consensus.

          (j) Black rockfish. Harvest guidelines for commercial harvests of black rockfish by members of the Pacific Coast Indian tribes using hook and line gear will be established biennially for two subsequent one year periods for the areas between the U.S.-Canadian border and Cape Alava (48°09′30″ N. lat.) and between Destruction Island (47°40′00″ N. lat.) and Leadbetter Point (46°38'10′ N. lat.), in accordance with the procedures for implementing harvest specifications and management measures.  Pacific Coast treaty Indians fishing for black rockfish in these areas under these harvest guidelines are subject to the provisions in this section, and not to the restrictions in other sections of this part.

        6.  In § 660.332, paragraphs (a), (b)(3), and (e) are revised to read as follows:

          § 660.332
          Allocations.
          (a) General. The commercial portion of the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery, excluding the treaty Indian fishery, is divided into limited entry and open access fisheries. Separate allocations for the limited entry and open access fisheries will be established biennially or annually for certain species and/or areas using the procedures described in this subpart or the PCGFMP.

          (b) * * *
          (3) The guidelines in this paragraph (b)(3) apply to recalculation of the open access allocation percentage. Any recalculated allocation percentage will be used in calculating the following biennial fishing period's open access allocation.

          (e) Treaty Indian fisheries. Certain amounts of groundfish may be set aside biennially or annually for tribal fisheries prior to dividing the balance of the allowable catch between the limited entry and open access fisheries.  Tribal fisheries conducted under a set-aside are not subject to the regulations governing limited entry and open access fisheries.

        7.  In § 660.333, paragraph (c)(2) is revised to read as follows:

          § 660.333
          Limited entry fishery   eligibility and registration.

          (c) * * *

          (2) The major limited entry cumulative limit periods will be announced in the Federal Register with the harvest specifications and management measures, and with routine management measures when the cumulative limit periods are changed.

        8.  In § 660.350, paragraph (a)(6) is revised to read as follows:

          § 660.350
          Compensation with fish for collecting resource information—exempted fishing permits off Washington, Oregon, and California.
          (a) * * *
          (6) Accounting for the compensation catch. As part of the harvest specifications process (§ 660.321), NMFS will advise the Council of the amount of fish authorized to be retained under a compensation EFP, which then will be deducted from the next harvest specifications (ABCs) set by the Council.  Fish authorized in an EFP too late in the year to be deducted from the following year's ABCs will be accounted for in the next management cycle practicable.

      [FR Doc. 03-15030 Filed 6-12-03; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Parts 27 and 90
        [PS Docket No. 12-94; PS Docket No. 06-229; and WT Docket No. 06-150; DA 13-1775]
        First Responder Network Authority Filing

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          On August 19, 2013, the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) released a public notice inviting public comment on a filing submitted by the First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet) on August 2, 2013, in PS Docket 12-94. The filing addressed consolidation of technical service rules for the 758-769 and 788-799 MHz bands,

          DATES:
          Submit comments on or before September 4, 2013.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by PS Docket 12-94, by any of the following methods:

            Federal Communications Commission's Web site:
            http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

            Mail.

            People With Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov or phone: 202-418-0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.

          For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Procedural Matters section of this document.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Gene Fullano, Federal Communications Commission, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, at (202)-418-0492 or genaro.fullano@fcc.gov; or Brian Hurley, Federal Communications Commission, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, at (202)-418-2220 or brian.hurley@fcc.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission provides seven days for public comment on matters raised by the First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet) in its August 2, 2013, filing in PS Docket 12-94.1
           FirstNet's filing responds to a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that seeks comment on, among other matters, the consolidation into Part 90 of technical service rules for the 758-769 and 788-799 MHz bands, which, heretofore, have been subject to regulation under both Parts 27 and 90.2
           The rules at issue include power, emission, and field strength limits and interference coordination procedures designed to prevent interference to operations of other Commission licensees. This proposed rule consolidation is intended to “facilitate the transition” of spectrum to the First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet), the entity licensed to establish a nationwide public safety broadband network using both the public safety broadband spectrum (763-768/793-798 MHz) and the adjacent “D Block” (758-763/788-793 MHz) previously slated for commercial auction.3
           In proposing this rule consolidation, the Commission further directed its Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) to suspend its acceptance and processing of applications for equipment authorization in these bands pending the adoption of technical service rules applicable to the combined band.4

            1 The Bureau takes this action pursuant to its delegated authority. See 47 CFR 0.392. As noted elsewhere herein, the short time frame provided by this notice is warranted in light of the pressing need recognized by FirstNet and other commenters for expedition on reinitiating the currently suspended equipment authorization process. Moreover, this notice follows a full NPRM comment period. Accordingly, parties should submit any new arguments now in order to facilitate prompt action by the Commission.

            2 See Implementing Public Safety Broadband Provisions of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, PS Docket No. 12-94, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 28 FCC Rcd 2715 (2013) (Technical Service Rules NPRM), published in the Federal Register April 24, 2013 (78 FR 24138). The comment cycle closed on June 10, 2013.

            3 See id. at 2716, 2721 ¶¶ 2, 17; see also 47 U.S.C. 1424 (2012) (establishing FirstNet). FirstNet's license also includes the 768-769/798-799 MHz band, id. 1401(14), 1421(a), which is currently designated under Commission rules as a guard band separating the broadband and narrowband segments of the 700 MHz public safety spectrum. See 47 CFR 90.531(f).

            4 See id. at 2725-26 ¶ 33.

        In its filing, FirstNet supports “consolidating the technical requirements for the former D Block into Part 90 of the Commission's Rules” and recommends that the Commission “act quickly to amend its technical service rules to enable FirstNet to expedite the deployment of” its network.” 5
           Additionally, FirstNet urges “swift Commission action to begin accepting and processing equipment authorizations in the newly combined spectrum,” citing “an imminent need for authorized equipment to meet the needs of jurisdictions that may deploy early” in FirstNet's licensed spectrum under spectrum leases. FirstNet has already entered lease agreements with the Los Angeles Regional Interoperable Communications System (LA-RICS) and the State of New Mexico, and it has stated its intention to execute similar agreements with other public safety jurisdictions in the near future.6
           While FirstNet supports Commission action to “expedite a process” for equipment authorization to support these early deployments, it cautions that “the equipment market will need to evolve once the architecture for the nationwide public safety broadband network has been set.”7

            5 See Comments of the First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet), PS Docket 12-94 at 4 (Aug. 2, 2013).

            6 See National Telecommunications and Information Administration, FirstNet Approves Resolutions on Spectrum Lease Agreement with LA-RICS and Personnel Acquisition Strategy,
            http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2013/firstnet-approves-resolutions-spectrum-lease-agreement-la-rics-and-personnel-acqu (last visited Aug. 15, 2013); National Telecommunications and Information Administration, FirstNet Approves Spectrum Lease Agreement with New Mexico; Provides Status Update on Remaining Projects, http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2013/firstnet-approves-spectrum-lease-agreement-new-mexico-provides-status-update-rema (last visited Aug. 15, 2013). According to FirstNet the lease with LA-RICS is the first such agreement between FirstNet and one of the seven public safety Broadband Technology Opportunities Program grantees. These include: the Adams County (Colorado) Communications Center, the City of Charlotte (North Carolina), the Executive Office of the State of Mississippi, the Los Angeles Regional Interoperable Communications System Authority, Motorola Solutions, Inc. (the Bay Area Regional Interoperable Communications Systems Authority (BayRICS), San Francisco Bay area), the New Jersey Department of the Treasury, and the New Mexico Department of Information Technology. See id. FirstNet is also engaged in lease negotiations with the State of Texas, which holds a Special Temporary Authorization (STA) from the Commission to pursue early deployment in the band of a public safety network that “support[s] specific public safety needs.” See Implementing Provisions of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, PS Docket 12-94, Order, DA 13-319 at 2 ¶ 5(PSHSB 2013). The Commission granted this STA for “limited deployment” of a public safety broadband network within Harris County, Texas, “as FirstNet prepares to commence its nationwide deployment.” Id. at 1 ¶ 2

            7 Comments of FirstNet at 3.

        The full text of FirstNet's filing is available in PS Docket 12-94 in the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs.

          Procedural Matters: The proceeding has been designated a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's rules.8
           Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.

            8 See Technical Service Rules NPRM, 28 FCC Rcd at 2733-34 ¶ 62.

        Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments by the date referenced above. All filings should refer to PS Docket No. 12-94. Comments may be filed: (1) Using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), or (2) by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
        Comments filed in response to this Public Notice will be available for public inspection and copying in the Commission's Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554, and via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) by entering the docket number, PS Docket No. 12-94. Copies of the request are also available from Best Copy and Printing, Inc., telephone (800) 378-3160, facsimile (301) 816-0169, email FCC@BCPIWEB.com.

        Comments may be filed using the ECFS or by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998). Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the Internet to http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Generally, only one copy of an electronic submission must be filed. If multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding, however, commenters must transmit one electronic copy of the comments to each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, commenters should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet email. To get filing instructions for email comments, commenters should send an email to ecfs@fcc.gov, and should include the following words in the body of the message, “get form.” A sample form and directions will be sent in reply.
        Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, commenters must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number.
        Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, as follows:

        —All hand-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building. The filing hours at this location are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Please Note: This is the only location where hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary will be accepted. The Commission's former filing location at 236 Massachusetts Ave. NE., is permanently closed.
        —Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
        —U.S. Postal Service first-class mail, Express Mail, and Priority Mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
        —All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

        Parties are requested to send one copy of their comments and reply comments to Best Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, (800) 378-3160, email FCC@BCPIWEB.com.
        Alternate formats of this Public Notice (computer diskette, large print, audio recording, and Braille) are available to persons with disabilities by contacting the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY), or send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Lisa M. Fowlkes,
          Deputy Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau.

      [FR Doc. 2013-21040 Filed 8-27-13; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P