        GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
        48 CFR Parts 514, 552, and 553
        [GSAR Case 2008-G505; Docket 2008-0007; Sequence 20]
        RIN 3090-AI73
        General Services Acquisition Regulation; GSAR Case 2008-G505; Rewrite of GSAR Part 514, Sealed Bidding

          AGENCY:
          Office of the Chief Acquisition Officer, General Services Administration (GSA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          The GSA is proposing to amend the General Services Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) to revise the GSAR language regarding requirements for sealed bidding.

          DATES:
          Interested parties should submit written comments to the Regulatory Secretariat on or before December 9, 2008 to be considered in the formulation of a final rule.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit comments identified by GSAR Case 2008-G505 by any of the following methods:

        •  Regulations.gov: http://www.regulations.gov.
        Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by inputting “GSAR Case 2008-G505” under the heading “Comment or Submission”.  Select the link “Send a Comment or Submission” that corresponds with GSAR Case 2008-G505.  Follow the instructions provided to complete the “Public Comment and Submission Form”.  Please include your name, company name (if any), and “GSAR Case 2008-G505” on your attached document.
        • Fax:  202-501-4067.
        • Mail:  General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (VPR), 1800 F Street, NW, Room 4041, ATTN:  Laurieann Duarte, Washington, DC  20405.

          Instructions:  Please submit comments only and cite GSAR Case 2008-G505 in all correspondence related to this case.  All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal and/or business confidential information provided.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          For clarification of content, contact Mr. Michael O. Jackson at (202) 208-4949, or by e-mail at michaelo.jackson@gsa.gov.  For information pertaining to the status or publication schedules, contact the Regulatory Secretariat (VPR), Room 4041, GS Building, Washington, DC 20405, (202) 501-4755. Please cite GSAR Case 2008-G505.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        A. Background
        The GSA is amending the GSAR to revise sections of GSAR Part 514 that provide requirements for sealed bidding. This amendment is a result of the GSA Acquisition Manual (GSAM) rewrite initiative undertaken by GSA to revise the GSAM to maintain consistency with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and to implement streamlined and innovative acquisition procedures that contractors, offerors, and GSA contracting personnel can utilize when entering into and administering contractual relationships. The GSAM incorporates the GSAR as well as internal agency acquisition policy.

        The GSA will rewrite each part of the GSAR and GSAM, and as each GSAR part is rewritten, will publish it in the Federal Register.
        This rule covers the rewrite of GSAR Part 514.  The specific changes are as follows:
        • 501.106 OMB Approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

        ◦ Added Control Number 3090-0163 as a cross reference for 514.201-1.
        • 514.201-2 Part I—The Schedule.

        ◦ Changed (a) from “When you” to “When using. ” Also in (a) changed “which” to “that” and added the FAR clause number for Prompt Payment.
        ◦ Changed (b) from “When you use” to “When using” to clarify the reference to “you” and added a reference to the Standard Form 1449 as an example that this form can also be used.
        • 514.201-6 Solicitation provisions.

        ◦ Changed “When you” to “When considering” to delete the reference to the word ‘you’.
        ◦ Deleted the reference for Alternate I because it is not consistent with the intention of the basic clause.
        • 514.201-7 Contract clauses.

        ◦ In the old paragraph (a) changed “you” to “The contracting officer”.
        ◦ Deleted paragraph (b), Examination of Records.  The clause does not provide basic audit rights that are in addition to the FAR clauses at 52.215-2, Audit and Records-Negotiation and 52.214-26, Audit and Records — Sealed Bidding.  And as opposed to the GSA clause, the FAR clause is specific to sealed bids.  Further, the GSA clause grants to the agency rights to audit subcontractors that are in excess of those granted by the FAR and the statute.
        • 514.202-4 Bid samples.

        ◦ Renamed subparagraphs (a) and (b) to be more consistent with the FAR.  Also in (a) and (b) restructured the language to remove the word “you” and replaced with contracting officer.
        ◦ Clarified the language to state who must take physical custody of bid samples.
        ◦ Deleted paragraph (c) because it is redundant with FAR 14.202-4(d).
        ◦ Added a new 514.202-5, Descriptive Literature, in order to address the requirements of FAR 14.202-5(c).
        • 514.203 Methods of soliciting bids.
        ◦ Removed because we are not using paper copies and to be consistent with the FAR.
        • 514.203-1 Transmittal to prospective bidders.

        ◦ Removed because we are not using paper copies and to be consistent with the FAR.
        • 514.270-2 Justification for use.

        ◦ Inserted “the contracting officer should” in paragraph b and made last sentence of (3) a new number (4) and renumbered old paragraphs (4) and (5) to (5) and (6), respectively.
        ◦  Added “the contracting officer should” to replace the understood “you” and deleted “Do” in paragraph c.
        • 514.270-3 Evaluation factors for award.

        ◦ Edited to avoid either using the passive voice or repeating “the contracting officer.”
        • 514.270-4 Grouping line items for aggregate award.

        ◦ In paragraph (a) the title “Type of contract” was changed to one that is more descriptive of the substance of the paragraph; type of contract refers to Part 16 contract types.
        ◦ In paragraph (b) changed the “when you group” to “when grouping” and in (d)(3)(i) changed “It can cause you to lose” to “It can cause the loss of”.
        • 514.270-6 Guidelines for using the weight factors method.

        ◦ In paragraph (a) changed “you have” to “there are”; in paragraph (d) changed “You may reduce estimated quantities” to “Estimated quantities may be reduced”. In paragraph (e) deleted the “you” in the first sentence.
        • 514.270-7 Guidelines for using the price list method.

        ◦ Changed “you need to make” in paragraph (a) to “making”.
        ◦ In paragraph (b) changed “When you use” to “using”.
        ◦ In paragraph (c) changed “You may develop price lists” to “Price lists may be developed”.
        ◦ In paragraph (d) changed “you use” to “the contracting officer uses” and changed “You may provide” to “This information may be provided”.
        ◦ In paragraph (e) changed “You may use prices” to “Prices may be used”.
        ◦ In paragraph (h) changed “If you cannot estimate the Government’s needs” to “If the Government’s needs cannot be estimated”.
        ◦ In paragraph (i)(6) changed “If you provide” to “If providing”.
        ◦ In paragraph (i)(8) deleted the sentence in its entirety and replaced with “When the solicitation further groups united prices by trade or business category, multiple percentages may be required”.
        • 514.407-3 Other mistakes disclosed before award.

        ◦ Deleted paragraph (b) because it is redundant with FAR 14.407-3(f).
        ◦ Renumbered old paragraphs (1) and (2), (a) and (b), respectively.
        • 514.407-4 Mistakes after award.

        ◦ Added “are required to” and changed “your” to “the contracting officer’s”.
        • 552.214-70 “All or None” Offers.

        ◦ Deleted the Sep 1999 date and replaced with [DATE].
        ◦ In subparagraph (a) deleted the first part of the sentence so it now to begins with “The government…”
        ◦ Deleted Alternate I in its entirety to match the proposed changes.
        • 552.214-71 Progressive Awards and Monthly Quantity Allocations. Unchanged.
        • 552.214-72 Bid Sample Requirements.

        ◦ Deleted “NOTE (1)” because it is redundant.
        Discussion of Comments
        There were no public comments received in response to the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
        B.  Regulatory Flexibility Act

        The GSA does not expect this proposed rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., because the revisions are not considered substantive.  The revisions only update and reorganize existing coverage.  An Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has, therefore, not been performed.  We invite comments from small businesses and other interested parties.  The GSA will consider comments from small entities concerning the affected GSAR Part 514 in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610.  Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. (GSAR case 2008-G505), in correspondence.
        C.  Paperwork Reduction Act
        The Paperwork Reduction Act applies; however, these changes to the GSAR do not impose additional information collection requirements to the paperwork burden previously approved under OMB Control Number 3090-0027.

          List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 514, 552, and 553
          Government procurement.

          Dated: September 17, 2008
          Al Matera,
          Director,Office of Acquisition Policy.

        Therefore, GSA proposes to amend 48 CFR parts 514, 552, and 553 as set forth below:
        1. The authority citation for 48 CFR parts 514, 552, and 553 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
          40 U.S.C. 121(c).

          PART 514—SEALED BIDDING

        2. Revise section 514.201-2 to read as follows:

          514.201-2
          Part I—The Schedule.

        (a) When using Standard Form 33, Solicitation, Offer and Award, include the following cautionary notice:

          “Notice to Bidders—Use Item 13 of the Standard Form 33, Solicitation, Offer and Award, to offer prompt payment discounts.  The Prompt Payment clause of this solicitation sets forth payment terms.  Do not insert any statement in Item 13 that requires payment sooner than the time stipulated in the Prompt Payment clause (See FAR 52.232-25). EXAMPLE:  If you insert “NET 20” in Item 13, GSA will reject your offer as nonresponsive because the entry contradicts the 30 day payment terms specified in the Prompt Payment clause.”

        (b) When using other authorized forms (e.g., Standard Form 1447, Solicitation/Contract; Standard Form 1449, Solicitation/Contract/Order for Commercial Items), include the notice in paragraph (a) of this subsection.  Change the reference to the form number, form title, and item number accordingly.
        3. Revise section 514.201-6 to read as follows:

          514.201-6
          Solicitation provisions.

        When considering all or none bids, insert the provision at 552.214-70, “All or None” Offers, in the solicitation.
        4. Revise section 514.201-7 to read as follows:

          514.201-7
          Contract clauses.

        Stock replenishment contracts.  For some stock replenishment contracts, individual contractors may be unable to furnish the Government’s monthly requirements.  The contracting officer may determine that progressive awards will be more expedient.  In such cases, insert a clause substantially the same as the clause at 552.214-71, Progressive Awards and Monthly Quantity Allocations, in the solicitation and contract.
        5. Revise section 514.202-4 to read as follows:

          514.202-4
          Bid samples.

        (a) Requirements for samples in invitations for bids. (1) When bid samples are required, the contracting officer shall require bidders to submit samples produced by the manufacturer whose products will be supplied under the contract.

        (2) The FAR limits use of bid samples to cases where the contracting officer cannot describe some characteristics of a product adequately in the specification or purchase description.  This usually applies to subjective characteristics.  The contracting officer may determine that there is a need to examine objective characteristics of bid samples to determine the responsiveness of a bid.  The contracting officer should base the determination on past experience or other valid considerations.  In the solicitation, separately list “Subjective Characteristics” and “Objective Characteristics.”
        (3) A provision appears at 552.214-72, Bid Sample Requirements.  This provision may be modified to fit the circumstances of a procurement.
        (b) Handling bid samples. (1) Samples from accepted bids must be retained for the period of contract performance.  If there are no outstanding claims regarding the contract, the contracting officer may authorize disposal of the samples at the end of the contract term following the bidder’s instructions.
        (2) If the contracting officer anticipates a claim regarding the contract, the contracting officer shall require that the bid samples be retained until the claim is resolved.
        (3) The contracting officer shall require that samples from unsuccessful bids be retained until award. After award, these samples may be disposed of following the bidder’s instructions.
        6. Add section 514.202-5 to read as follows:

          514.202-5
          Descriptive Literature.

          Requirements for Invitations for bids.  When using brand name or equal purchase descriptions, the provision at FAR 52.211-6 satisfies the requirement for descriptive literature.

          514.203
          [Removed]

        7. Remove section 514.203.
        8. Amend section 514.270-2 by revising the section heading, redesignating paragraphs (a)(4) and (a)(5) as (a)(5) and (a)(6), respectively, adding new paragraph (a)(4), and revising paragraphs (b) introductory text, and (c) to read as follows::

          514.270-2
          Justification for use.

        (4) Awarding the low-demand articles in conjunction with the high-demand articles may encourage competition.

        (b) Before deciding to combine items for aggregate award, the contracting officer should consider the following factors:

        (c) The contracting officer should not use an aggregate award if it will significantly restrict the number of eligible bidders.
        9. Revise section 514.270-3 to read as follows:

          514.270-3
          Evaluation factors for award.

        The solicitation should clearly state the basis for evaluating bids for aggregate award, require bidders to submit a price on each item within the group or a percentage to be added or subtracted from a list price, and advise bidders that failure to submit prices as required within a group makes a bid ineligible for award for that group.
        10. Amend section 514.270-4 by revising paragraphs (a), (b), and (d)(3)(i) to read as follows:

          514.270-4
          Grouping line items for aggregate award.

        (a) Supplies and services.  This subsection applies to acquisitions of supplies and services.
        (b) Effect on competition.  Provide for full and open competition when grouping items for award. Grouping items for award may preclude a significant number of firms from bidding. This occurs if firms are unable to provide all the types or quantities of supplies or services, or make deliveries to the various delivery points included in the prospective aggregate group.

        (d) *  *  *
        (3) *  *  *
        (i) Grouping widespread geographic locations or delivery points may reduce competition or result in higher prices. It can cause the loss of “area pricing” advantages provided by a supplier with a single production point.

        11. Amend section 514.270-6 by—
        a. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (a) introductory text;
        b. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (d); and
        c. Removing from paragraph (e) the word “you”.
        The revised text reads as follows:

          514.270-6
          Guidelines for using the weight factors method.

        (a) Use the weight factors method when there are reliable estimates for the quantities needed in an acquisition.  *  *  *

        (d) Estimated quantities may be reduced to smaller numbers by a common denominator. *  *  *

        12. Amend section 514.270-7 by—
        a. Revising the first sentence in paragraph (a);
        b. Revising the introductory text of paragraphs (b) and (c);
        c. Revising paragraph (d);
        d. Revising the second sentence of paragraph (e);
        e. Revising the third sentence in paragraph (h), and paragraphs (i)(6) and (i)(8).
        The revised text reads as follows:

          514.270-7
          Guidelines for using the price list method.

        (a) General.  The price list method helps avoid unbalanced bidding when making aggregate awards, but lack accurate estimates of anticipated quantities. *  *  *
        (b) Solicitation requirements.  When using the price list method, in the solicitation:

        (c) Developing list prices.  Price lists may be developed using one or more of the following sources:

        (d) First time use for an item or service.  The first time the contracting officer uses list prices for an item or service, give prospective bidders an opportunity to review the proposed list.  Also provide information on how GSA will use the list prices.  This information may be provided in a draft solicitation.
        (e) *  *  *.  Prices may be used from previous awards made using the weight factors method to develop price lists.

        (h) *  *  *.  If the Government’s needs cannot be estimated, the solicitation may include past orders. *  *  *
        (i) *  *  *
        (6) If providing quantity estimates, state that the estimates are for information only and do not constitute guarantees or commitments to order items under the contract.

        (8) When the solicitation further groups unit prices by trade or business category, multiple percentages may be required.

        13. Revise section 514.407-3 to read as follows:

          514.407-3
          Other mistakes disclosed before award.

        Delegation of authority by head of the agency. Under FAR 14.407-3(e), contracting directors (see 502.101) are authorized, without power of redelegation, to make—
        (a) The determinations regarding corrections and withdrawals under FAR 14.407-3(a), (b), and (c); and
        (b) The corollary determinations not to permit withdrawal or correction under FAR 14.407-3(d).
        14. Revise section 514.407-4 to read as follows:

          514.407-4
          Mistakes after award.

        The contracting director and assigned counsel are required to review and approve the contracting officer’s determinations under FAR 14.407-4(b) and (c).

          PART 552—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES

        15. Amend section 552.214-70 by—
        a. Revising the date of the provision;
        b. Revising paragraph (a); and
        c. Removing Alternate I.
        The revised text reads as follows:

          552.214-70
          “All or None” Offers.

          “ALL OR NONE” OFFERS (DATE)

        (a) The Government reserves the right to evaluate offers and make awards on an “all or none” basis as provided below.

        (End of provision)
        16. Amend section 552.214-72 by—
        a. Revising the date of the provision;
        b. Revising the “Note”; and
        c. Adding text for the Contracting Officer’s address.
        The revised and added text reads as follows:

          552.214-72
          Bid Sample Requirements.

          BID SAMPLE REQUIREMENTS (DATE)

        NOTE: Bidders that propose to furnish an item or group of items from more than one manufacturer or production point must submit two samples from the production of each manufacturer or production point.

        Contracting Officer insert address.
        _________
        _________
        _________
        (End of provision)

          PART 553—FORMS

          553.370-3577
          [Removed]

        17. Remove section 553.370-3577

      [FR Doc. E8-22795 Filed 10-9-08; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6820-61-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 679
        [I.D. 013006I]
        RIN 0648-AT09
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Groundfish, Crab, Salmon, and Scallop Fisheries of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area and Gulf of Alaska

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

          ACTION:
          Announcement of availability of proposed amendments to fishery management plans; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) has submitted Amendments 78 and 65 to the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (BSAI), Amendments 73 and 65 to the FMP for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA), Amendments 16 and 12 to the FMP for Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crabs, Amendments 7, 9, and 11 to the FMP for the Scallop Fishery Off Alaska, and Amendments 7 and 8 to the FMP for Salmon Fisheries in the Exclusive Economic Zone Off the Coast of Alaska. These amendments, if approved, would revise the FMPs by identifying and authorizing protection measures for essential fish habitat (EFH) and habitat areas of particular concern (HAPCs) in all five FMPs and update the biological and management information in the scallop FMP. This action is necessary to revise the descriptions of EFH in the FMPs based on the best available scientific information and to protect areas that have important habitat features for the sustainability of managed fish stocks. This action also is necessary to provide an updated FMP for scallop fishery management. This action is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the FMPs, and other applicable laws. Comments from the public are welcome.

          DATES:
          Comments on the amendments must be received by close of business on April 7, 2006.

          ADDRESSES:
          Send comments to Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: Records Officer. Comments may be submitted by:
          • Mail: P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802.
          • Hand delivery: 709 West 9th Street, Room 420A, Juneau, AK.
          • Fax: 907-586-7557.
          • E-mail: EFH-HAPC-NOA-0648-AT09@noaa.gov. Include in the subject line the following document identifier: EFH-HAPC NOA. E-mail comments, with or without attachments, are limited to 5 megabytes.
          • Webform at the Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions at that site for submitting comments.

          Copies of FMP amendments, maps of the EFH and HAPC areas, the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for EFH, and the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) for HAPCs may be obtained from the same address or from the Alaska Region NMFS website at www.fakr.noaa.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Melanie Brown, 907-586-7228 or melanie.brown@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that the Council submit any FMP amendment it prepares to NMFS for review and approval, disapproval, or partial approval. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving a FMP amendment, immediately publish a notice in the Federal Register that the amendment is available for public review and comment.

        Section 303(a)(7) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that each FMP describe and identify EFH, minimize to the extent practicable the adverse effects of fishing on EFH, and identify other measures to promote the conservation and enhancement of EFH. The Council adopted the EFH and HAPC amendments in February 2005. If approved by NMFS, these amendments would revise the FMPs by updating the description and identification of EFH, changing the identification of HAPCs, and authorizing protection measures for EFH and HAPCs. This action would continue the Council's policy of implementing precautionary conservation measures for the Alaska fisheries, as described in the management policies and objectives added to the groundfish FMPs in 2004 (69 FR 31091, June 2, 2004).

        The Council developed the EFH and HAPC FMP amendments as a result of a new and thorough EIS analysis of the measures needed to identify and conserve EFH in Alaska. The analysis stemmed from a United States District Court order resulting from litigation that challenged the approval of previous EFH amendments to the Council's FMPs (American Oceans Campaign et al. v. Daley et al., Civil Action N. 99-982-GK).

        The amendments specify EFH and HAPC provisions for each FMP. The following summarizes the amendments under each group of provisions. The EIS for EFH, the EA/RIR/IRFA for HAPC, and maps of the proposed fishery restrictions described below are available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
        EFH Amendments
        The Council recommended three actions for EFH. Action 1 would revise the description and identification of EFH in the FMPs using new information and improved mapping. This action would ensure the best scientific information available is used to describe and identify EFH in the FMPs, as required by 50 CFR 600.815(a)(1)(ii)(B). Action 2 would adopt an approach for identifying HAPCs. The amendments would rescind existing HAPCs and would add a procedure for identifying HAPCs based on specific sites within EFH that are necessary to address particular habitat concerns.
        Action 3 would establish several types of management areas in the BSAI and the GOA to minimize the adverse effects of fishing on EFH. The Aleutian Islands Habitat Conservation Area (AIHCA) would consist of the entire Aleutian Islands subarea except for specified areas that have supported the highest groundfish catches in the past. The AIHCA would be closed to all nonpelagic trawling to protect relatively undisturbed habitats. The Council determined that the AIHCA would provide a balance between continued fishing in the Aleutian Islands subarea and protection of sensitive habitats such as cold water corals. This closure would include habitat areas that are not identified as EFH. Specifically, the AIHCA would include habitat areas that extend beyond the limits of EFH for groundfish, crabs, and scallops. The Council has identified the water column in all of these areas as EFH for marine salmon, but the bottom habitats have not been well surveyed, and therefore are not considered EFH. The Council developed the AIHCA primarily to address potential effects on EFH, but included these habitat areas outside of EFH as part of the Council's overall effort to be precautionary and preclude damage to habitats that may be important for Council managed species.
        The EFH amendments also would establish six Aleutian Islands Coral Habitat Protection Areas (AICHPAs) that would be closed to all bottom contact gear (nonpelagic trawl, hook-and-line, pot, dredge, and dinglebar gears) and to anchoring by fishing vessels. These areas contain especially diverse and fragile living habitat structures that are particularly sensitive to the impacts of bottom contact gear and anchoring, and have long recovery times once damaged. The Council determined that a higher level of protection is appropriate for these uncommon habitats.
        In the GOA, the EFH amendments would establish ten GOA Slope Habitat Conservation Areas (GOASHCAs) where nonpelagic trawling for groundfish would be prohibited. These areas would provide refuge for rockfish and other managed species and long term protection for corals. Pelagic trawl gear used in the directed pollock fishery would be allowed in the AIHCA, AICHPAs, and GOASHCAs only in an off-bottom mode based on the performance standard contained in 50 CFR 679.7(a)(14).
        HAPC Amendments

        The Council also recommended three actions to identify and manage HAPCs. Action 1 identifies 15 Alaska Seamount Habitat Protection Areas where all bottom contact gear and anchoring by fishing vessels would be prohibited. Seamounts provide unique oceanographic and living habitat features that provide important habitat for fish. Action 2 establishes the GOA Coral Habitat Protection Areas where all bottom contact gear and anchoring by fishing vessels would be prohibited. During survey work using submersible dives, NMFS identified dense thickets of Primnoa sp. coral in these areas. These living habitat structures grow very slowly, are sensitive to disturbance by bottom contact gear and anchoring, have long recovery times, and have been identified as potential refugia for managed species. Restricting bottom contact gear and anchoring would ensure the living structures would be protected from fishing activities that may adversely impact the habitat.
        Action 3 would designate the Bowers Ridge Habitat Conservation Zone (BRHCZ) as a HAPC located in the BSAI and would prohibit mobile bottom contact fishing gear (nonpelagic trawl, dredge, and dinglebar gear) in this area. The Council recommended limiting the fishery prohibition for the BRHCZ to mobile bottom contact gear until more research can be done in this area to determine if additional restrictions would be appropriate for fixed gear fisheries. The mobile bottom contact gear prohibition would provide precautionary management for Bowers Ridge and the Ulm Plateau based on the limited information available for these sites located in the BRHCZ.
        Scallop FMP Update
        In April 2005, the Council unanimously voted to adopt Amendment 11, a housekeeping amendment that would update the scallop FMP to reflect the current management of the scallop fishery and recent biological information. No implementing regulations would be required for this amendment.
        Public Comments

        NMFS is soliciting public comments on the proposed amendments through April 7, 2006. A proposed rule that would implement the EFH and HAPC amendments will be published in the Federal Register for public comment at a later date, following NMFS' evaluation under the Magnuson-Stevens Act procedures. Public comments on the proposed rule must be received by the end of the comment period on the amendments in order to be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the amendments. All comments received on the amendments by the end of the comment period, whether specifically directed to the amendments or to the proposed rule, will be considered in the approval/disapproval decision. Comments received after that date will not be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the amendments. To be considered, comments must be received—not just postmarked or otherwise transmitted—by close of business on the last day of the comment period.

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

          Dated: January 31, 2006.
          Alan D. Risenhoover,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 06-1083 Filed 2-3-06; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        [Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2014-0041; 4500030113]
        RIN 1018-BA05
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 6-Month Extension of Final Determination on the Proposed Threatened Status for the West Coast Distinct Population Segment of Fisher

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; reopening of the comment period.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 6-month extension of the final determination of whether to list the West Coast distinct population segment (DPS) of fisher (Pekania pennanti) as a threatened species. We also reopen the comment period on the proposed rule to list the species for an additional 30 days. We are taking this action based on substantial disagreement regarding available information related to toxicants and rodenticides (including law enforcement information and trend data) and related to surveyed versus unsurveyed areas (including data on negative survey results) to help assess distribution and population trends. Comments previously submitted need not be resubmitted as they are already incorporated into the public record and will be fully considered in the final rule. We will submit a final listing determination to the Federal Register on or before April 7, 2016.

          DATES:

          We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before May 14, 2015. If you comment using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES), you must submit your comments by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
          (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter the docket number for this proposed rule, which is FWS-R8-ES-2014-0041. Then click on the Search button. You may submit a comment by clicking on “Comment Now!” Please ensure that you have found the correct rulemaking before submitting your comment.
          (2) U.S. mail or hand delivery: Public Comments Processing, Attn: Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2014-0041; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: BPHC; 5275 Leesburg Pike; Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Erin Williams, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Yreka Fish and Wildlife Office, 1829 South Oregon Street, Yreka, CA 96097; telephone 530-842-5763; facsimile 530-842-4517. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Background

        On October 7, 2014, we published a proposed rule (79 FR 60419) to list the West Coast DPS of fisher as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). That proposal had a 90-day comment period, ending January 5, 2015. On December 23, 2014, we extended the proposal's comment period for an additional 30 days, ending February 4, 2015 (79 FR 76950). For a description of previous Federal actions concerning the West Coast DPS of fisher, please refer to the October 7, 2014, proposed listing rule (79 FR 60419). We also solicited and received independent scientific review of the information contained in the proposed rule from peer reviewers with expertise in the West Coast DPS of fisher or similar species biology, in accordance with our July 1, 1994, peer review policy (59 FR 34270).
        Section 4(b)(6) of the Act and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.17(a) require that we take one of three actions within 1 year of a proposed listing and concurrent proposed designation of critical habitat: (1) Finalize the proposed rule; (2) withdraw the proposed rule; or (3) extend the final determination by not more than 6 months, if there is substantial disagreement regarding the sufficiency or accuracy of the available data relevant to the determination.
        Since the publication of the October 7, 2014, proposed listing rule, there has been substantial disagreement regarding available information related to toxicants and rodenticides (including law enforcement information and trend data) and related to surveyed versus unsurveyed areas (including data on negative survey results) to help assess distribution and population trends.
        We find that there is substantial scientific uncertainty and disagreement about certain data relevant to our listing determination. Therefore, in consideration of these disagreements, we have determined that a 6-month extension of the final determination for this rulemaking is necessary, and we are hereby extending the final determination for 6 months in order to solicit and consider additional information that will help to clarify these issues and to fully analyze data that are relevant to our final listing determination. With this 6-month extension, we will make a final determination on the proposed rule no later than April 7, 2016.
        Information Requested

        We will accept written comments and information during this reopened comment period on our proposed listing for the West Coast DPS of fisher that was published in the Federal Register on October 7, 2014 (79 FR 60419). We will consider information and recommendations from all interested parties. We intend that any final action resulting from the proposal be as accurate as possible and based on the best available scientific and commercial data.
        In consideration of the scientific disagreements about certain data, we are particularly interested in new information and comments regarding:
        (1) Information related to toxicants and rodenticides (including law enforcement information and trend data);
        (2) Information regarding areas that have been surveyed compared to areas that have not been surveyed. We are also interested in negative survey results to help assess distribution and population trends.
        If you previously submitted comments or information on the October 7, 2014, proposed rule, please do not resubmit them. We have incorporated previously submitted comments into the public record, and we will fully consider them in the preparation of our final determination. Our final determination concerning the proposed listing will take into consideration all written comments and any additional information we receive.

        You may submit your comments and materials concerning the proposed rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section above. We request that you send comments only by the methods described in the ADDRESSES section.

        If you submit information via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire submission—including any personal identifying information—will be posted on the Web site. If your submission is made via a hardcopy that includes personal identifying information, 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. We will post all hardcopy submissions on http://www.regulations.gov.

        Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing the proposed rule, 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, Yreka Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). You may obtain copies of the proposed rule on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2014-0041. Copies of the proposed rule are also available at http://www.fws.gov/cno/es/fisher/.

        Authority

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

          Dated: March 26, 2015.
          James W. Kurth,
          Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

      [FR Doc. 2015-08275 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        [4500090022]
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Findings on Petitions to List 13 Species as Endangered or Threatened Species

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Notice of 12-month petition findings.

          SUMMARY:
          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce 12-month findings on petitions to list 13 species as endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). After a thorough review of the best available scientific and commercial information, we find that it is not warranted at this time to list the Cedar Key mole skink, Florida sandhill crane, Fremont County rockcress, Frisco buckwheat, Ostler's peppergrass, Frisco clover, MacGillivray's seaside sparrow, Ozark pyrg, pale blue-eyed grass, San Joaquin Valley giant flower-loving fly, striped newt, Tinian monarch, and Tippecanoe darter. However, we ask the public to submit to us at any time any new information that becomes available relevant to the status of any of the species mentioned above or their habitats.

          DATES:
          The findings in this document were made on December 19, 2018.

          ADDRESSES:

          Detailed descriptions of the basis for each of these findings are available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov under the following docket numbers:

            Species
            Docket No.

            Cedar Key mole skink
            FWS-R4-ES-2015-0047

            Florida sandhill crane
            FWS-R4-ES-2018-0099

            Fremont County rockcress
            FWS-R6-ES-2018-0049

            Frisco buckwheat, Ostler's peppergrass, and Frisco clover
            FWS-R6-ES-2018-0100

            MacGillivray's seaside sparrow
            FWS-R4-ES-2018-0067

            Ozark pyrg
            FWS-R4-ES-2018-0101

            Pale blue-eyed grass
            FWS-R1-ES-2018-0102

            San Joaquin Valley giant flower-loving fly
            FWS-R8-ES-2015-0023

            Striped newt
            FWS-R4-ES-2018-0065

            Tinian monarch
            FWS-R1-ES-2018-0103

            Tippecanoe darter
            FWS-R5-ES-2018-0066

        Supporting information used to prepare these findings is available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours, by contacting the appropriate person, as specified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Please submit any new information, materials, comments, or questions concerning these findings to the appropriate person, as specified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

              Species
              Contact information

              Cedar Key mole skink
              Jay Herrington, Field Supervisor, North Florida Ecological Services Field Office, 904-731-3191.

              Florida sandhill crane
              Jay Herrington, Field Supervisor, North Florida Ecological Services Field Office, 904-731-3191.

              Fremont County rockcress
              Tyler Abbot, Project Leader, Wyoming Ecological Services Field Office, 307-772-2374, ext. 231.

              Frisco buckwheat, Ostler's peppergrass, and Frisco clover
              Jennifer Lewinsohn, Biologist, Utah Ecological Services Field Office, 801-597-8352.

              MacGillivray's seaside sparrow
              Thomas McCoy, Field Supervisor, South Carolina Ecological Services Field Office, 843-300-0431.

              Ozark pyrg
              Melvin Tobin, Field Supervisor, Arkansas Ecological Services Field Office, 501- 513-4473.

              pale blue-eyed grass
              Karen Reagan, Biologist, Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, 360-753-7762.

              San Joaquin Valley giant flower-loving fly
              Josh Hull, Recovery and Listing Division Chief, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, 916-414-6742.

              striped newt
              Jay Herrington, Field Supervisor, Northeast Florida Ecological Services Field Office, 904-731-3191.

              Tinian monarch
              Mary Abrams, Field Supervisor, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, 808-792-9400.

              Tippecanoe darter
              Robert Anderson, Field Supervisor, Pennsylvania Field Office, 814-234-4090, ext. 7447.

          If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Background

        We are required to make a finding whether or not the petitioned action is warranted within 12 months after receiving any petition we determined contained substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted (section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)) (“12-month finding”). We must make a finding that the petitioned action is: (1) Not warranted; (2) warranted; or (3) warranted but precluded. “Warranted but precluded” means that (a) the petitioned action is warranted, but the immediate proposal of a regulation implementing the petitioned action is precluded by other pending proposals to determine whether species are endangered or threatened species, and (b) expeditious progress is being made to add qualified species to the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists) and to remove from the Lists species for which the protections of the Act are no longer necessary. Section 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that we treat a petition for which the requested action is found to be warranted but precluded as though resubmitted on the date of such finding, that is, requiring that a subsequent finding be made within 12 months of that date. We must publish these 12-month findings in the Federal Register.

        Summary of Information Pertaining to the Five Factors
        Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing regulations at part 424 of title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth procedures for adding species to, removing species from, or reclassifying species on the Lists. The Act defines “endangered species” as any species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range (16 U.S.C. 1532(6)), and “threatened species” as any species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range (16 U.S.C. 1532(20)). Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, a species may be determined to be an endangered species or a threatened species because of any of the following five factors:
        (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its 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.
        In considering whether a species may meet the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species because of any of the five factors, we must look beyond the mere exposure of the species to the stressor to determine whether the species responds to the stressor in a way that causes actual impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a stressor, but no response, or only a positive response, that stressor does not cause a species to meet the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species. If there is exposure and the species responds negatively, we determine whether that stressor drives or contributes to the risk of extinction of the species such that the species warrants listing as an endangered or threatened species. The mere identification of stressors that could affect a species negatively is not sufficient to compel a finding that listing is or remains warranted. For a species to be listed or remain listed, we require evidence that these stressors are operative threats to the species and its habitat, either singly or in combination, to the point that the species meets the definition of an endangered or a threatened species under the Act.

        In conducting our evaluation of the five factors provided in section 4(a)(1) of the Act to determine whether the Cedar Key mole skink (Plestiodon egregius insularis), Florida sandhill crane (Antigone canadensis pratensis), Boechera pusilla (Fremont County rockcress), Eriogonum soredium (Frisco buckwheat), Lepidium ostleri (Ostler's peppergrass), Trifolium friscanum (Frisco clover), MacGillivray's seaside sparrow (Ammodramus maritimus macgillivraii), Ozark pyrg (Marstonia ozarkensis), Sisyrinchium sarmentosum (pale blue-eyed grass), San Joaquin Valley giant flower-loving fly (Rhaphiomidas trochilus), striped newt (Notophthalmus perstriatus), Tinian monarch (Monarcha takatsukasae), and Tippecanoe darter (Etheostoma tippecanoe) meet the definition of “endangered species” or “threatened species,” we considered and thoroughly evaluated the best scientific and commercial information available regarding the past, present, and future stressors and threats. We reviewed the petitions, information available in our files, and other available published and unpublished information. These evaluations may include information from recognized experts; Federal, State, and tribal governments; academic institutions; foreign governments; private entities; and other members of the public.

        The species assessment forms for the Cedar Key mole skink, Florida sandhill crane, Fremont County rockcress, Frisco buckwheat, Ostler's peppergrass, Frisco clover, MacGillivray's seaside sparrow, Ozark pyrg, pale blue-eyed grass, San Joaquin Valley giant flower-loving fly, striped newt, Tinian monarch, and Tippecanoe darter contain more detailed biological information, a thorough analysis of the listing factors, and an explanation of why we determined that these species do not meet the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species. This supporting information can be found on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov under the appropriate docket number (see
          ADDRESSES, above). The following are informational summaries for each of the findings in this document.
        Cedar Key Mole Skink
        Previous Federal Actions

        On July 11, 2012, we received a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity, C. Kenneth Dodd, Jr., Kenney Krysko, Michael J. Lannoo, Thomas Lovejoy, Allen Salzberg, and Edward O. Wilson to list 53 amphibians and reptiles, including the Cedar Key mole skink, as endangered or threatened species under the Act and to designate critical habitat. On July 1, 2015, we published the 90-day finding in the Federal Register (80 FR 37568), concluding that the petition presented substantial information indicating the Cedar Key mole skink may warrant listing. This document constitutes the 12-month finding on the July 11, 2012, petition to list the Cedar Key mole skink under the Act.
        Summary of Finding
        The Cedar Key mole skink is a shiny brown lizard reaching a total length of approximately 15 centimeters (5.9 inches) with the light pink colored tail accounting for two-thirds of the length. This subspecies is semi-fossorial (adapted to digging, burrowing, and living underground) and cryptic in nature but has also been seen running along the substrate surface when exposed.
        The Cedar Key mole skink inhabits the beach berm and dry coastal hammock habitats on eight islands of the Cedar Keys along a 10-mile section of Levy County along Florida's Gulf Coast. The Cedar Key mole skink relies on dry, unconsolidated soils for movement, cover, and nesting.

        We evaluated all relevant factors under the five factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and conservation measures ameliorating stressors. The primary stressors include effects of sea-level rise and climate change-associated shifts in rainfall, temperature, and storm intensities. The continued occurrence of the Cedar Key mole skink in low numbers on two of the historically surveyed islands, as well as recent observations on five additional islands, indicates a level of resiliency to the stressors that have been acting upon the subspecies in the past and are currently acting on it. In addition, over time, the subspecies has persisted on multiple islands, providing a level of redundancy that will help the Cedar Key mole skink withstand the potential increased catastrophic events into the future. Finally, the subspecies should continue to exhibit a level of representation with suitable habitat continuing to occur on multiple islands in varying sizes and elevations across the range of the subspecies. In sum, we find that the continued presence of occupied habitat (as well as potentially occupied suitable habitat) and projected continuance of suitable habitat across the subspecies' range continues to provide a level of resiliency, redundancy, and representation to the subspecies such that the Cedar Key mole skink is not presently in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range or likely to become so within the foreseeable future. We find that the stressors acting on the subspecies and its habitat, either singly or in combination, are not of sufficient imminence, intensity, or magnitude to indicate that this subspecies meets the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species. Therefore, we find that listing the Cedar Key mole skink as an endangered species or threatened species is not warranted. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in the Cedar Key mole skink species assessment form and other supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, above).
        Florida Sandhill Crane
        Previous Federal Actions

        On April 20, 2010, we received a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity, the Alabama Rivers Alliance, the Clinch Coalition, Dogwood Alliance, the Gulf Restoration Network, Tennessee Forests Council, and the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy to list 404 aquatic, riparian, and wetland species, including the Florida sandhill crane, as endangered or threatened species under the Act. On September 27, 2011, we published a 90-day finding in the Federal Register (76 FR 59836), concluding that the petition presented substantial information indicating the Florida sandhill crane may warrant listing. This document constitutes the 12-month finding on the April 20, 2010, petition to list the Florida sandhill crane under the Act.
        Summary of Finding
        Florida sandhill cranes are graceful, monogamous, long-lived birds in the Gruidae family. This subspecies is one of six that reside in North America, and one of three that are non-migratory. The Florida sandhill crane is a single, large population that ranges from the Okefenokee Swamp in southern Georgia to the Everglades in southern Florida, overlapping with the greater sandhill crane subspecies during the winter season. Both males and females raise one to two chicks per nesting attempt and are able to re-nest two to three times per year, if necessary.
        Florida sandhill cranes use a variety of adjacent, open upland habitats, including grasslands, prairies, emergent palustrine wetlands, open pine forests, pastures, and forest-pasture transition areas. They also use the transition areas between wetland and upland habitats, and they feed in human-manipulated environments year-round, such as (but not limited to) agricultural lands, golf courses, airports, and suburban areas.

        We evaluated all relevant factors under the five factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and conservation measures ameliorating stressors. The primary threats to the Florida sandhill crane include habitat loss/conversion/degradation, changing climate conditions (drought and precipitation/heavy rain events), and mortalities resulting from predation, collisions, or human interactions/nest disturbances. The most significant of these threats for the long-term persistence of Florida sandhill crane is loss, conversion, or degradation of suitable habitat. Habitat has been lost historically and is expected to be lost or converted into the future. However, the Florida sandhill crane continues to currently occupy its historical range, and is also expected to in the future, albeit as a smaller (i.e., less abundant) population than is currently represented. Its demonstrated ability to adapt to and use agricultural and suburban habitats (e.g., croplands, pastures, golf courses, recreational areas) for breeding, nesting, and feeding activities help ensure its resiliency into the future. Although drought, precipitation changes/events, and direct mortalities will play a role on the species' resource needs and reproductive success, the best available information suggests that any impacts are affecting and likely to affect the subspecies at the individual level as opposed to the population/rangewide level both currently and in the future. Therefore, we find that listing the Florida sandhill crane as endangered or threatened is not warranted. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in the Florida sandhill crane species assessment form and other supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, above).
        Fremont County Rockcress
        Previous Federal Actions

        On July 30, 2007, we received a petition from Forest Guardians (now WildEarth Guardians), to list 206 Mountain-Prairie Region species, including the Fremont County rockcress, as endangered or threatened species under the Act. On August 18, 2009, we published a 90-day finding in the Federal Register (74 FR 41649), concluding that the petition presented substantial information indicating the Fremont County rockcress may warrant listing. On June 9, 2011, we published a 12-month finding in the Federal Register (76 FR 33924), concluding that listing the Fremont County rockcress is warranted based on survey information indicating the species was in decline. However, listing the species was precluded at that time by higher priority actions, and the species was added to the candidate species list with a listing priority number of 8. We subsequently addressed the status of the species annually in our candidate notices of review (76 FR 66370, October 26, 2011; 77 FR 69994, November 21, 2012; 78 FR 70104, November 22, 2013; 79 FR 72450, December 5, 2014; 80 FR 80584, December 24, 2015; 81 FR 87246, December 2, 2016). In 2016, we revised the listing priority number from an 8 to an 11 because we found that the threats affecting the species were no longer high in magnitude nor were they imminent, and were instead low in magnitude and non-imminent.
        Summary of Finding
        The Fremont County rockcress is a narrow endemic perennial herb known to occur on approximately 18 acres (7 hectares) of habitat in the southern foothills of the Wind River Range, Wyoming. The species' habitat consists of sparsely vegetated, course, granite soil pockets in exposed granite-pegmatite (igneous rock solidified from lava or magma) outcrops, and the habitat faces extreme cold temperature and wind conditions. The species is also characterized by its reproductive system, in which individual plants reproduce through asexual seed production.
        We evaluated all relevant factors under the five factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and conservation measures ameliorating stressors. To assess the resiliency of the species, we reviewed the abundance of flowering and non-flowering individuals and colonization of populations, which is driven by the species' reproductive system, winter precipitation, soil availability, sunlight, and freedom from competition. Stochastic events such as severe precipitation events, wildfire, and invasions of nonnative, invasive species affect the resiliency of the species. However, we find that there are no stressors currently impacting the species; the species has demonstrated persistence as a narrow endemic; there are protections in place to benefit the species; and its sole occurrence has sufficiently high levels of flowering plant abundance, colonization, and suitable habitat factors.

        Considering that Fremont County rockcress presently exhibits high levels of resiliency, and is expected to continue to be resilient within the foreseeable future while retaining sufficient adaptive capacity and the ability to withstand catastrophic events, we find that the species is not presently in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range or likely to become so within the foreseeable future. Therefore, we find that listing Fremont County rockcress as an endangered species or threatened species is not warranted. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in the Fremont County rockcress species assessment form and other supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, above).
        Frisco Buckwheat, Ostler's Peppergrass, and Frisco Clover
        Previous Federal Actions

        On July 30, 2007, we received a petition from Forest Guardians (now WildEarth Guardians), to list 206 Mountain-Prairie Region species, including the Frisco buckwheat, Ostler's peppergrass, and Frisco clover, as endangered or threatened species under the Act. On August 18, 2009, we published 90-day findings in the Federal Register (74 FR 41649), concluding that the petition presented substantial information indicating the Frisco buckwheat, Ostler's peppergrass, and Frisco clover may warrant listing. On February 23, 2011, we published 12-month findings in the Federal Register (76 FR 10166), concluding that listing the Frisco buckwheat, Ostler's peppergrass, and Frisco clover is warranted primarily due to the threat of habitat destruction from mining activities. However, listing the species was precluded at that time by higher priority actions, and the species were added to the candidate species list with listing priority numbers of 8. We subsequently addressed the status of these species annually in our candidate notices of review (76 FR 66370, October 26, 2011; 77 FR 69994, November 21, 2012; 78 FR 70104, November 22, 2013; 79 FR 72450, December 5, 2014; 80 FR 80584, December 24, 2015; 81 FR 87246, December 2, 2016).
        Summary of Finding
        The Frisco buckwheat, Ostler's peppergrass, and Frisco clover are rare endemic plants species found only in Utah. These species are addressed here together as they occupy roughly the same area, have similar life histories, and face similar potential threats. Frisco buckwheat and Ostler's peppergrass occur together in three populations, occupying 297 acres (120 hectares) and 153 acres (62 hectares) of habitat, respectively. The Frisco clover is known from six populations and occupies 360 acres (146 hectares) of habitat.
        These three species are long-lived perennial plants that flower in the spring and summer months and likely require pollinators for maximum reproduction. Plant survival and successful recruitment require suitable intact soils with microsites for establishment and growth. The low canopy coverage of associated vegetation must result in low plant competition but also appears to provide sufficient floral resources to support pollinators. The health (long-term productivity) of populations is affected by the population size, habitat quantity, and habitat quality available to support stable or increasing populations. In addition to proximity between populations, habitat connectivity is important to support gene flow within populations.

        We evaluated all relevant factors under the five factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and conservation measures ameliorating stressors. The primary stressors are precious metal exploration and mining; stone mining; nonnative, invasive species; and climate change. We found that there has been no reduction in redundancy or representation from historic conditions for these species. Currently, there is some stone mining occurring with minimum overlap with the plant populations and no significant impact on current viability. Despite some impacts from mining, invasive species, and climate change, the species are likely to face minimal decreases in population resiliency and minimal reduction in redundancy and representation, with all populations persisting within the foreseeable future. Therefore, we find that listing the Frisco buckwheat, Ostler's peppergrass, and Frisco clover as endangered or threatened is not warranted. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in the Frisco buckwheat, Ostler's peppergrass, and Frisco clover species assessment form and other supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, above).

        MacGillivray's Seaside Sparrow
        Previous Federal Actions

        On April 20, 2010, we received a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity, the Alabama Rivers Alliance, the Clinch Coalition, Dogwood Alliance, the Gulf Restoration Network, Tennessee Forests Council, and the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy to list 404 aquatic, riparian, and wetland species, including the MacGillivray's seaside sparrow, as endangered or threatened species under the Act. On September 27, 2011, we published a 90-day finding in the Federal Register (76 FR 59836), concluding that the petition presented substantial information indicating the MacGillivray's seaside sparrow may warrant listing. Subsequently, we entered into a stipulated settlement agreement with the Center for Biological Diversity that required us to submit a 12-month finding to the Federal Register by September 30, 2018. The court later agreed to extend this deadline until December 15, 2018. This document constitutes the 12-month finding on the April 20, 2010, petition to list the MacGillivray's seaside sparrow under the Act.
        Summary of Finding
        The MacGillivray's seaside sparrow is a subspecies of seaside sparrow that occurs in Atlantic coastal marshes in South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. The MacGillivray's seaside sparrow is an olive-gray bird with a relatively long bill and short, sharp tail, and the subspecies reaches approximately 14 to 15 centimeters (5.5 to 6 inches) in length.
        MacGillivray's seaside sparrows spend their entire life in coastal salt and brackish marshes. The subspecies is currently characterized by four breeding populations. In South Carolina, the subspecies breeds in lower elevation areas of natural high marsh and impoundments; in Georgia, the MacGillivray's seaside sparrow breeds in higher elevation areas of natural low salt marsh. The subspecies needs dense herbaceous cover for nesting and sheltering, and high tide roosting sites in the marsh to evade flooding. Adult MacGillivray's seaside sparrows have behavioral adaptations to balance the trade-off in risk from predation and flooding to nest success, and, therefore, will shift nest-site placement along a nest height gradient to contend with these dual risks.
        We evaluated all relevant factors under the five factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and conservation measures ameliorating stressors. The primary stressors are predation, tidal flooding, sea level rise, and increased storm frequency due to climate change. We conclude that the viability of the MacGillivray's seaside sparrow will continue to be characterized by four breeding populations across most of the current range of coastal marshes in South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida in the near term and within the foreseeable future. In addition, although sea level rise will cause the loss of high abundance breeding habitat, the MacGillivray's seaside sparrow will continue to occur in different habitat types and thus will maintain some adaptive capacity in the future.

        We find that the stressors acting on the subspecies and its habitat, either singly or in combination, are not of sufficient imminence, intensity, or magnitude to indicate that this subspecies meets the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species. Therefore, we find that listing the MacGillivray's seaside sparrow as endangered or threatened is not warranted. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in the MacGillivray's seaside sparrow species assessment form and other supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, above).
        Ozark Pyrg
        Previous Federal Actions

        On April 20, 2010, we received a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity, the Alabama Rivers Alliance, the Clinch Coalition, Dogwood Alliance, the Gulf Restoration Network, Tennessee Forests Council, and the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy to list 404 aquatic, riparian, and wetland species, including the Ozark pyrg, as endangered or threatened species under the Act. On September 27, 2011, we published a 90-day finding in the Federal Register (76 FR 59836), concluding that the petition presented substantial information indicating the Ozark pyrg may warrant listing. This document constitutes the 12-month finding on the April 20, 2010, petition to list the Ozark pyrg under the Act.
        Summary of Finding
        The Ozark pyrg is a freshwater snail historically found in a shoal of the White River near Cotter, Arkansas, and in the North Fork White River near the confluence. No specific life-history data exist regarding the species' reproduction, diet, age, growth, population size structure, or fecundity. However, many species within the same genus are adapted to springs, ponds, and other sensitive aquatic habitats. Some of these species also show a preference for gravel and pebble substrates and shallower water depths.

        Based on extensive surveys between 1915, when the species was first described, and 2010 throughout the range of the species in Arkansas and Missouri that have yielded no specimens, and the extreme modification of the habitat at the species' type locality, the best available science indicates there are no extant populations of the Ozark pyrg. Therefore, we determine the Ozark pyrg to be extinct. As a result, the Ozark pyrg does not meet the statutory definition of either an endangered species or a threatened species and, accordingly, does not warrant listing under the Act. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in the Ozark pyrg species assessment form and other supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, above).
        Pale Blue-Eyed Grass
        Previous Federal Actions

        On July 30, 2007, we received a petition from Forest Guardians (now WildEarth Guardians), to list 206 Mountain-Prairie Region species, including the pale blue-eyed grass, as endangered or threatened species under the Act. On August 18, 2009, we published a 90-day finding in the Federal Register (74 FR 41649), concluding that the petition presented substantial information indicating the pale blue-eyed grass may warrant listing. This document constitutes the 12-month finding on the July 30, 2007, petition to list the pale blue-eyed grass under the Act.
        Summary of Finding

        The pale blue-eyed grass is a long-lived perennial herb in the iris family that produces small, pale blue flowers. The species is a narrow endemic known from a limited area in the Cascade Range of south-central Washington and north-central Oregon. Individual plants need early seral, open habitats with cool temperatures to break seed dormancy, adequate moisture to germinate and establish, and warm sunny days to stimulate flowering. Individual plants need pollinators for sexual exchange of genetic materials and adequate seed set but can reproduce by self-fertilizing and by sprouting rhizomes to reproduce vegetatively. Seeds need a dispersal mechanism that moves them away from the parent plant, thereby reducing intraspecific competition and exposure to pathogens that may have infected older established plants.

        For robust resiliency over time, it can be assumed that pale blue-eyed grass populations likely need numerous individuals representing a diversity of genotypes within habitat patches of adequate area, quality, and connectivity to maintain survival and reproduction in spite of disturbance and shifting environmental conditions. Redundant populations across the range are needed to increase the species' chances of surviving catastrophic events. Representation through genetic and environmental diversity within and among populations is necessary to conserve long-term adaptive capability.

        We evaluated all relevant factors under the five factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and conservation measures ameliorating stressors. The primary stressors affecting the pale blue-eyed grass' status include grazing, motor vehicles, invasive plants, putative hybridization, camping and recreation, habitat-disturbing management activities, habitat encroachment, and effects of climate change. Despite impacts from these stressors at an individual level, the species has maintained resilient populations. Although we predict some continued impacts from these stressors in the future, we anticipate the species will continue to be viable in resilient populations that are distributed widely throughout both of its representative areas (Washington and Oregon). Therefore, we find that listing the pale blue-eyed grass as an endangered species or threatened species is not warranted. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in the pale blue-eyed grass species assessment form and other supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, above).
        San Joaquin Valley Giant Flower-Loving Fly
        Previous Federal Actions

        On June 26, 2014, we received a petition from Gregory R. Ballmer and Kendall H. Osborne to list the San Joaquin Valley giant flower-loving fly as an endangered species under the Act. On April 10, 2015, we published a 90-day finding in the Federal Register (80 FR 19259), concluding that the petition presented substantial information indicating that listing the San Joaquin Valley giant flower-loving fly may be warranted. This document constitutes the 12-month finding on the June 26, 2014, petition to list the San Joaquin Valley giant flower-loving fly under the Act.
        Summary of Finding
        San Joaquin Valley giant flower-loving fly larvae have small, foot-like protrusions like caterpillars, and grow to about 6.4 centimeters (2.5 inches). They burrow down to moist sands below the surface, where they prey on the burrowing larvae of other insects. After 1 to 2 years, the fly larva produces a pupa, which metamorphoses into an adult. Adults are strong flyers, are 2.5 to 3.5 centimeters (1 to 1.5 inches) long, and live about 3 days. The species' “flight season” lasts about 7 weeks, from mid-August to early October. Males seek potential mates by sight, occasionally defending territories from other males. After mating, females lay eggs in shaded areas, either on the surface of bare sandy soil, or in shallow holes dug into the sand using their abdomens. Eggs likely hatch in about 10 days.
        The San Joaquin Valley giant flower-loving fly's known historical range includes eight locations across the San Joaquin Valley, California, but it is now known only from Sand Ridge, a large stable sand dune about 24 kilometers (15 miles) east of Bakersfield, in Kern County, California. For over 20 years prior to discovery of the Sand Ridge population in 1997, the species was thought to be extinct. A second, smaller population was also discovered in 1997, about 16 kilometers (10 miles) south of Bakersfield, but no individuals have been observed there since 2006.

        We evaluated all relevant factors under the five factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and conservation measures ameliorating stressors. The primary stressors that may be affecting the species include effects of climate change, urban and agricultural development, sand mining, vegetation overgrowth, small population size, off-highway vehicles, and pesticide drift. Despite the fly being dependent on rare areas of inland dune sand and having lost seven of eight historically known populations, we found that the remaining population provides sufficient resiliency, redundancy, and representation now and in the future. Further, we found that the stressors we assessed are not of sufficient imminence, intensity, or magnitude, either singly or in combination, to indicate that the fly is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range now or in the foreseeable future. Therefore, we find that listing the San Joaquin Valley giant flower-loving fly as an endangered species or threatened species is not warranted. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in the San Joaquin Valley giant flower-loving fly species assessment form and other supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, above).
        Striped Newt
        Previous Federal Actions

        On July 14, 2008, we received a petition from Dr. D. Bruce Means, Ryan C. Means, and Rebecca P.M. Means of the Coastal Plains Institute and Land Conservancy, requesting that the striped newt be listed as a threatened species under the Act. On March 23, 2010, we published a 90-day finding in the Federal Register (75 FR 13720), concluding that the petition presented substantial information indicating that listing the striped newt may be warranted. On June 7, 2011, we published a 12-month finding in the Federal Register (76 FR 32911), concluding that listing the striped newt was warranted due to threats associated with habitat loss, disease, drought, and inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms to address those threats. However, listing the species was precluded at that time by higher priority actions, and the species was added to the candidate species list with a listing priority number of 8. We subsequently addressed the status of the species annually in our candidate notices of review (76 FR 66370, October 26, 2011; 77 FR 69994, November 21, 2012; 78 FR 70104, November 22, 2013; 79 FR 72450, December 5, 2014; 80 FR 80584, December 24, 2015; 81 FR 87246, December 2, 2016).
        Summary of Finding

        The striped newt uses ephemeral wetlands and the upland habitat (e.g., scrub, mesic flatwoods, sandhills) that surrounds those wetlands. Striped newts have a lifespan of 12 to 15 years and use aquatic and terrestrial habitats during their complex life cycle. Adult striped newts can occur as both a gilled aquatic form and a terrestrial form.
        The current range of the striped newt extends from southern Georgia to north-central Florida, with 105 breeding ponds extant in Florida and 11 in Georgia. Striped newts are divided into two regions: the Eastern Region (peninsular Florida and eastern Georgia) and the Western Region (panhandle Florida and western Georgia). Patterns in precipitation and temperature cause ecological differentiation between these two regions.

        We evaluated all relevant factors under the five factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and conservation measures ameliorating stressors. The primary stressors are land use change, fire suppression, effects of climate change, and off-road vehicle impacts. Potential impacts associated with overutilization and predation were also analyzed but found not to affect the species to such an extent that they would have a negative impact on species' viability.
        We have concluded that the threats currently impacting the striped newt are of lower magnitude than were previously thought. Furthermore, new populations of striped newt have been discovered since the species was added to the candidate species list, resulting in increased resiliency, redundancy, and representation for the species. Additionally, past conservation efforts, including captive rearing and release of striped newts, have helped reestablish striped newt populations in previously extirpated areas, such as in the Apalachicola National Forest. Finally, 85 percent of striped newt populations currently occur on conserved lands.

        Based on the best available information, we find that the striped newt does not meet the definition of an endangered species or threatened species. Therefore, we find that listing the striped newt as an endangered species or threatened species is not warranted. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in the striped newt species assessment form and other supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, above).
        Tinian Monarch
        Previous Federal Actions

        On December 12, 2013, we received a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity requesting that the Tinian monarch be listed as an endangered or threatened species under the Act. On September 18, 2015, we published a 90-day finding in the Federal Register (80 FR 56423), concluding that the petition presented substantial information indicating that listing the Tinian monarch may be warranted. This document constitutes the 12-month finding on the December 12, 2013, petition to list the Tinian monarch under the Act.
        Summary of Finding
        The Tinian monarch is a small flycatcher bird about 15 centimeters (6 inches) bill to tail. Tinian monarchs are dull with light rufous underparts, olive-brown upperparts, and dark chocolate brown wings and tail. This species is endemic to the island of Tinian, which is part of the Northern Mariana Islands in the western Pacific Ocean.
        The Tinian monarch lives mainly in forested habitat where it shelters, breeds, and forages for insects. There are various types of forest on Tinian including native limestone, secondary-mixed, and nonnative tangantangan forest, all of which are inhabited by the monarch. Individuals breed year round beginning at about 2 years of age and live around 10 years.

        We evaluated all relevant factors under the five factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and conservation measures ameliorating stressors. The primary potential stressors affecting the Tinian monarch include the risk of the invasive, predatory brown treesnake establishing on Tinian and habitat loss from civilian and military development, including loss via potential resulting wildfires. We find that the risk of brown treesnake establishing on Tinian now and in the future is low, because of the sufficient interdiction program on Guam and Tinian that prevents the spread of the snake to areas where it is not found, including Tinian. We also find that despite extensive historical impacts to Tinian's forest habitat, the Tinian monarch is currently thriving. This is the result of expansive forest regrowth and the species' highly resilient nature, which is evidenced by its rebound following historical periods of habitat loss and by its ability to forage and reproduce within the remaining native forest, abundant nonnative forest, and mixed forest on Tinian. Therefore, we find that listing the Tinian monarch as an endangered species or threatened species is not warranted. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in the Tinian monarch species assessment form and other supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, above).
        Tippecanoe Darter
        Previous Federal Actions

        On April 20, 2010, we received a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity, the Alabama Rivers Alliance, the Clinch Coalition, Dogwood Alliance, the Gulf Restoration Network, Tennessee Forests Council, and the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy to list 404 aquatic, riparian, and wetland species, including the Tippecanoe darter, as endangered or threatened species under the Act. On September 27, 2011, we published a 90-day finding in the Federal Register (76 FR 59836), concluding that the petition presented substantial information indicating that listing the Tippecanoe darter may be warranted. This notice constitutes the 12-month finding on the April 20, 2010, petition to list the Tippecanoe darter under the Act.
        Summary of Finding
        The Tippecanoe darter is one of the smallest species of darters (35 millimeters (1.38 inches) in length). Males are distinguished by their gold or orange color with blue-black vertical bars, while females are more subdued in color. The fish has a relatively widespread, disjunct distribution with 12 of its 15 historical populations extant across six States: Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and West Virginia. The species is expanding its range in some areas.
        Tippecanoe darters inhabit fourth-order and larger streams and rivers, and prefer riffles and runs with rocky bottom substrates and adequate water flow to keep spaces between and under rocks free from sediment. Individuals are mature within their first year, spawn in May to early August, and live to between 1 and 2 years of age.
        We evaluated all relevant factors under the five factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and conservation measures ameliorating stressors. The primary stressors affecting the Tippecanoe darter include habitat fragmentation from dams and impairments to water quality, including sedimentation and agricultural and urban runoff. Despite impacts from these stressors, the species has maintained resilient populations and is increasing occupancy in some reaches, likely due to improved water quality or improved survey techniques. Although we predict some continued impacts from these stressors in the future, we anticipate the species will persist in resilient populations that are distributed widely throughout each of its representative physiographic provinces.

        In summary, we find that the stressors acting on the species and its habitat, either singly or in combination, are not of sufficient imminence, intensity, or magnitude to indicate that this species meets the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species. Therefore, we find that listing the Tippecanoe darter as an endangered species or threatened species is not warranted. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in the Tippecanoe darter species assessment form and other supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, above).
        New Information

        We request that you submit any new information concerning the taxonomy of, biology of, ecology of, status of, or stressors to the Cedar Key mole skink, Florida sandhill crane, Fremont County rockcress, Frisco buckwheat, Ostler's peppergrass, Frisco clover, MacGillivray's seaside sparrow, Ozark pyrg, pale blue-eyed grass, San Joaquin Valley giant flower-loving fly, striped newt, Tinian monarch, and Tippecanoe darter to the appropriate person, as specified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, whenever it becomes available. New information will help us monitor these species and make appropriate decisions about their conservation and status. We encourage local agencies and stakeholders to continue cooperative monitoring and conservation efforts.
        References Cited

        Lists of the references cited in the petition findings are available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov in the dockets provided above in ADDRESSES and upon request from the appropriate person, as specified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
        Authors
        The primary authors of this document are the staff members of the Species Assessment Team, Ecological Services Program.
        Authority

        The authority for this action is section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

          Dated: December 7, 2018.
          Margaret E. Everson,
          Principal Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Exercising the Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

      [FR Doc. 2018-27467 Filed 12-18-18; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 4333-15-P