        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        [Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2012-0072: 4500030113]
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Eagle Lake Rainbow Trout as an Endangered or Threatened Species

          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, announce a 90-day finding on a petition to list the Eagle Lake rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss aquilarum) as an endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Based on our review, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the Eagle Lake rainbow trout may be warranted. Therefore, with the publication of this notice, we are initiating a review of the status of the subspecies to determine if listing the Eagle Lake rainbow trout is warranted. To ensure that this status review is comprehensive, we are requesting scientific and commercial data and other information regarding this subspecies. Based on the status review, we will issue a 12-month finding on the petition, which will address whether the petitioned action is warranted, as provided in section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act.

          DATES:

          We request that we receive information on or before November 5, 2012. The deadline for submitting an electronic comment using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES section, below) is 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on this date. After November 5, 2012, you must submit information directly to the Division of Policy and Directives Management (see ADDRESSES section below). Please note that we might not be able to address or incorporate information that we receive after the above requested date.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit information by one of the following methods:
          (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2012-0072, which is the docket number for this action. Then click on the Search button. You may submit a comment by clicking on “Comment Now!”
          (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R8-ES-2012-0072; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.

          We will not accept email or faxes. We will post all information we receive on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see the Request for Information section, below, for more details).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Susan Moore, Field Supervisor, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, telephone at 916-414-6600; or facsimile at 916-414-6712. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Request for Information
        When we make a finding that a petition presents substantial information indicating that listing a species may be warranted, we are required to promptly review the status of the species (status review). For the status review to be complete and based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we request information on Eagle Lake rainbow trout from governmental agencies, Native American tribes, the scientific community, industry, and any other interested parties. We seek information on:
        (1) The species' biology, range, and population trends, including:
        (a) Habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
        (b) Genetics and taxonomy;
        (c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns;
        (d) Historical and current population levels, and current and projected trends; and
        (e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, its habitat, or both.

        (2) The factors that are the basis for making a listing determination for a species under section 4(a) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), which are:
        (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; and
        (e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
        If, after the status review, we determine that listing the Eagle Lake rainbow trout is warranted, we will propose critical habitat (see definition in section 3(5)(A) of the Act) under section 4 of the Act, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable at the time we propose to list the species. Therefore, we also request data and information on:
        (1) What may constitute “physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species,” within the geographical range currently occupied by the species;
        (2) Where these features are currently found;
        (3) Whether any of these features may require special management considerations or protection;
        (4) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species that are “essential for the conservation of the species”; and
        (5) What, if any, critical habitat you think we should propose for designation if the species is proposed for listing, and why such habitat meets the requirements of section 4 of the Act.
        Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
        Submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the action under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in making a determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or threatened species must be made “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.”

        You may submit your information concerning this status review by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. 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 personal identifying 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.

        Information and supporting documentation that we received and used in preparing this finding is available for you to review at http://www.regulations.gov, or by appointment during normal business hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
        Background

        Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires that we make a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. We are to base this finding on information provided in the petition, supporting information submitted with the petition, and information otherwise available in our files. To the maximum extent practicable, we are to make this finding within 90 days of our receipt of the petition, and publish our notice of the finding promptly in the Federal Register.
        Our standard for substantial scientific or commercial information within the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90-day petition finding is “that amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted” (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we find that substantial scientific or commercial information was presented, we are required to promptly conduct a species status review, which we subsequently summarize in our 12-month finding.
        The “substantial information” standard for a 90-day finding differs from the Act's “best scientific and commercial data” standard that applies to a status review to determine whether a petitioned action is warranted. A 90-day finding does not constitute a status review under the Act. In a 12-month finding, we will announce our determination as to whether a petitioned action is warranted after we have completed a thorough status review of the species, which is conducted following a substantial 90-day finding. Because the Act's standards for a 90-day finding and the status review conducted for a 12-month finding on a petition are different, as described above, a substantial 90-day finding does not mean that our status review and resulting determination will result in a warranted finding.
        Petition History and Previous Federal Actions

        On April 28, 1994, we received a petition, dated April 25, 1994, from Mr. John F. Bosta of Susanville, California, requesting that the Eagle Lake rainbow trout be listed as an endangered or threatened species, with critical habitat, under the Act. On August 7, 1995, we published our 90-day finding in the Federal Register (60 FR 40149) that the petition did not present substantial scientific or commercial information to indicate the petitioned action may be warranted. We based the finding on the lack of supporting information included with the petition, and on the existence of significant conservation efforts then underway.
        On August 15, 2003, we received a new petition, dated August 14, 2003, again from Mr. John Bosta of Amargosa Valley, Nevada, requesting that the Eagle Lake rainbow trout be listed as an endangered or threatened species under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, as required by 50 CFR 424.14(a). On October 6, 2003, we received a similar petition from Mr. Chuck Sanford, of Loomis, California, dated September 23, 2003. As explained in our 1996 Petition Management Guidance (Service 1996, p. 5), subsequent petitions are treated separately only when they are greater in scope or broaden the area of review of the first petition. Mr. Sanford's petition repeated the same information provided earlier in Mr. Bosta's August 14, 2003, petition and will, therefore, be treated as a comment on the first petition we received.

        In a February 24, 2004, letter to Mr. Bosta, we responded that we reviewed the information presented in the petition and determined that issuing an emergency regulation temporarily listing the species under section 4(b)(7) of the Act was not warranted. We also stated that, due to court orders and judicially approved settlement agreements for other listing and critical habitat determinations under the Act, which required nearly all of our listing and critical habitat funding, we would not be able to further address the petition at that time but would complete the action when workload and funding allowed. Delays in responding to the petition continued due to the high priority of responding to court orders and settlement agreements. In response to litigation brought on behalf of petitioned and candidate species, we reached two settlement agreements on May 10, 2011, and July 12, 2011, that establish a 6-year work schedule for reaching final listing determinations for all petitioned and candidate species (http://www.fws.gov/endangered/improving_ESA/listing_workplan.html). The agreements were approved by the Federal District Court of the District of Columbia on September 9, 2011 (WildEarth Guardians v. Salazar, Nos. 10-377). This notice constitutes our 90-day finding on the August 14, 2003, petition to list the Eagle Lake rainbow trout and is in keeping with the Multi-District Litigation (MDL) 6-year work schedule as ordered by the Court.
        In our development of this finding, we attempted to contact both petitioners regarding the information they presented and to obtain documents cited in their petitions. The petitioners did not respond to our requests, or we were unable to contact them due to the timeframe between receiving the petitions and our ability to review them, and thus, we were unable to confirm or clarify the intent of some of the petitions' claims or issues raised or to specifically review the information. As a result, we have used information available at the time of the petition in our files to assist in our review of the petitions.
        Species Information

        The Eagle Lake rainbow trout is a recognized subspecies of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) that is native only to Eagle Lake in Lassen County, California (Snyder 1918; Busack et al. 1980, pp. 418-424; Moyle et al. 1995, p. 85; Moyle 2002, pp. 274-275). Eagle Lake, the second largest natural lake located entirely within California, is located approximately 15 miles (mi) (24 kilometers (km)) north of Susanville, and supports a popular recreational fishery (Moyle et al. 1995, pp. 85-87). The Eagle Lake rainbow trout can grow to approximately 24 inches (in) (60 centimeters (cm)) and weigh up to 10 pounds (lbs) (4.6 kilograms (kg)) and can tolerate high alkaline conditions (up to pH 9.6), which is more than any other rainbow trout (Platts and Jensen 1991, pp. 2-3; Moyle et al. 1995, p. 86; Moyle 2002, p. 277). Eagle Lake rainbow trout is distinguished by having 58 chromosomes, instead of the 60 chromosomes of most rainbow trout (Busack et al. 1980, p. 421). The subspecies is unusually late maturing (3 years) and can be long-lived (up to 11 years) (Moyle 2002, p. 278), although Eagle Lake rainbow trout older than 5 years are rare (McAfee 1966, p. 223).

        The Eagle Lake rainbow trout's alkalinity tolerance helps it to survive the unusual conditions of Eagle Lake. Because the lake has no natural outlet, it is highly alkaline, with pH levels ranging from 8.4 to 9.6 (Platts and Jensen 1991, pp. 2-3; Moyle 2002, p. 277). With the exception of the Lahontan cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki henshawi), the Eagle Lake rainbow trout is the only trout that can tolerate pH levels above about 8.4. Similarly, the longer lifespan of this fish likely is an adaptation to the dry climate in which Eagle Lake is located, which makes natural spawning impossible during some years due to lack of water in the main spawning areas of Pine Creek (the primary tributary to Eagle Lake) and Bogard Springs Creek (an upper tributary to Pine Creek). Pine Creek has a total length of approximately 40 miles (Young 1989, p. 1). Pine Creek flows into the northwestern portion of the lake and currently has perennial flow for only the first 5 to 10 mi (8 to 16 km) of the 30- to 40-mi (48- to 64-km) creek (Platts and Jensen 1991, p. 4). The rest of the creek is intermittent, flowing in most years from March through about mid-June (Young 1989, p. 1).

        Historically, Eagle Lake rainbow trout spawned primarily in the headwaters of Pine Creek (Moyle et
          al. 1995, p. 86). After spending 1 to 2 years in the headwaters of Pine Creek, juveniles made their way downstream to the lake, where they lived the rest of their lives except for spawning trips in the spring (Moyle et
          al. 1995, p. 86). Some spawning activity has also been observed along gravelly shores of Eagle Lake, but it is unknown if spawning has been successful or if it has contributed to recruitment to the population (Moyle et
          al. 1995, p. 86). A riverine population also may have remained in perennial portions of Pine Creek, rather than migrating to the Lake (Platts and Jensen 1991, pp. 19, 22).

        Prior to 1917, population levels of Eagle Lake rainbow trout within the lake were high enough to support a commercial fishery, but harvesting of the fish was extremely high, leading to concerns the fish would be driven to extinction (Snyder 1917, p. 78; Moyle et
          al. 1995 p. 87). In 1917, the State of California banned commercial trout fishing in Eagle Lake, but the population of the Eagle Lake rainbow trout remained low (Moyle et
          al. 1995, p. 87). According to researchers, the probable reasons for the continued low population numbers included drought, water diversions, logging, heavy grazing, barriers to upstream and downstream movement, introduced predatory brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) in the headwaters of Pine Creek, and road and railroad construction across Pine Creek that restricted the creek's flow and channelized the streambed (Platts and Jensen 1991, p. 1; Moyle et
          al. 1995, p. 87). Water from Eagle Lake was being diverted through the Bly Tunnel to agricultural operations south of Susanville between 1923 to 1935; however, this diversion has been plugged and is no longer in use (Platts and Jensen 1991, p. 2).

        Since 1950, reproduction in the Eagle Lake rainbow trout population has depended largely on a hatchery program run by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) (Platts and Jensen 1991, pp. 20-22; Moyle et al. 1995, p. 88). Fish are captured to collect their eggs and milt in order to produce offspring to release in Eagle Lake, and in more recent times, hatchery-produced trout have been released throughout the western United States and Canada for sport fishery purposes (Moyle et al. 1995, p. 87; Behnke 2002, p. 103; Moyle 2002, p. 275). In the late-1940s into the mid-1950s, collection traps on Pine Creek as well as additional artificial barriers at the mouths of other creeks were constructed (Platts and Jensen 1991, p. 21; Moyle et al. 1995, p. 87). These barriers were installed as part of an effort to protect the fish from being stranded in the creeks by insufficient flows and to assist in the collection of fish for the hatchery program.
        Between 1959 and 1994, Eagle Lake rainbow trout were known to pass above the weir at Pine Creek during years of high water flow. The structure at Pine Creek was rebuilt in 1995 to address erosion problems and to prevent upstream migration because some individuals were being stranded, resulting in their death during years of low water levels. Construction modifications on the weir in 1995, and installation of an Alaskan style fish weir at the site in 2002, have made it highly unlikely that fish attempting to move upstream have been able to pass the weir to reach the headwaters of the creek to spawn, even in high flow years.

        The CDFG traps fish as they enter Pine Creek from Eagle Lake. The fish are then collected and artificially spawned to produce 2 to 3 million eggs, which are shipped to Crystal Lake and Darrah Springs State Fish Hatcheries (Platts and Jensen 1991, pp. 20-23; Moyle et al. 1995, p. 87). Some of the collected eggs are sent to other State hatcheries for stocking in waters across the country (Moyle et al. 1995, p. 87). Eggs from fish collected at the mouth of Pine Creek are hatched, and the hatchery-spawned trout are returned and released into Eagle Lake (Moyle et al. 1995, pp. 87, 88). Approximately 90,000 half-pound fish produced at the hatcheries are released into Eagle Lake each fall near Pine Creek, while another 90,000 half-pound fish are released at the south end of the Lake annually. Another 1,000 young fish are also stocked in the Pine Creek headwaters, with the hope that they will prey on and outcompete the smaller nonnative brook trout that spawn there. Portions of each release group are freeze-marked to allow mark-recapture estimates of the population in the Lake.
        In 1987, a Coordinated Resource Management Planning (CRMP) group met to identify goals and implement a course of action for habitat and ecosystem restoration for Pine Creek. The initial goals for restoring Pine Creek included: (1) Improve streambank stability; (2) improve vegetation cover in watershed; (3) raise the streambed and watertable in the drainage and spread out peak flows of Pine Creek; (4) restore the natural Eagle Lake rainbow trout fishery in Pine Creek; (5) improve wildlife habitat along Pine Creek; (6) reduce nutrient and sediment loading into Eagle Lake from Pine Creek; (7) maintain grazing and timber management; and (8) meet goals in a coordinated effort with all affected parties (Platts and Jensen 1991, p. 1). The CRMP group includes membership by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), the University of California Cooperative Extension for Lassen County, the CDFG, and local landowners and interested parties. The Service has been occasionally involved in the planning efforts of the CRMP group since 1995. Numerous restoration efforts have been implemented since 1987 or are planned for the Pine Creek watershed.
        Evaluation of Information for This Finding
        Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424 set forth the procedures for adding a species to, or removing a species from, the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act:
        (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 what factors might constitute threats, we must look beyond the mere exposure of the species to the factor to determine whether the species responds to the factor in a way that causes actual impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a factor, but no response, or only a positive response, that factor is not a threat. If there is exposure and the species responds negatively, the factor may be a threat and we then attempt to determine how significant a threat it is. If the threat is significant, it may drive or contribute to the risk of extinction of the species such that the species may warrant listing as an endangered or threatened species as those terms are defined by the Act. This does not necessarily require empirical proof of a threat. The combination of exposure and some corroborating evidence of how the species is likely impacted could suffice. The mere identification of factors that could impact a species negatively may not be sufficient to compel a finding that listing may be warranted. The information shall contain evidence sufficient to suggest that these factors may be operative threats that act on the species to the point that the species may meet the definition of endangered or threatened under the Act.
        In making this 90-day finding, we evaluated whether information regarding the threats to the Eagle Lake rainbow trout, as presented in the petition and other information available in our files at the time the petition was received, is substantial, thereby indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. Our evaluation of this information is presented below.
        A. Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of the Species' Habitat or Range

          Information Provided in the Petition: The petition asserts that past habitat modification, coupled with uncompleted habitat restoration projects, and the establishment of a barrier (weir) on Pine Creek for fish collection and hatchery purposes has eliminated natural spawning for the Eagle Lake rainbow trout and that the CRMP group established to coordinate habitat improvement efforts has not met in over 2 years (prior to 2003) and should be considered a failure.

          Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in Service Files:Under the guidance of the CRMP group, numerous habitat improvement projects for Pine Creek were completed or were nearing completion at the time the petition was received. The restoration efforts that had been implemented by 2003 within the Pine Creek watershed by the CRMP group included but were not limited to actions such as stream fencing, old channel restoration, and removal of upstream barriers (Highway 44 and the Burlington Northern Railroad crossing) (Platts and Jensen 1991, pp. 1-2; Moyle 2002, p. 282). In addition, the grazing regimes along Pine Creek were modified and channel restoration projects were completed to encourage increased flows over longer time periods and to improve stream bank conditions. However, access to Pine Creek and its spawning grounds by Eagle Lake rainbow trout have been for the most part blocked since the late 1950's by a barrier (weir). The barrier was initially established to assist spawning as a result of low population numbers and to prevent fish from becoming stranded in Pine Creek during low flow periods. Even though some experts have stated that the trapping and collection of fish at the barrier most likely prevented the species from becoming extinct, the petitioners expressed concern with the hatchery program because fish in the early life-history stages are gradually being selected for survival in a hatchery environment, rather than in the wild (Moyle et al. 1995, p. 88), and this may increase the difficulty of reestablishing a naturally spawning population (Moyle 2002, p. 282). Fortunately, the present management strategy for Eagle Lake rainbow trout by the CDFG is to reestablish a self-sustaining wild population, but this has not yet occurred and hatchery operations are regarded as being an ongoing necessity in maintaining the trophy fishery for Eagle Lake (Platts and Jensen 1991, pp. 19-25; Moyle et al. 1995, p. 88).

          Factor A Summary: Available information in our files (Platts and Jensen 1991; Moyle et al. 1995; Moyle 2002) indicates that the CRMP group had been and continues to make appreciable progress in addressing past habitat alterations and detrimental land use practices including the restoration of Pine Creek habitat and streamflows and development of plans for fish passage within Pine Creek. However, the presence of the weir on Pine Creek was preventing fish passage and access to spawning grounds and therefore, has most likely prevented and continues to prevent any natural spawning from occurring. As a result, we find that the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the species' habitat or range may be a threat. We will further investigate the threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the species' habitat or range in our status review for this subspecies.
        B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes
        The information provided in the petition and in our files does not indicate that any impact from overutilization is occurring to Eagle Lake rainbow trout. Commercial fishing for the fish was stopped in 1917 (Snyder 1917, p. 78). However, we will further investigate overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes in our status review for this subspecies.
        C. Disease or Predation

          Information Provided in the Petition: The petition states that Eagle Lake rainbow trout were subject to outbreaks of “strawberry disease” in 2000 and 2003. Strawberry disease is a skin disorder of unknown origin that occurs in rainbow trout and is identified by bright red lesions on the skin. The petition attributes these outbreaks to stress, and describes symptoms such as weight loss and a tube-like appearance. The petition cites the following items in support: (1) An article from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife; (2) two CDFG fish pathologist reports from 2000, one of which positively identifies the disease on a single fish; and (3) low-resolution photocopies of pictures of Eagle Lake rainbow trout with the disease.

          Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in Service Files: Strawberry disease is a skin disease that occurs sporadically in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus sp.) and is a subchronic, nondebilitating, and nonfatal disease that has been recognized since the late 1950s (Olsen et al. 1985, p. 104). The disease goes into remission when water conditions improve, and untreated fish usually recover in 8 weeks (Olson et al. 1985, p. 105). We were unable to obtain a copy of the undated Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife article by Oman, and as a result, could not review the document for this finding. We are not aware of, and the petition did not provide any additional information regarding, the impacts associated with disease to the Eagle Lake rainbow trout or the extent to which disease may affect the subspecies.

        The petition did not provide any information regarding predation. However, information in our files does include information on potential predation by introduced trout species. As stated in the Species Information section, a permanent population of Eagle Lake rainbow trout occupy upper Pine Creek in small numbers and may spawn (Platts and Jensen 1991, pp. 19, 22). Pine Creek, like other streams and lakes in California, was stocked indiscriminately with nonnative trout in the 1940s and 1950s. On Pine Creek, brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) and other rainbow trout of unknown origin were stocked heavily until about 1950. Cutthroat trout may have also been planted in the 1940s. However, since the early 1950s, it appears that only Eagle Lake rainbow trout have been stocked in Pine Creek. Surveys in 1989 found brook trout to be dominant in the upper Pine Creek watershed including the Bogard Springs reach, Pine Valley, and Stephens Meadow. The dense brook trout populations most likely have had a negative effect on Eagle Lake rainbow trout populations in Pine Creek by keeping them unnaturally low (through predation of young or competition for resources) and may be preventing significant reestablishment (Platts and Jensen 1991, p. 24; Moyle et al. 1995, p. 88).

          Summary of Factor C: The information provided in the petition and in our files does indicate that strawberry disease may affect individual Eagle Lake rainbow trout, but the extent and degree of the impacts are most likely small, short term, and isolated in nature. Predation in the main spawning habitat of Pine Creek from introduced brook trout most likely is occurring and may be having a negative effect on the stream population by keeping numbers artificially low. As a result, we find that predation by introduced brook trout may be a threat. We will further investigate disease or predation in our status review for this subspecies.
        D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
        The petition does not discuss or provide any information on how an inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms under Factor D may threaten the Eagle Lake rainbow trout, and we do not have any information in our files suggesting that existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate. However, we will further investigate whether the existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate in our status review for the subspecies.
        E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Species' Continued Existence
        The petition lists two potential threats relevant to Factor E: (1) Mortality of Eagle Lake rainbow trout in 2000 during CDFG trout-stocking activities; and (2) hatchery practices that have reduced Eagle Lake rainbow trout's survival in the wild and affected their genetics through gene pool alteration and species contamination.

          Issue 1; Information Provided in the Petition: The petition claims that in November 2000, approximately 2,000 Eagle Lake rainbow trout were accidentally killed by CDFG when they were put into water that was too cold when they were stocked into Eagle Lake.

          Evaluation of Information in the Petition and Available in Service Files: At the time of the petition we were not aware of any fish kills due to stocking activities. However, the information provided in the petition does not indicate that the loss of approximately 2,000 Eagle Lake rainbow trout due to stocking operations may be a factor that threatens the status of the subspecies. As stated earlier in the Species Information section, approximately 180,000 trout are stocked annually in Eagle Lake. The loss of 2,000 fish during a single event would not significantly affect the population of Eagle Lake rainbow trout as a whole. However, we will further investigate whether the loss of fish from stocking operations is a significant loss in our status review for the subspecies.

          Issue 2; Information Provided in the Petition: The petition states that hatchery rearing is breeding out the “wildness” in the Eagle Lake rainbow trout and causing them to be less aggressive during spawning or be able to make the 40-mi (64-km) trip to the spawning grounds on Pine Creek. No information is provided specifically to support this claim, although other information provided relevant to the additional genetics arguments discussed below may have been intended for consideration with this argument as well. The petition argues that hatchery rearing has genetically altered the “Eagle Lake trout” into the Eagle Lake rainbow trout, and that these changes have altered the fish's ability to live in the higher alkaline water of the lake. The petition also states that these changes, brought about or abetted by stocking of “domestic” Eagle Lake rainbow trout from the Mount Shasta hatchery, have changed the native “March through May” spawning cycle to June through August. The petition cites a series of papers indicating that hatchery-rearing affects the long-term viability of the subspecies by genetic selection, alterations, and lowering their survival in the wild (Muir and Howard 1999, pp. 13853-13856; Marchetti and Nevitt 2003, pp. 9-14). The petition also cites an article by Robb Leary and Fred Allendorf, and another by M. Walker, but the journal titles and publication dates were not provided. As a result, we were unable to review the information. However, we did find a similarly titled article by Robb Leary, which may have been a prepublication version (see further discussion below).

          Evaluation of Information in the Petition and Available in Service Files: Eagle Lake rainbow trout was originally called Eagle Lake trout (Snyder 1917, p. 77). Although the petition implies taxonomic changes have occurred regarding the subspecies because of hatchery operations and mixing with other rainbow trout, the name revision merely reflects a name change and not genetic manipulation or behavioral differences. However, Moyle et al. (1995) did cite concerns that the hatchery program may be resulting in fish that are gradually being selected for survival in the early life-history stages in a hatchery environment, rather than in the wild. They further state that the dependence on hatcheries for maintaining the Eagle Lake rainbow trout is undesirable because the survival of the species becomes dependent on the vagaries of hatchery funding and management and may be exposed to threats from disease and genetic disorders (Moyle et al. 1995, p. 88).
        Moyle et al. (1995, p. 86) does support the petition's assertion that stocking procedures at one time involved placement of 25,000 “wild” and 150,000 “domestic” fish in the lake, and also notes that the “domestic” fish came from broodstock maintained at the Mount Shasta Hatchery. However, they do not suggest the domestic fish differed in any appreciable way, and they go on to explain that the “domestic” fish were marked so as to prevent their use in spawning, even if trapped at Pine Creek (Moyle et al. 1995, p. 86). The CDFG no longer stocks fish taken from broodstock maintained at the Mount Shasta Hatchery but only uses reproductively mature Eagle Lake rainbow trout that move into Pine Creek from Eagle Lake in order to spawn. The paper by Marchetti and Nevitt (2003) cited by the petition does not provide strong support for the petition's implied assertion that hatchery rearing may be altering the brain structure of Eagle Lake rainbow trout individuals. The hatchery-raised trout in the study were descended from a long line (50 to 90 years) of solely hatchery-reared broodstock (Marchetti and Nevitt 2003, p. 10). Serious genetic changes capable of altering brain development are much more likely under such conditions due to the unintentional selection of traits promoting survival under hatchery conditions (Marchetti and Nevitt 2003, p. 11). In contrast, trout stocked in Eagle Lake come from eggs collected in the wild. While it is possible that at least some of the developmental brain differences noted by Marchetti and Nevitt (2003) result from environmental factors in the hatchery rather than from genetic differences, the petition presents no evidence to support that idea, nor to demonstrate how it might apply to Eagle Lake rainbow trout. Eagle Lake rainbow trout seem to have retained their basic biological traits and their migratory life history, as evidenced by their annual attempt to spawn in Pine Creek.

        Muir and Howard (1999, entire) used modeling based on the Japanese medaka (Oryzias latipes), which were transgenic, meaning they had had portions of their genome deliberately spliced with genes from another species (genetically modified). Transgenic fish and their impacts are not relevant to the situation of the Eagle Lake rainbow trout.
        Because the petition did not include reference information for the Leary and Allendorf paper, it is difficult for us to assess its content. We did find a study by Leary that we believe may be the paper referenced by the petition (Leary 1996); however, it does not appear to provide strong support for the petition's conclusions. While the study did find differences between hatchery and naturally spawning stocks, the author also emphasized that the differences were of “little or no biological significance” (Leary 1996, pp. 11-13).

          Summary of Factor E: We agree that a potential genotype and phenotypic shift in an ongoing hatchery system due to changed selection pressures can be an issue of concern for wild fish populations. Therefore, we find that the hatchery practices may be a threat. We will further investigate whether the hatchery operations and any other natural or manmade factors have significant effects on Eagle Lake rainbow trout in our status review for the subspecies.
        Finding
        We have reviewed the petition, literature cited in the petition, and information in our files and evaluated that information in relation to the information available to us at the time we received the petition. After this review and evaluation, we find that the petition does present substantial scientific information that listing the Eagle Lake rainbow trout may be warranted at this time.
        We evaluated each of the five listing factors individually, and because the potential threats to the Eagle Lake rainbow trout may not be mutually exclusive, we also evaluated the collective effect of these potential threats. The petition focused on three of the five listing factors; habitat modification (Factor A), disease (Factor C), and “other natural or manmade factors” (Factor E). Based on information we had at the time of the petition, the placement of the weir on Pine Creek has all but eliminated access to the spawning grounds, and although habitat conditions on Pine Creek had significantly improved through implementation of measures by the CRMP group, habitat conditions were still a concern and it was uncertain if fish are able to traverse the distance between the lake and spawning grounds.
        The petition raised several concerns regarding potential genetic threats to the subspecies. Although many of these arguments were either unsupported, or supported by incomplete citations to articles that we were unable to locate, the information we did have or were able to find did raise concerns and supported less dependence on hatchery rearing.
        On the basis of our determination under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we determine that the petition and the information in our files presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the Eagle Lake rainbow trout throughout its range may be warranted. This finding is based on information provided under Factors A (the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range), C (predation), and E (other natural or manmade factors affecting the subspecies' continued existence). Although information provided under Factors C (disease), B (overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes), and D (inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms) do not support the petition's assertions, we will further consider information relating to these factors in the status review.
        Because we have found that the petition presents substantial information indicating that listing Eagle Lake rainbow trout may be warranted, we are initiating a status review to determine whether listing Eagle Lake rainbow trout under the Act is warranted. We will fully evaluate these potential threats during our status review, pursuant to the Act's requirement to review the best available scientific information when making our 12-month finding. Accordingly, we encourage the public to consider and submit information related to these and any other threats that may be operating on the Eagle Lake rainbow trout (see “Request for Information”).
        References Cited

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

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

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

          Dated: August 24, 2012.
          Rowan W. Gould,
          Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

      [FR Doc. 2012-21745 Filed 9-4-12; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        Federal Aviation Administration
        14 CFR Part 39
        [Docket No. FAA-2010-0037; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-240-AD]
        RIN 2120-AA64
        Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Model 737-700 (IGW) Series Airplanes Equipped With Auxiliary Fuel Tanks Installed in Accordance With Configuration 3 of Supplemental Type Certificate ST00936NY

          AGENCY:
          Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

          SUMMARY:
          We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Model 737-700 (IGW) series airplanes. This proposed AD would require deactivation or modification of PATS Aircraft, LLC, auxiliary fuel tanks. This proposed AD results from fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We are proposing this AD to prevent the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.

          DATES:
          We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 29, 2010.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may send comments by any of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • Fax: 202-493-2251.
          • Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
          • Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

          For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Decrane Aerospace, PATS Aircraft Systems, 21652 Nanticoke Avenue, Georgetown, Delaware 19947; telephone 302-253-6157; fax 302-855-0153; e-mail giuseppecoppola@decraneaerospace.com; Internet http://www.decraneaerospace.com. You may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221 or 425-227-1152.

        Examining the AD Docket
        You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Mazdak Hobbi, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion and Services Branch, ANE-173, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone (516) 228-7330; fax (516) 794-5531.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Comments Invited

        We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2010-0037; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-240-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.
        We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.
        Discussion
        The FAA has examined the underlying safety issues involved in fuel tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for fuel tank systems. As a result of those findings, we issued a regulation titled “Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review, Flammability Reduction and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements” (66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards for transport airplanes and new maintenance requirements, this rule included Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (“SFAR 88,” Amendment 21-78, and subsequent Amendments 21-82 and 21-83).
        Among other actions, SFAR 88 requires certain type design (i.e., type certificate (TC) and supplemental type certificate (STC)) holders to substantiate that their fuel tank systems can prevent ignition sources in the fuel tanks. This requirement applies to type design holders for large turbine-powered transport airplanes and for subsequent modifications to those airplanes. It requires them to perform design reviews and to develop design changes and maintenance procedures if their designs do not meet the new fuel tank safety standards. As explained in the preamble to the rule, we intended to adopt airworthiness directives to mandate any changes found necessary to address unsafe conditions identified as a result of these reviews.
        In evaluating these design reviews, we have established four criteria intended to define the unsafe conditions associated with fuel tank systems that require corrective actions. The percentage of operating time during which fuel tanks are exposed to flammable conditions is one of these criteria. The other three criteria address the failure types under evaluation: single failures, single failures in combination with a latent condition(s), and in-service failure experience. For all four criteria, the evaluations included consideration of previous actions taken that may mitigate the need for further action.
        We have determined that the actions identified in this AD are necessary to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.
        Supplemental Type Certificates (STCs) for PATS Aircraft, LLC, Auxiliary Fuel Tanks
        The auxiliary fuel tank STC on affected airplanes is of two basic type designs: A box-and-bladder type, and a double-walled cylindrical type. The box-and-bladder tanks are emptied and vented into the airplane center wing tank using either pneumatic air pressure supplied from the airplane, or electrical power from the airplane to power fuel pumps installed in the tank external dry bay area. The double-walled cylindrical tanks use pneumatic air pressure to empty into the airplane center wing tank. All auxiliary tanks use some type of electrical fuel quantity indication system (FQIS), flight deck control and annunciation panels, float level switches, valves and venting systems, electrical wiring connections in the dry bay area, and electrical bonding methods.
        FAA's Findings

        During the SFAR 88 safety assessment, it was determined that the PATS Aircraft, LLC, FQIS and float level switch did not meet intrinsically safe electrical energy levels as described in the guidelines of Advisory Circular (AC) 25.981-1C, “Fuel Tank Ignition Source Prevention Guidelines.” PATS Aircraft, LLC, the STC holder, identified potential ignition sources resulting from a combination of single and latent failures for the PATS Aircraft, LLC, fuel tank subsystems. PATS Aircraft, LLC, has not complied with the requirements of SFAR 88, paragraph 2. To prevent high electrical energy levels from the FQIS and float level switch from entering the auxiliary fuel tank, we have determined that the appropriate solution for continued use is a combination of actions. Installing a transient suppression device (TSD) on FQIS and float level switches would be needed. In order to maximize wire separation, the TSD must be installed as close as possible to the points where the FQIS and float level switch wires exit the TSD and enter the auxiliary tank. Other actions might include replacing high-energy FQISs, and float level switches that are impractical for TSD application, with intrinsically safe FQISs, providing wire separation, conducting a one-time inspection and/or replacing aging float level switch conduit assemblies, periodically inspecting the external dry bay system components and wires, and testing the integrity of bonding resistances.
        As an alternative to the modification described above, deactivation of the auxiliary fuel tanks would adequately address the unsafe condition. If operators do not wish to deactivate their auxiliary fuel tanks, we will consider requests for alternative methods of compliance (AMOCs). The most likely requests would be to allow continued use of the tanks by showing compliance with SFAR 88. This would involve obtaining STCs to modify the auxiliary fuel tank systems and developing maintenance procedures to address the safety issues identified above. PATS Aircraft, LLC, as the current STC holder, may be working on AMOCs. Operators may contact PATS or propose an AMOC on their own.
        Once an operator has deactivated a tank as proposed by this NPRM, the operator might wish to remove the tank. This would require a separate design approval, if an approved tank removal procedure does not exist.
        Relevant Service Information
        We have reviewed Decrane Aerospace Service Bulletins ST00936NY-D-28-SB-001_K, dated August 25, 2008; and ST00936NY-D-28-SB-021_K, dated January 8, 2009; which describe procedures for modifying the auxiliary fuel system (AFS). The modification of the auxiliary fuel cells of the AFS specified in Decrane Aerospace Service Bulletin ST00936NY-D-28-SB-001_K includes removing, repositioning, replacing or adding bonding jumpers and/or hardware. The modification of the AFS harnesses specified in Decrane Aerospace Service Bulletin ST00936NY-D-28-SB-021_K includes removing and replacing the auxiliary fuel system critical harnesses.
        FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD
        We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other products of this same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD, which would require deactivation to prevent usage of auxiliary fuel tanks, or modification of the auxiliary fuel system.
        Costs of Compliance
        We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 11 airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 250 work-hours per product to comply with this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $10,000 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD to the U.S. operators to be $343,750, or $31,250 per product.
        Authority for This Rulemaking
        Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
        We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
        Regulatory Findings
        We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
        For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
        1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
        2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979), and
        3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
        You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of compliance in the AD Docket.

          List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
          Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.

        The Proposed Amendment
        Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

          PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
          1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
             49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

            § 39.13
            [Amended]
            2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD:

                The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2010-0037; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-240-AD.
              Comments Due Date
              (a) We must receive comments by March 29, 2010.
              Affected ADs
              (b) None.
              Applicability
              (c) This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-700 (IGW) series airplanes, certificated in any category; equipped with auxiliary fuel tanks installed in accordance with configuration 3 of Supplemental Type Certificate ST00936NY.
              Subject
              (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28: Fuel.
              Unsafe Condition
              (e) This AD results from fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. The Federal Aviation Administration is issuing this AD to prevent the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.
              Compliance

              (f) You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done.

              Prevent Usage of Auxiliary Fuel Tanks or Modify Auxiliary Fuel System
              (g) Within 45 days after the effective date of this AD: Accomplish the requirements specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD.
              (1) Deactivate the auxiliary fuel tanks, in accordance with a deactivation procedure approved by the Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO). Any auxiliary tank component that remains on the airplane must be secured and must have no effect on the continued operational safety and airworthiness of the airplane. Deactivation must not result in the need for additional instructions for continued airworthiness.

                Note 1:
                Appendix A of this AD provides criteria that should be included in the deactivation procedures. The proposed deactivation procedures should be submitted to the Manager, New York ACO, as soon as possible to ensure timely review and approval.

                Note 2:
                For technical information, contact Mazdak Hobbi, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion and Services Branch, ANE-173, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone 516-228-7330; fax 516-794-5531.

              (2) Modify the auxiliary fuel system by doing all the applicable actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Decrane Aerospace Service Bulletin ST00936NY-D-28-SB-001_K, dated August 25, 2008; and Decrane Aerospace Service Bulletin ST00936NY-D-28-SB-021_K, dated January 8, 2009.
              Reporting Requirement

              (h) Within 45 days after the effective date of this AD, submit a report to the Manager, New York ACO. The report must include the information listed in paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), and (h)(3) of this AD. Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information collection requirements contained in this AD, and assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056.
              (1) The airplane registration and operation status.
              (2) The usage frequency in terms of total number of flights per year and total number of flights per year for which the auxiliary tank is used.
              (3) Method of complying with paragraph (g)(1) of this AD.
              Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

              (i)(1) The Manager, New York ACO, ANE-170, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to Attn: Program Manager, Continuing Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone 516-228-7300; fax 516-794-5531. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or principal avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a principal inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office.
              (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or principal avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a principal inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

              Appendix A
              Deactivation Criteria
              The auxiliary fuel tank deactivation procedures required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD should address the following actions.
              (1) Permanently drain auxiliary fuel tanks, and clear them of fuel vapors to eliminate the possibility of out-gassing of fuel vapors from the emptied auxiliary tank.
              (2) Disconnect all electrical connections from the fuel quantity indication system (FQIS), fuel pumps if applicable, float switches, and all other electrical connections required for auxiliary tank operation, and stow them at the auxiliary tank interface.
              (3) Disconnect all pneumatic connections if applicable, cap them at the pneumatic source, and secure them.
              (4) Disconnect all fuel feed and fuel vent plumbing interfaces with airplane original equipment manufacturer (OEM) tanks, cap them at the airplane tank side, and secure them in accordance with a method approved by the FAA; one approved method is specified in AC 25-8 Auxiliary Fuel System Installations. In order to eliminate the possibility of structural deformation during cabin decompression, leave open and secure the disconnected auxiliary fuel tank vent lines.
              (5) Pull and collar all circuit breakers used to operate the auxiliary tank.
              (6) Revise the weight and balance document, if required, and obtain FAA approval.
              (7) Amend the applicable sections of the applicable airplane flight manual (AFM) to indicate that the auxiliary fuel tank is deactivated. Remove auxiliary fuel tank operating procedures to ensure that only the OEM fuel system operational procedures are contained in the AFM. Amend the Limitations Section of the AFM to indicate that the AFM Supplement for the STC is not in effect. Place a placard in the flight deck indicating that the auxiliary tank is deactivated. The AFM revisions specified in this paragraph may be accomplished by inserting a copy of this AD into the AFM.
              (8) Amend the applicable sections of the applicable flight crew operating manual and airplane maintenance manual to remove auxiliary tank maintenance procedures.
              (9) After the auxiliary fuel tank is deactivated, accomplish procedures such as leak checks and pressure checks deemed necessary before returning the airplane to service. These procedures must include verification that the airplane FQIS and fuel distribution systems have not been adversely affected.
              (10) Revise the instructions for continued airworthiness, as required, after deactivation.
              (11) Include with the operator's proposed procedures any relevant information or additional steps that are deemed necessary by the operator to comply with the deactivation and return the airplane to service.

                Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 5, 2010.
                Stephen P. Boyd,
                Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

      [FR Doc. 2010-2994 Filed 2-11-10; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


        DEPARTMENT OF STATE
        22 CFR Part 41
        [Public Notice 4215]
        Documentation of Nonimmigrants Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, As Amended—Elimination of Crew List Visas

          AGENCY:
          Department of State.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule with request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          Under current regulations, crewmen working on vessels and aircraft bound for the United States are able to obtain crew list visas without submitting individual application forms or undergoing background checks that would apply to many if they applied for individual visas. In light of the security concerns resulting from the events of September 11, 2001, the Department can no longer justify issuance of a visa without the full application process. This rule proposes to amend the regulations to eliminate the crew list visa.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received on or before February 11, 2003.

          ADDRESSES:

          Written comments may be submitted to the Chief, Legislation and Regulations Division, Visa Services, Department of State, Washington, DC 20520-0106, by fax to 202-663-3898 or by e-mail to VisaRegs@state.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Pam Chavez, Legislation and Regulations Division, Visa Services, Department of State, Washington, DC 20520-0106, 202-663-1206 or e-mail chavezpr@state.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        What Is a Crew List Visa?
        The Department's current regulation at 22 CFR 41.42(a) defines crew list visa as follows: “A crew list visa is a nonimmigrant visa issued on a manifest of crewmen of a vessel or aircraft and includes all aliens listed in the manifest unless otherwise stated. It constitutes a valid nonimmigrant visa within the meaning of INA 212(a)(7)(B)(i)(II).”
        What Are the Statutory Authorities Pertaining to the Crew List Visa?
        Authority for the issuance of a crew list visa is derived from sections 101(a)(15)(D) and 221(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(D) and 1201(f), respectively. Section 101(a)(15)(D) exempts aliens serving in good faith as crewmen on board a vessel (other than a fishing vessel having its home port or an operating base in the United States, unless temporarily landing in Guam), or aircraft from being deemed immigrants. Section 221(f) permits an alien to enter the United States on the basis of a crew manifest that has been visaed by a consular officer. However, the latter section does not require a consular officer to visa a crew manifest and in those cases where the consular officer does agree to do so, it authorizes the officer to deny admission to any alien from the crew list visa. Further, the use of the visaed crew list appears to have been intended principally as a temporary or emergency measure to be used only until such time as it becomes practicable to issue individual documents to each member of a vessel's or aircraft's crew.
        What Are the Requirements for Obtaining a Crew List Visa?

        To obtain a crew list visa, the representative or agent of a foreign vessel or aircraft must submit a master list of all crewmen employed on the vessel or aircraft along with whatever other information the consular officer finds necessary to determine eligibility.
        Applicants applying for crew list visas are not required to complete the Forms DS-156, Nonimmigrant Visa Application, or DS-157, Supplemental Nonimmigrant Visa Application or submit a passport, nor are they required to undergo an interview.
        Are Such Crewmen Subject to Background Checks?
        While consular officers are required to conduct background checks, including a check of the computerized name check system, for applicants for crew list visas, background checks are not as reliable for crew list applicants since it is not possible to verify with certainty that the names submitted on the crew list are spelled correctly. In addition, since crew list visa applicants ordinarily are not interviewed, consular officers have no opportunity to question them regarding such things as employment history or knowledge of their trade.
        Why Does the Department Want To Amend Its Regulations?
        The Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-173) requires that all visas issued after October 26, 2004 have a biometric indicator. This means crew list visas would necessarily be eliminated by that date. Additionally, since September 11, the Department has been amending its regulations to ensure that every effort is made to screen out undesirable aliens. The Department is, therefore, amending its regulations to eliminate crew list visas and ensure that each crewmember entering the United States will complete the nonimmigrant visa application forms, submit a valid passport and undergo an interview and background checks.
        What Will Be the Economic Impact and the Impact on Manning of Vessels and Aircraft if This Rule Goes Into Effect?

        In terms of the actual cost of a visa, per crewman, in general the cost of an individual visa will be no more than it is, per crewman, on a crew list visa, and in most cases over a period of years will average out to be less. For crew list visas each crewman already pays an individual processing, i.e., machine-readable visa (MRV) fee of $100.00. Although reciprocity fees are waived for individuals on a crew list visa and are not for individual visas, that cost should be more than offset in most cases by the fact that the crewman will be receiving (depending upon reciprocity for each individual's country of nationality) a multiple entry, long term visa instead of the one entry, 6 month crew list visa.
        Nevertheless, in preliminary discussions with representatives of the shipping industry, most comments about the economic impact of this proposed rule have been associated with the difficulties and costs that will be presented to the industry should issuance of individual visas result in long and expensive delays waiting in port for visas to be issued. These representatives say that tight and sometimes erratic scheduling, and a constant shifting of crew members are features of the industry that need to be taken into consideration in implementing a requirement for individual visas. Therefore, the Department invites all interested parties to comment specifically on the economic and manning impacts of this rule, as proposed, and to suggest measures the Department might consider when implementing the rule that would minimize any negative impacts of this type.
        How Does the Department Propose To Amend Its Regulations?
        This rule proposes to remove the Department's regulations at 22 CFR 41.42 that establish the crew list visa. By doing so, all crewmembers entering the United States would be required to apply for individual crew visas.
        Regulatory Analysis and Notices
        Administrative Procedure Act
        The Department is publishing this rule as a proposed rule with a 60-day provision for post-promulgation public comments.
        Regulatory Flexibility Act
        The Department of State, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), has reviewed this regulation and, by approving it, certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
        Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
        This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any year and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
        Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
        This rule is not a major rule as defined by section 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of 1996. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and export markets.
        Executive Order 12866
        The Department of State considers this rule to be a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), Regulatory Planning and Review. Therefore, it has been submitted for review by the Office of Management and Budget.
        Executive Order 13132
        This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.

          List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 41
          Aliens, Nonimmigrants, Passports, Visas.

        In view of the foregoing, 22 CFR Part 41 is amended as follows:

          PART 41—[AMENDED]
          1. The authority citation for Part 41 continues to read:

            Authority:
            8 U.S.C. 1104; Pub. L. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681-795 through 2681-801.

            § 41.42
            [Removed and Reserved]
            Remove and reserve section 41.42.

            Dated: December 2, 2002.
            Maura Harty,
            Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, Department of State.

      [FR Doc. 02-31482 Filed 12-12-02; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4710-06-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No. 020329075-2075-01; I.D. 031902E]
        RIN 0648-AP11
        Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Monkfish Fishery; Framework Adjustment 1

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes management measures contained in Framework Adjustment 1 to the Monkfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP).  These measures would delay for 1 year the default management measure contained in the FMP for the fishing year May, 2002- April, 2003 (Year 4), and establish management area total allowable catch (TAC) targets for Year 4 at the level of monkfish landings in Year 2.  The framework would also adjust the monkfish trip limits in the Southern Fishery Management Area (SFMA) to achieve the proposed TAC while considering the effect of a Federal court order vacating differential gear-based trip limits for trawl and gillnet vessels.  This proposed rule would also  correct and clarify the regulatory language related to the monkfish area declaration procedures to make the procedures consistent with the intent of the FMP.

          DATES:
          Public comments must be received on or before April 19, 2002.

          ADDRESSES:
          Comments on the proposed rule should be sent to Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA  01930-2298.  Mark the outside of the envelope “Comments on Monkfish Framework 1.”  Comments may also be submitted via facsimile (fax) to 978-281-9135.  Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or the Internet.

          Copies of Framework Adjustment 1 to the Monkfish FMP, including the Environmental Assessment (EA), Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) are available upon request from Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA  01950.  The EA/RIR/IRFA are also accessible via the Internet at http://www.nero.nmfs.gov.
          Written comments regarding the approved collection-of-information requirements should be sent to the Regional Administrator and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503 (Attn: NOAA Desk Officer).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Allison Ferreira, Fishery Management Specialist, (978) 281-9103, fax (978) 281-9135, e-mail Allison.Ferreira@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The monkfish fishery is jointly managed by the New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC) and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC)(Councils), with the NEFMC having the administrative lead.  The intent of the management program established by the monkfish FMP is to eliminate overfishing by May 2002 and rebuild the stock by 2009.  In order to ensure the elimination of overfishing by May 2002, current regulations specify that restrictive measures become effective for Year 4 of the management program (May 1, 2002 - April 30, 2003) unless a 3-year review of the stock status indicates that these restrictive measures are not necessary.  The Year 4 default measures would eliminate the directed monkfish fishery by allocating zero monkfish days-at-sea (DAS) and by allowing only incidental landings of monkfish.  Instead of the default measures, this proposed rule, if adopted, would implement the following measures:  (1) A 1-year delay of the default management measures contained in the FMP for the fishing year May, 2002 to April, 2003 (Year 4); (2) a revision of management area target TACs for Year 4 to be equivalent to the level of landings in Year 2; and (3) an adjustment of trawl and non-trawl trip limits in the SFMA to achieve the TACs, while considering the impacts of a Federal court order vacating differential gear-based trip limits for trawl and gillnet vessels.
        The Monkfish Monitoring Committee (MFMC) of the NEFMC, the NEFMC, and the MAFMC evaluated biological reference points and the effectiveness of management measures to stop overfishing and to allow for rebuilding by 2009.  This review relied on information from the 31st Stock Assessment Workshop (SAW 31, June 2001) and on landings and stock survey information.  The MFMC noted that SAW 31 determined that the fishing mortality rate (F) reference points on which the default TACs are based are no longer reliable.  Therefore, the MFMC could not develop recommendations for alternative management measures.  The MFMC noted that updated resource survey indices indicated that stock abundance could have increas ed in the Northern Fishery Management Area (NFMA) and stabilized in the SFMA.

        The Councils considered this information and the results of the updated stock assessment released in January 2002 (SAW 34).  SAW 34 investigated several methods for assessing stock status and provided suggestions for improved biological reference points based on yield per recruit analyses.  Based on the results of the current and previous assessments, an F threshold (Fthreshold) of Fmax=0.2 was recommended by the Stock Assessment Review Committee (SARC) for defining overfishing.

        The assessment produced a range of fishing mortality estimates for calendar year 2000, which varied depending on the method used for calculating F and on the assumptions used regarding tow distance and relative net efficiency in the industry-based trawl survey.  The F estimates produced were between 0.10 and 0.38, with 61 percent of the F estimates from the cooperative survey less than or equal to the recommended Fmax=0.20.  These F estimates included only 6 months of management restrictions, implemented for Year 2 of the FMP (effective May 1, 2000).  The management restrictions consisted of the establishment of monkfish DAS, trip limits, and a minimum fish size.  During 1998 and 1999, approximately one-third of the annual landings came from January - April.  Thus, roughly, one-third of annual effort was likely expended in 2000 before trip limits were implemented on May 1.  This suggests that, even without further restrictions, F estimates for calendar year 2001 will be lower than the F for calendar year 2000, since management restrictions were in force for all of 2001.
        Given the proximity of F estimates for calendar year 2000 to F=0.20, preliminary data from the NMFS’ fall trawl survey for 2001 further support the conclusion that the proposed measures will end overfishing.  These data, which are still preliminary, show positive results for the stock in both management areas.  After considering the information presented above, NMFS has determined that the proposed measures are consistent with the FMP objectives of ending overfishing in 2002 and of rebuilding the monkfish stock by 2009.

        The Councils have also started to develop Amendment 2 to the FMP to incorporate the results of SAW 34 in developing revisions to the management program, including the rebuilding plan and the overfishing definition.  The Councils intend to implement Amendment 2 by May 1, 2003 (Year 5).
        Management Measures
        Optimum yield (OY) for Year 4 would be specified at 19,595 metric tons (mt), with TACs for the NFMA and SFMA set at 11,674 mt and 7,921 mt, respectively.  The analysis in Framework 1 determined that these TACs are consistent with the fishing mortality threshold for ending overfishing of F=0.2, recommended by SAW 34.

        Framework 1 would also adjust the monkfish trip limits in the SFMA as needed to achieve the TACs while considering the effect of a Federal court order issued on Feburary 15, 2002, in the case of Hall et al. v. Evans et al.(C.A. No. 99-5491 (D.R.I.), pursuant to an initial court decision issued on August 14, 2001, vacating differential gear-based trip limits for trawl and gillnet vessels.  This framework would allocate, as in Years 2 and 3, 40 monkfish DAS to limited access permit holders for Year 4, with no monkfish trip limit while fishing on a monkfish or multispecies DAS in the NFMA, and a trip limit of 550 lb (249 kg) (tail weight, per DAS) for permit categories A and C, or 450 lb (204 kg) (tail weight, per DAS) for permit categories B and D while fishing on a monkfish DAS in the SFMA.  The incidental catch limits, which vary by permit category and fishing area, would continue at current levels for 1 additional year.
        Technical Correction
        This proposed rule would also make a technical correction to the regulatory language at § 648.94(f) citing area declaration procedures.  This would make the regulatory language consistent with the FMP, which stated that under certain circumstances vessels with multispecies, scallop, and monkfish DAS permits would be required to declare into the NFMA to fish.  The collection-of-information requirements for the FMP approved under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) also contained references to the multispecies, scallop and monkfish DAS permit vessels.  When the regulations implementing the FMP were published, NMFS inadvertently only referenced vessels with monkfish DAS permits, rather than also including vessels with multispecies and scallop permits.  Therefore, this action proposes to correct the current regulatory language at § 648.94(f) to include all vessels fishing for monkfish under a multispecies, scallop, or monkfish DAS in the NFMA.
        Classification
        This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        The Council and NMFS prepared an IRFA that describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities.  A description of the action, the reason for being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble.  This action does not contain any additional collection-of-information, reporting or recordkeeping requirements.  It will not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules.  A summary of the analysis follows:
        The IRFA analysis examined the economic impacts of three sets of management alternatives for Year 4 of the FMP:  Preferred and non-preferred alternatives for OY and management area TACs, and a “no action” alternative.  The preferred alternative consists of the measures outlined in this proposed rule.  These measures consist of a delay in the Year 4 default management measures for 1 year and of the establishment of an OY of 19,595 mt for Year 4, with management area TACs of 11,674 mt and 7,921 mt for the NFMA and SFMA, respectively.  This OY is equivalent to the level of landings generated during Year 2 of the rebuilding program.
        The non-preferred alternative would establish an OY of 11,697 mt for Year 4, with management area TACs of 5,673 mt and 6,024 mt for the NFMA and the SFMA, respectively.  This OY is equivalent to the OY specified for Years 2 and 3 of the rebuilding plan for monkfish.  In addition, the preferred and non-preferred alternatives would adjust the directed monkfish trip limits in the SFMA to achieve corresponding TAC for that area.  The “no action” alternative considers the impacts associated with default management measures.
        The category of entities likely to be affected by this action are the limited access monkfish permit holders, which are virtually all small entities, primarily trawl and gillnet vessels fishing in the SFMA.  Thus, analysis of the impacts of this proposed rule necessarily includes impacts on all small entities affected.  The preferred alternative affects only a subset of those entities, primarily trawl and gillnet vessels fishing in the SFMA.  As of March 13, 2002, there were 704 vessels holding active limited access monkfish permits and an additional 34 vessels holding limited access monkfish permits in a Confirmation of Permit History.  Approximately 160 of these vessels declared their intention to fish in the NFMA for at least 30 days during the 2001 fishing year (May 1, 2001, to April 30, 2002), thereby fishing under the less restrictive management measures of the NFMA.
        The preferred alternative would result in loss of income from fishing year 2000 levels for several vessel types.  However, these losses are lower than the losses that would result from implementation of either the non-preferred or no action alternative.  Under the preferred alternative, approximately 10 percent of vessels less than 50 ft (15.24 m) in length would experience a 3.4-percent or greater reduction in income as a result of the proposed measures.  However, 10 percent of these vessels would experience a 12.4-percent or greater reduction in income under the non-preferred alternative and a 54.6-percent or greater loss in income under the “no action” alternative.  The income of vessels in other size categories would either not be affected by implementation of the preferred alternative, or would be reduced by less than 1 percent.  Conversely, 10 percent of vessels greater than or equal to 50 ft (15.24 m) in length would experience some income loss under the non-preferred and “no action” alternatives.  For example, vessels between 50 and 70 feet (21.34 m) in length would experience an income loss of 1.5 percent or greater under the non-preferred alternative, and a 10.2-percent or greater loss in income under the “no action” alternative.
        Vessels that fish for monkfish but that are not eligible for limited access permits to fish for Northeast multispecies or sea scallops (category A and B permits) would be the vessels most severely impacted by the no action alternative.  Under this alternative, 10 percent of these vessels would lose 100 percent of their net income from fishing.  However, 10 percent of vessels in these categories would likely not be affected at all because their landings during the 2000 fishing year were at or below the incidental catch levels allowed under the “no action” alternative.  Impacts to these vessels would be substantially less under either the preferred or non-preferred alternatives.  Under the preferred alternative, 10 percent of these vessels would experience no income loss, but 50 percent would experience an income loss of 3.1 percent or greater.  Under the non-preferred alternative, 10 percent of these vessels would experience no income loss, but 50 percent would experience an income loss of 9.9 percent or greater.

        Under any of the three alternatives, vessels that hold limited access permits for either multispecies or scallops in addition to monkfish (category C and D) would be the least affected of all vessels holding limited access monkfish permits.  Under the preferred alternative, category C vessels have a higher possession limit than category D vessels.  Ten percent of category C vessels would experience a 0.8-percent or greater reduction in income, and 10 percent of category D vessels would experience a 2.9-percent or greater reduction in income.  Under the non-preferred alternative, category C vessels also have a higher trip limit than category D vessels.  Category C vessels would experience a 3.7-percent or greater loss in income, while category D vessels would experience a 5.9-percent or greater loss in income.  Finally, the “no action” alternative would result in 10 percent of category C vessels having a 25.8-percent loss in income, while category D vessels would experience a 43.3-percent loss in income.
        Geographically, vessels homeported in New Jersey and Delaware (combined) would be the vessels most affected under all three alternatives.  Under the “no action” alternative, 10 percent of these vessels would experience a 72-percent or greater loss in income, while 10 percent of these vessels would experience a 12.5-percent or greater loss in income under the non-preferred alternative.  Under the preferred alternative, 10 percent of the vessels homeported in New Jersey and Delaware would experience only a 2.1-percent or greater loss in income.
        A copy of this analysis is available from the Council (see ADDRESSES).
        Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.

        This action makes a technical correction to the regulatory language referencing area declaration procedures.  This collection-of-information requirement that is subject to the PRA has been approved by OMB under control number 0648-0202.  Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 3 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.  Send comments regarding this burden estimate, or any other aspect of this data collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to NMFS (see ADDRESSES) and to OMB at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington DC 20503 (Attention: NOAA Desk Officer).

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648

        Fisheries, Fishing, reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          March 29, 2002.
          Rebecca Lent,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

          For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is proposed to be amended as follows:

            PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES

          1.  The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as follows:

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

          2.  In § 648.92, paragraph (b)(1) is revised to read as follows:

            § 648.92
            Effort-control program for monkfish limited access vessels.

          (b) *  *  *
          (1) Limited access monkfish permit holders. For fishing year 2002, all limited access monkfish permit holders shall be allocated 40 monkfish DAS.  Multispecies and scallop limited access permit holders who also qualify for a limited access monkfish permit shall be allocated up to 40 monkfish DAS, depending on whether they have sufficient multispecies and/or scallop DAS to use concurrently with their monkfish DAS, as required by paragraph (b)(2) of this section.  For fishing years 2003 and thereafter, no monkfish DAS will be allocated to any limited access monkfish permit holder.

          3.  In § 648.94, revise paragraph (b)(1); remove and reserve paragraph (b)(2); and revise the introductory paragraph headings of (b)(3), (b)(4), (b)(5), and (b)(6); the first sentence of paragraph (b)(7), the introductory paragraph headings of (c)(2)(i) and (ii), and the first sentence of paragraph (f) to read as follows:

            § 648.94
            Monkfish possession and landing restrictions.

          (b) *  *  *
          (1) Vessels fishing under the monkfish DAS program in the SFMA. (i) Category A and C vessels. Category A and C vessels fishing under the monkfish DAS program in the SFMA may land up to 550 lb (249 kg) tail-weight or 1,826 lb (828 kg) whole weight of monkfish per DAS (or any prorated combination of tail-weight and whole weight based on the conversion factor).
          (ii) Category B and D vessels. Category B and D vessels fishing under the monkfish DAS program in the SFMA may land up to 450 lb (204 kg) tail-weight or 1,494 lb (678 kg) whole weight of monkfish per DAS (or any prorated combination of tail-weight and whole weight based on the conversion factor).
          (iii) Administration of landing limits. A vessel owner or operator may not exceed the monkfish trip limits as specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(ii) and (iii) of this section per monkfish DAS fished, or any part of a monkfish DAS fished.
          (2) [Reserved]
          (3) Category C and D vessels fishing during a multispecies DAS prior to May 1, 2003— *  *  *

          (4) Category C and D vessels fishing during a multispecies DAS from May 1, 2003, and thereafter— *  *  *

          (5) Category C and D vessels fishing under the scallop DAS program prior to May 1, 2003. *  *  *

          (6) Category C and D vessels fishing under the scallop DAS program from May 1, 2003, and thereafter.*  *  *

          (7) Category C and D scallop vessels declared into the monkfish DAS program without a dredge on board. Category C and D vessels that have declared into the monkfish DAS program and that do not fish with or have on board a dredge are subject to the same possession limits as specified at paragraph (b)(1) of this section. *  *  *
          (c) *  *  *
          (2) *  *  *
          (i) Prior to May 1, 2003.*  *  *
          (ii) From May 1, 2003, and thereafter.*  *  *

          (f) Area declaration. In order for a vessel fishing under a multispecies, scallop, or monkfish DAS to fish for monkfish under the less restrictive management measures of the NFMA, such vessel must declare into, and fish for monkfish exclusively in, the NFMA for a period of not less than 30 days.  *  *  *

      [FR Doc. 02-8076 Filed 4-3-02; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE  3510-22-S