        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 660
        [Docket No. 170817773-7905-1]
        RIN 0648-BG81
        Fisheries Off West Coast States; Highly Migratory Fisheries; California Drift Gillnet Fishery; Implementation of a Federal Limited Entry Drift Gillnet Permit

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS is proposing regulations under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) to implement a March 2017 recommendation by the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) to amend the Fishery Management Plan for U.S. West Coast Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species (HMS FMP). The proposed rule would bring the State of California's limited entry (LE) drift gillnet (DGN) permit program under MSA authority. All current California DGN permit holders would be eligible to apply for, and receive, a Federal DGN permit, and no additional DGN permits would be created. The proposed rule is administrative in nature and is not anticipated to result in increased activity, effort, or capacity in the fishery.

          DATES:
          Comments on the proposed rule and supporting documents must be submitted in writing on or before December 15, 2017.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2017-0052, by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2017-0052, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to Lyle Enriquez, NMFS West Coast Region, 501 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802. Include the identifier “NOAA-NMFS-2017-0052” in the comments.

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

          Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this proposed rule may be submitted to the West Coast Regional Office and by email to OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov or fax to (202) 395-5806.

          Copies of the draft Regulatory Impact Review and other supporting documents are available via the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov, docket NOAA-NMFS-2017-0052 or by contacting the Regional Administrator, Barry Thom, NMFS West Coast Region, 1201 NE Lloyd Blvd., Portland, OR 97232-2182, or RegionalAdministrator.WCRHMS@noaa.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Lyle Enriquez, NMFS, West Coast Region, 562-980-4025, or Lyle.Enriquez@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The HMS FMP was prepared by the Council and is implemented under the authority of the MSA by regulations at 50 CFR part 660. Although it adopted all conservation and management measures in place under various Federal statutes (e.g., the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act) and state regulations, the HMS FMP did not incorporate the LE DGN permit programs of California and Oregon. Currently, the large-mesh DGN fishery (14” minimum mesh size) is Federally managed under the HMS FMP and via regulations of the states of California and Oregon to conserve target and non-target stocks, including protected species that are incidentally captured. (California has an active LE DGN program, Oregon no longer issues DGN permits, and DGN fishing is prohibited in Washington.)
        Since 2014, the Council has considered transitioning California's LE DGN permit program from state to MSA authority. On March 12, 2017, the Council adopted a final preferred alternative that would amend the HMS FMP and transition the State of California LE DGN permit program from state management to Federal management under MSA authority and entitle all fishermen authorized to fish with large-mesh DGN gear under state law to be eligible to receive a Federal LE DGN permit. As of August 31, 2017, 70 California LE DGN permits were issued for the 2016-2017 fishing season, and 67 have been renewed for the 2017-2018 fishing season. The average number of active DGN vessels per year from 2010 through 2016 is 20 vessels. The action would neither increase capacity within the DGN fishery, nor would it incentivize or stimulate fishing effort or activity of current latent permits. After the initial issuance of Federal DGN permits, no additional permits would be issued, and permits that are not renewed in future years would permanently expire. NMFS would not reissue the expired permits.
        In order to participate in the DGN fishery, current participants must possess a State of California LE DGN permit, a California commercial fishing license, a California general gill/trammel net permit, and a California swordfish permit. Additionally, the vessel that the participant fishes from must have a Federal Pacific Highly Migratory Species (HMS) permit with a DGN gear endorsement. After the LE DGN permit transitions from the State of California to Federal management, each participant will need to hold all the same permits and licenses, except that the Federal LE DGN permit will take the place of the State of California LE DGN permit. Although these permits and licenses would be required to fish, possession of a current and up-to-date State of California LE DGN permit is the only permit required to initially obtain a Federal LE DGN permit.

        This proposed rule would adopt many of the current State of California management measures associated with the fishery. For example, NMFS would adopt current California requirements regarding the assignment of a permit (i.e., permits would be issued to an individual and assigned to a specific vessel), the transfer of permits between permit holders (i.e., a permit must be held for three years before it is eligible to be transferred), and an annual renewal cycle.
        Upon the date of publication of the final rule, all 70 state-eligible permit holders would be eligible to receive a Federal DGN permit if they have renewed their state DGN permit by March 31, 2018. Permit holders who fail to renew their state DGN permit by March 31, 2018, will not be eligible for a Federal DGN permit. As of August 31, 2017, 67 permit holders have renewed their state LE DGN permit. If a state LE DGN permit is transferred after publication of the proposed rule, the transferee, but not the transferor, would be eligible to receive a Federal LE DGN permit upon publication of the final rule.

        Federal LE DGN permits would be issued annually for the fishing year starting April 1 and ending March 31 of the following year. Permits would expire on March 31 of each year and, after initial issuance (expected in 2018), the permit renewal deadline would be April 30 of each fishing year. A completed DGN permit renewal form must be received by NMFS no later than close-of-business April 30. Any renewal form received after that date would result in the permanent expiration of the Federal DGN permit. A permit owner who fails to submit a renewal form by the deadline may submit a renewal form to NMFS with a written statement that the failure to renew the permit by the deadline was proximately caused by the permit owner's illness or injury. When a permit owner has died, the owner's estate or other personal representative may submit a statement explaining that the permit owner's death has prevented a timely renewal. The permit holder, or in the case of a deceased permit owner, the estate or other personal representative, will need to provide written proof of illness, injury or death. NMFS will not consider any such renewal request made after July 31. A permit holder would need to hold a Federal LE DGN permit for a vesting period of at least three years before it would be eligible to be transferred. This vesting period would extend across both state and Federal permit programs (i.e., if a permit holder held a state LE DGN permit for two years and a Federal LE DGN permit for one year, the permit may be transferred).
        This proposed rule also includes technical edits to existing regulatory text. These edits add the word “general” before instances of “HMS permit” to distinguish the existing HMS permit from the new LE DGN permit; update a web address from which permit applications may be obtained; update the reference to the NMFS “Southwest Region” to refer to the West Coast Region, into which it was incorporated; and update the description of the NMFS regional “Sustainable Fisheries Division” to describe it as part of the West Coast Region.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304 (b)(1)(A) of the MSA, the NMFS West Coast Regional Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the HMS FMP, other provisions of the MSA, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. This proposed rule is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this proposed rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866.

        This proposed rule contains a collection-of-information requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and which has been approved by OMB under control number 0648-0204. Public reporting burden for the additional collection of information is estimated to average thirty minutes per form, including time for reviewing instructions, gathering the information 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 by email to OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov, or fax to (202) 395-5806.

        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 PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. All currently approved NOAA collections of information may be viewed at: http://www.cio.noaa.gov/services_programs/prasubs.html.

        The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed rule is administrative in nature and adopts current State of California permit requirements as they relate to the DGN fishery. This action is not expected to increase capacity, incentivize or stimulate fishing effort or activity of current latent permits, or change current fishing practices.
        For Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) purposes only, NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primarily industry is commercial fishing (50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily involved in commercial fishing (NAICS 11411) is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and its combined annual receipts are not in excess of $11 million for all of its affiliated operations worldwide. NMFS has determined that all current participants in the DGN fishery are small entities under the NMFS standard. The average ex-vessel revenue for the U.S. West Coast DGN fishery from 2011 to 2015 is $745,600, with an average of 20 vessels participating per year. Therefore, the average ex-vessel revenue per active participant is $37,280. The increase in administrative costs, if any, resulting from this action would be less than 1% of ex-vessel revenues per active participant. In addition, because each affected entity is a small business, there would be no disproportionate economic impacts between large and small entities.
        Currently, participants must possess a Federal Pacific Highly Migratory Species (HMS) permit ($30), as well as a State of California commercial fishing license ($136.99), a California general gill/trammel net permit ($469.25), and a California LE DGN permit ($469.25) that includes a swordfish permit for fishing with hook-and-line or harpoon. If a fisherman does not participate in the DGN fishery, but participates in the harpoon or hook-and-line fishery, they must purchase a swordfish permit for $469.25. If this action is implemented, fishermen would receive a Federal LE DGN permit. The fee for a Federal LE DGN permit would be determined by only the administrative cost of issuing the permit, and it is expected that the Federal LE DGN permit would cost less than $100, which is far less than the California LE DGN permit cost of $469.25. There are three likely scenarios associated with implementing a Federal LE DGN permit, discussed below; in each scenario, the economic effects are not significant, as they would lead to either a reduction in costs or an insignificant increase in costs.
        In the first scenario, fishermen would acquire a Federal LE DGN permit. If the State of California does not amend its regulations and continues to require that fishermen purchase a State of California LE DGN permit (with the swordfish permit included), the cost increase would be only the additional cost of the Federal LE DGN permit. In the second scenario, if fishermen purchase a Federal LE DGN permit and state regulations are amended to no longer require the State of California LE DGN permit, but either a swordfish permit is still required or fishermen continue participating in the harpoon or hook-and-line fishery, there would be a cost increase equal to the cost of the Federal LE DGN permit, while the savings from not purchasing the state LE DGN permit would be offset by the cost of purchasing the swordfish permit. In the third scenario, if fishermen purchase a Federal LE DGN permit, a state LE DGN permit is no longer required, and either a swordfish permit is not required or fishermen do not participate in the harpoon or hook-and-line fishery, the fishermen would realize a cost savings, and the amount of cost savings would equal the difference between the cost of the state LE DGN permit ($469.25) and the cost of the Federal LE DGN permit (expected to be less than $100).
        As noted above, all entities subject to this action are considered small entities for RFA purposes. Based on the analysis provided above, the proposed action, if adopted, would not have a significant adverse economic impact on these small business entities. As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660
          Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting, and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated: October 25, 2017.
          Samuel D. Rauch, III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

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

          PART 660—FISHERIES OFF WEST COAST STATES

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

          Authority:
           16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq., and 16 U.S.C. 7001 et seq.

        2. In § 660.702, revise the definition of “Sustainable Fisheries Division” to read as follows:

          Sustainable Fisheries Division (SFD) means the Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries, West Coast Region, NMFS, or his or her designee.

        3. In § 660.707, revise paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(4), (b)(1), (b)(3), (b)(4), and (e), and add paragraph (f) to read as follows:

          § 660.707
           Permits.
          (a) * * *
          (1) A commercial fishing vessel of the United States must be registered for use under a general HMS permit that authorizes the use of specific gear, and a recreational charter vessel must be registered for use under a HMS permit if that vessel is used:
          (i) To fish for HMS in the U.S. EEZ off the States of California, Oregon, and Washington; or
          (ii) To land or transship HMS shoreward of the outer boundary of the U.S. EEZ off the States of California, Oregon, and Washington.

          (4) Only a person eligible to own a documented vessel under the terms of 46 U.S.C. 12102(a) may be issued or may hold (by ownership or otherwise) a general HMS permit.
          (b) * * *
          (1) Following publication of the final rule implementing the FMP, NMFS will issue general HMS permits to the owners of those vessels on a list of vessels obtained from owners previously applying for a permit under the authority of the High Seas Fishing Compliance Act, the Tuna Conventions Act of 1950, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and the Fishery Management Plan for Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region, or whose vessels are listed on the vessel register of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission.

          (3) An owner of a vessel subject to these requirements who has not received a permit under this section from NMFS and who wants to engage in the fisheries must apply to the SFD for the required permit in accordance with the following:

          (i) A West Coast Region Federal Fisheries application form may be obtained from the SFD or downloaded from the West Coast Region home page (http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/permits/commercial_fishing_research_permits.html) to apply for a permit under this section. A completed application is one that contains all the necessary information and signatures required.
          (ii) A minimum of 15 days should be allowed for processing a permit application. If an incomplete or improperly completed application is filed, the applicant will be sent a notice of deficiency. If the applicant fails to correct the deficiency within 30 days following the date of notification, the application will be considered abandoned.
          (iii) A permit will be issued by the SFD. If an application is denied, the SFD will indicate the reasons for denial.
          (iv) Appeals. (A) Any applicant for an initial permit may appeal the initial issuance decision to the Regional Administrator. To be considered by the Regional Administrator, such appeal must be in writing and state the reasons for the appeal, and must be submitted within 30 days of the action by the Regional Administrator. The appellant may request an informal hearing on the appeal.
          (B) Upon receipt of an appeal authorized by this section, the Regional Administrator will notify the permit applicant, or permit holder as appropriate, and will request such additional information and in such form as will allow action upon the appeal.
          (C) Upon receipt of sufficient information, the Regional Administrator will decide the appeal in accordance with the permit provisions set forth in this section at the time of the application, based upon information relative to the application on file at NMFS and the Council and any additional information submitted to or obtained by the Regional Administrator, the summary record kept of any hearing and the hearing officer's recommended decision, if any, and such other considerations as the Regional Administrator deems appropriate. The Regional Administrator will notify all interested persons of the decision, and the reasons for the decision, in writing, normally within 30 days of the receipt of sufficient information, unless additional time is needed for a hearing.
          (D) If a hearing is requested, or if the Regional Administrator determines that one is appropriate, the Regional Administrator may grant an informal hearing before a hearing officer designated for that purpose after first giving notice of the time, place, and subject matter of the hearing to the applicant. The appellant, and, at the discretion of the hearing officer, other interested persons, may appear personally or be represented by counsel at the hearing and submit information and present arguments as determined appropriate by the hearing officer. Within 30 days of the last day of the hearing, the hearing officer shall recommend in writing a decision to the Regional Administrator.
          (E) The Regional Administrator may adopt the hearing officer's recommended decision, in whole or in part, or may reject or modify it. In any event, the Regional Administrator will notify interested persons of the decision, and the reason(s) therefore, in writing, within 30 days of receipt of the hearing officer's recommended decision. The Regional Administrator's decision will constitute the final administrative action by NMFS on the matter.
          (F) Any time limit prescribed in this section may be extended for a period not to exceed 30 days by the Regional Administrator for good cause, either upon his or her own motion or upon written request from the appellant stating the reason(s) therefore.

          (4) General HMS permits issued under this subpart will remain valid until the first date of renewal, and permits may be subsequently renewed for 2-year terms. The first date of renewal will be the last day of the vessel owner's birth month in the second calendar year after the permit is issued (e.g., if the birth month is March and the permit is issued on October 3, 2007, the permit will remain valid through March 31, 2009).

          (e) Fees. An application for a permit, or renewal of an existing permit under this section will include a fee for each vessel. The fee amount required will be calculated in accordance with the NOAA Finance Handbook and specified on the application form.
          (f) Federal Limited Entry Drift Gillnet Permit.

          (1) General. This section applies to individuals fishing with large-mesh (14 inch or greater stretched mesh) drift gillnet (DGN) gear. Individuals who target, retain, transship, or land fish captured with a large-mesh DGN must possess a valid Federal limited entry DGN permit. Federal limited entry DGN permits are issued to an individual, and a vessel must be specified on the permit.
          (2) Initial Qualification. Upon publication of NMFS' final rule to establish the Federal limited entry DGN permit, all State of California limited entry DGN permit holders are eligible to obtain a Federal limited entry DGN permit. If a 2017-2018 California state DGN permit renewal application is not received by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or postmarked by March 31, 2018, the permit holder is not eligible to receive a 2018-2019 Federal limited entry DGN permit.
          (3) Documentation and burden of proof. An individual applying for issuance, renewal, transfer, or assignment of a Federal limited entry DGN permit must prove that they meet the qualification requirements by submitting the following documentation, as applicable: A certified copy of the assigned vessel's documentation as a fishing vessel of the United States (U.S. Coast Guard or state) is the best evidence of vessel identification; a copy of a current State of California limited entry DGN permit is the best evidence of initial qualification for a Federal limited entry DGN permit; a copy of a written contract reserving or conveying limited entry rights is the best evidence of reserved or acquired rights; and other relevant, credible evidence that the applicant may wish to submit or that the SFD may request or require.
          (4) Fees. Any processing fee will be determined by the service costs needed to process a permit request. If a fee is required, it would cover administrative expenses related to issuing limited entry permits, as well as renewing, transferring, assigning, and replacing permits. The amount of any fee will be calculated in accordance with the procedures of the NOAA Finance Handbook for determining the administrative costs of each special product or service. A fee may not exceed such costs and is specified with each application form. The appropriate fee must accompany each application.
          (5) Initial decisions. (i) The SFD will make initial decisions regarding issuing, renewing, transferring, and assigning limited entry permits.
          (ii) Adverse decisions shall be in writing and shall state the reasons for the adverse decision.
          (iii) The SFD may decline to act on an application for issuing, renewing, transferring, or assigning a limited entry permit and will notify the applicant, if the permit sanction provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act at 16 U.S.C. 1858(a) and implementing regulations at 15 CFR part 904, subpart D, apply.
          (6) Issuance. Federal limited entry DGN permits will be issued by the SFD. If an application is denied, the SFD will indicate the reasons for denial. A DGN permit will be issued to an individual and assigned to a specific vessel. A permit holder may assign the permit to another vessel once per permit year (April 1 to March 31).
          (7) Appeals. Any applicant for an initial permit may appeal the initial issuance decision to the Regional Administrator. Appeals will be made and processed following procedures as described at paragraph (b)(3)(iv) of this section.
          (8) Transfers. Federal limited entry DGN permits may be transferred to another individual only if the current permit holder has held the Federal DGN permit for a minimum of three consecutive years (counted April 1 to March 31 of the following year). At the time of the establishment of the Federal limited entry DGN permit system, the length of time an individual has held a State of California limited entry DGN permit carries over (e.g., if an individual has held a California DGN permit for two years, they are eligible to transfer the Federal DGN permit after holding the Federal DGN permit for one year). Exceptions to this limitation on permit transfer may be made under the following circumstances:
          (i) The permit holder suffers from a serious illness or permanent disability that prevents the permit holder from earning a livelihood from commercial fishing.
          (ii) If a deceased permit holder's estate or heirs submit a transfer request within six months of the permit holder's death.
          (iii) Upon dissolution of marriage if the permit is held as community property.
          (9) Renewals. (i) The SFD will send notices to renew limited entry permits to the most recent address of the permit holder on file.
          (ii) The permit owner is responsible for renewing a limited entry permit.

          (iii) The deadline for receipt or postmark of a Federal DGN permit renewal application is April 30 of the permit year (i.e., April 30, 2019 for 2019-2020 fishing season). Federal DGN permits must be renewed yearly.
          (iv) A DGN permit that is allowed to expire will not be renewed unless the permit owner requests reissuance by July 31 (three months after the renewal application deadline) and NMFS determines that failure to renew was proximately caused by illness, injury, or death of the permit owner. If the permit expires, it will be forfeited and NMFS will not reissue the permit to anyone.
          (10) Owner on-board requirement. (i) Except as provided in paragraphs (ii) through (v), the DGN permit holder must be on-board the vessel and in possession of a valid Federal limited entry DGN permit when engaged in DGN fishing activity.
          (ii) A permit holder may designate another individual to fish under their permit for up to 15 days per fishing year (April 1 to March 31 of the following year); the substitute must comply with all other Federal permitting requirements. A permit holder shall notify NMFS of a substitution at least 24 hours prior to the commencement of the trip.
          (iii) If the person who owns a Federal DGN permit is prevented from being on-board a fishing vessel because the person died, is ill, or is injured, NMFS may allow an exemption to the owner on-board requirement for more than 15 days. The person requesting the exemption must send a letter to NMFS requesting an exemption from the owner on-board requirements, with appropriate evidence as described at paragraph (f)(10)(iv) or (v) of this section. All exemptions for death, injury, or illness will be evaluated by NMFS and a decision will be made in writing to the permit owner (or, in the case of the death of the permit owner, to the estate or heirs of the permit owner) within 60 calendar days of receipt of the original exemption request.
          (iv) Evidence of death of the permit owner shall be provided to NMFS in the form of a copy of a death certificate. In the interim before the estate is settled, if the deceased permit owner was subject to the owner on-board requirements, the estate of the deceased permit owner may send a letter to NMFS with a copy of the death certificate, requesting an exemption from the owner-on-board requirements. An exemption due to death of the permit owner will be effective only until such time that the estate of the deceased permit owner has registered the deceased permit owner's permit to a beneficiary, transferred the permit to another owner, or three years after the date of death as proven by a death certificate, whichever is earliest. An exemption from the owner-on-board requirement will be conveyed in a letter from NMFS to the estate of the permit owner and is required to be on the vessel during DGN fishing operations.
          (v) Evidence of illness or injury that prevents the permit owner from participating in the fishery shall be provided to NMFS in the form of a letter from a certified medical practitioner. This letter must detail the relevant medical conditions of the permit owner and how those conditions prevent the permit owner from being on-board a fishing vessel during DGN fishing. An exemption due to injury or illness will be effective only for the fishing year of the request for exemption. In order to extend a medical exemption for a succeeding year, the permit owner must submit a new request and provide documentation from a certified medical practitioner detailing why the permit owner is still unable to be on-board a fishing vessel. An exemption from the owner-on-board requirement will be conveyed in a letter from NMFS to the permit owner and is required to be on the vessel during DGN fishing operations.

      [FR Doc. 2017-23571 Filed 10-30-17; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Parts 223 and 224
        [Docket No. 171004968-7968-01]
        RIN 0648-XF748
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To Identify the Northwest Atlantic Leatherback Turtle as a Distinct Population Segment and List It as Threatened Under the Endangered Species Act

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of 90-day petition finding; request for information; and initiation of status review.

          SUMMARY:

          We, NMFS, announce a 90-day finding on a petition to identify the Northwest Atlantic subpopulation of the leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) as a Distinct Population Segment (DPS) and list it as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). We find that the petition and information readily available in our files present substantial scientific and commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. We are hereby initiating a status review of the leatherback turtle to determine whether the petitioned action is warranted and to examine the species globally with regard to application of the DPS Policy in light of significant new information since the original listing. To ensure that the status review is comprehensive, we are soliciting scientific and commercial information pertaining to the leatherback turtle from any interested party.

          DATES:
          Information and comments on the subject action must be received by February 5, 2018.

          ADDRESSES:

          Copies of the petition and related materials are available on NMFS' Web site at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/leatherback-turtle. You may submit comments, information, or data, by either of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2017-0147, click the “Comment Now” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail or hand-delivery: Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Attn: Jennifer Schultz.

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

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Jennifer Schultz, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS (301) 427-8443, or email jennifer.schultz@noaa.gov). Persons who use a Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339, 24 hours a day and 7 days a week.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Background

        On September 20, 2017, NMFS received a petition from Blue Water Fishermen's Association to identify the Northwest Atlantic leatherback turtle as a DPS and list it as threatened under the ESA. The species is currently listed as endangered throughout its range under the ESA (35 FR 8491, June 2, 1970). Copies of the petitions are available upon request (see ADDRESSES).
        ESA Statutory, Regulatory, and Policy Provisions and Evaluation Framework

        Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires, to the maximum extent practicable, that within 90 days of receipt of a petition to list a species as threatened or endangered, the Secretary of Commerce make a finding on whether that petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted, and to promptly publish such finding in the Federal Register (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)). When it is found that substantial scientific or commercial information in a petition indicates the petitioned action may be warranted (a “positive 90-day finding”), we are required to promptly commence a review of the status of the species concerned during which we will conduct a comprehensive review of the best available scientific and commercial information. In such cases, we conclude the review with a finding as to whether, in fact, the petitioned action is warranted within 12 months of receipt of the petition. Because the finding at the 12-month stage is based on a more thorough review of the available information, as compared to the narrow scope of review at the 90-day stage, a “may be warranted” finding does not prejudge the outcome of the status review.

        Under the ESA, a listing determination may address a species, which is defined to also include subspecies and, for any vertebrate species, any DPS that interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). A joint NMFS-U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) policy clarifies the agencies' interpretation of the phrase “distinct population segment” for the purposes of listing, delisting, and reclassifying a species under the ESA (i.e., “DPS Policy;” 61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996). A species, subspecies, or DPS is “endangered” if it is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and “threatened” if it is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range (ESA sections 3(6) and 3(20), respectively, 16 U.S.C. 1532(6) and (20)). Pursuant to the ESA and our implementing regulations, we determine whether species are threatened or endangered based on any one or a combination of the following five section 4(a)(1) factors: The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range; overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; disease or predation; inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or any other natural or manmade factors affecting the species' existence (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1), 50 CFR 424.11(c)).
        ESA-implementing regulations issued jointly by NMFS and USFWS (50 CFR 424.14(h)(1)(i)) define substantial scientific or commercial information in the context of reviewing a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species as credible scientific or commercial information in support of the petition's claims such that a reasonable person conducting an impartial scientific review would conclude that the action proposed in the petition may be warranted. Conclusions drawn in the petition without the support of credible scientific or commercial information will not be considered “substantial information.” In reaching the initial finding on the petition, we will consider the information described in sections 50 CFR 424.14(c), (d), and (g) (if applicable).

        Our determination on whether the petition provides substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted will depend in part on the degree to which the petition includes the following types of information: (1) Information on current population status and trends and estimates of current population sizes and distributions, both in captivity and the wild, if available; (2) identification of the factors under section 4(a)(1) of the ESA that may affect the species and where these factors are acting upon the species; (3) whether and to what extent any or all of the factors alone or in combination identified in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA may cause the species to be an endangered species or threatened species (i.e., the species is currently in danger of extinction or is likely to become so within the foreseeable future), and, if so, how high in magnitude and how imminent the threats to the species and its habitat are; (4) information on adequacy of regulatory protections and effectiveness of conservation activities by States as well as other parties, that have been initiated or that are ongoing, that may protect the species or its habitat; and (5) a complete, balanced representation of the relevant facts, including information that may contradict claims in the petition. See 50 CFR 424.14(d).

        If the petitioner provides supplemental information before the initial finding is made and states that it is part of the petition, the new information, along with the previously submitted information, is treated as a new petition that supersedes the original petition, and the statutory timeframes will begin when such supplemental information is received. See 50 CFR 424.14(g).

        We may also consider information readily available at the time the determination is made. We are not required to consider any supporting materials cited by the petitioner if the petitioner does not provide electronic or hard copies, to the extent permitted by U.S. copyright law, or appropriate excerpts or quotations from those materials (e.g., publications, maps, reports, letters from authorities). See 50 CFR 424.14(c)(6).
        The “substantial scientific or commercial information” standard must be applied in light of any prior reviews or findings we have made on the listing status of the species that is the subject of the petition. Where we have already conducted a finding on, or review of, the listing status of that species (whether in response to a petition or on our own initiative), we will evaluate any petition received thereafter seeking to list, delist, or reclassify that species to determine whether a reasonable person conducting an impartial scientific review would conclude that the action proposed in the petition may be warranted despite the previous review or finding. Where the prior review resulted in a final agency action—such as a final listing determination, 90-day not-substantial finding, or 12-month, not-warranted finding—a petitioned action will generally not be considered to present substantial scientific and commercial information indicating that the action may be warranted unless the petition provides new information or analyses not previously considered.
        At the 90-day finding stage, we do not conduct additional research, and we do not solicit information from parties outside the agency to help us in evaluating the petition. We will accept the petitioners' sources and characterizations of the information presented if they appear to be based on accepted scientific principles, unless we have specific information in our files that indicates the petition's information is incorrect, unreliable, obsolete, or otherwise irrelevant to the requested action. Information that is susceptible to more than one interpretation or that is contradicted by other available information will not be dismissed at the 90-day finding stage, so long as it is reliable and a reasonable person conducting an impartial scientific review would conclude it supports the petitioners' assertions. In other words, conclusive information indicating the species may meet the ESA's requirements for listing is not required to make a positive 90-day finding. We will not conclude that a lack of specific information alone necessitates a negative 90-day finding if a reasonable person conducting an impartial scientific review would conclude that the unknown information itself suggests the species may be at risk of extinction presently or within the foreseeable future.

        To make a 90-day finding on a petition to list a species, we evaluate whether the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating the subject species may be either threatened or endangered, as defined by the ESA. First, we evaluate whether the information presented in the petition, along with the information readily available in our files, indicates that the petitioned entity constitutes a “species” eligible for listing under the ESA. Next, we evaluate whether the information indicates that the species faces an extinction risk such that listing, delisting, or reclassification may be warranted; this may be indicated in information expressly discussing the species' status and trends, or in information describing impacts and threats to the species. We evaluate any information on specific demographic factors pertinent to evaluating extinction risk for the species (e.g., population abundance and trends, productivity, spatial structure, age structure, sex ratio, diversity, current and historical range, habitat integrity or fragmentation), and the potential contribution of identified demographic risks to extinction risk for the species. We then evaluate the potential links between these demographic risks and the causative impacts and threats identified in section 4(a)(1).

        Information presented on impacts or threats should be specific to the species and should reasonably suggest that one or more of these factors may be operative threats that act or have acted on the species to the point that it may warrant protection under the ESA. Broad statements about generalized threats to the species, or identification of factors that could negatively impact a species, do not constitute substantial information indicating that listing may be warranted. We look for information indicating that not only is the particular species exposed to a factor, but that the species may be responding in a negative fashion; then we assess the potential significance of that negative response.

        Many petitions identify risk classifications made by nongovernmental organizations, such as the International Union on the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the American Fisheries Society, or NatureServe, as evidence of extinction risk for a species. Risk classifications by such organizations or made under other Federal or state statutes may be informative, but such classification alone will not alone provide sufficient basis for a positive 90-day finding under the ESA. For example, as explained by NatureServe, their assessments of a species' conservation status do “not constitute a recommendation by NatureServe for listing under the U.S. Endangered Species Act” because NatureServe assessments “have different criteria, evidence requirements, purposes and taxonomic coverage than government lists of endangered and threatened species, and therefore, these two types of lists should not be expected to coincide” (www.natureserve.org/prodServices/pdf/NatureServeStatusAssessmentsListing-Dec%202008.pdf). Additionally, species classifications under IUCN and the ESA are not equivalent; data standards, criteria used to evaluate species, and treatment of uncertainty are also not necessarily the same. Thus, when a petition cites such classifications, we will evaluate the source of information that the classification is based upon in light of the standards on extinction risk and impacts or threats discussed above.
        Analysis of the Petition and Information Readily Available in NMFS' Files
        As mentioned above, in analyzing the request of the petitioner, we first evaluate whether the information presented in the petition, along with information readily available in our files, indicates that the petitioned entity constitutes a “species” eligible for listing under the ESA. Because the petition specifically requests listing of a DPS, we evaluate whether the information may warrant identification of the petitioned entity, the Northwest Atlantic leatherback turtle subpopulation, as a DPS pursuant to our DPS Policy.
        When identifying a DPS, our DPS Policy stipulates two elements that must be considered: (1) The discreteness of the population segment in relation to the remainder of the species (or subspecies) to which it belongs; and (2) the significance of the population segment to the remainder of the species (or subspecies) to which it belongs. In terms of discreteness, the DPS Policy states that a population of a vertebrate species may be considered discrete if it satisfies one of the following conditions: (1) It is markedly separated from other populations of the same taxon as a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or behavioral factors (quantitative measures of genetic or morphological discontinuity may provide evidence of this separation); or (2) it is delimited by international governmental boundaries within which differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat, conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist that are significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the ESA. If a population segment is considered discrete under one or more of the above conditions, then its biological and ecological significance is considered. Significance under the DPS Policy is evaluated in terms of the importance of the population segment to the overall welfare of the species. Some of the considerations that can be used to determine a discrete population segment's significance to the taxon as a whole include: (1) Persistence of the population segment in an unusual or unique ecological setting; (2) evidence that loss of the population segment would result in a significant gap in the range of the taxon; (3) evidence that the discrete population segment represents the only surviving natural occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant elsewhere as an introduced population outside its historic range; or (4) evidence that the population segment differs markedly from other populations of the species in its genetic characteristics.
        In evaluating this petition, we looked for information to suggest that the petitioned entity, the Northwest Atlantic leatherback turtle, may warrant identification as a DPS under both the discreteness and significance criteria of our DPS Policy. We next considered if such a DPS may warrant listing as a threatened species under the ESA. The following is a summary of our findings based on our review of the references cited in the petition and those available in our files.
        Consideration of the Northwest Atlantic Leatherback Turtle Subpopulation as a DPS
        The petition asserts that the Northwest Atlantic leatherback turtle qualifies as a DPS under the ESA. The petition defines the Northwest Atlantic leatherback turtle subpopulation as those turtles that hatch on nesting beaches along the western Atlantic Ocean, north of the Equator, and the Caribbean Sea. Their marine habitat extends throughout the North Atlantic Ocean.

        The petition asserts that the subpopulation is discrete because it is genetically differentiated (e.g., statistically significant genetic structure at maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) haplotypes and biparentally inherited nuclear microsatellite DNA loci; Dutton et al., 2013) and geographically separated (e.g., northern hemisphere residency, as determined by tagging and satellite tracking data; Eckert et al., 2013, NMFS and USFWS 2013, and Saba 2013) from other leatherback turtle subpopulations. The petition asserts that the subpopulation is significant because its loss would create a significant gap (i.e., the Northwest Atlantic Ocean) in the range of the species.

        In our most recent 5-year review of the species, we found that a substantial amount of genetic, tagging, and tracking data has become available since the original leatherback turtle listing in 1970 (35 FR 8491, June 2, 1970; NMFS and USFWS 2013). We found that these data warrant additional review but appear to indicate possible separation by ocean basin, at a minimum (NMFS and USFWS 2013). For example, Atlantic and Pacific leatherback turtles share few mtDNA haplotypes, providing evidence for genetic discontinuity (Dutton et al., 1999). Among Atlantic Ocean subpopulations, there is statistically significant genetic structure at mtDNA and microsatellite DNA loci (Dutton et al., 2013) that warrants further review. Similarly, tracking and tagging data appear to indicate geographic separation between and within ocean basins (as reviewed by Eckert et al., 2013; NMFS and USFWS 2013; and Saba 2013). However, leatherback turtles nesting off the Indian Ocean coastline of southern Africa forage in both southern Atlantic and Indian Oceans (Saba 2013). These genetic, tagging, and tracking data warrant further consideration in our evaluation of discreteness. If we find such population segments to be discrete, there is evidence to suggest that their loss may result in a significant gap (e.g.,
          the Northwest Atlantic Ocean) in the species' range. Therefore, based on the information included in the petition and our files, we conclude that application of the DPS Policy to the petitioned subpopulation, and/or other leatherback turtle subpopulations, may be warranted.
        Consideration of the Northwest Atlantic Leatherback Turtle DPS as Threatened Under the ESA

        The petition asserts that the Northwest Atlantic leatherback turtle subpopulation qualifies as threatened under the ESA due to several section 4(a)(1) factors. It states that the Northwest Atlantic leatherback turtle is threatened by the destruction of habitat, and especially of nesting beaches, as a result of urbanization, erosion, and beach debris (as reviewed by NMFS and USFWS 2013). The petition identifies two anthropogenic threats as having the largest population-level effects on the Northwest Atlantic leatherback turtle: Climate change and fisheries bycatch. The petition states that climate change likely impacts terrestrial and marine habitats. It states that bycatch in both artisanal and large-scale fisheries likely removes more individuals from the subpopulation than any other anthropogenic source. The petition asserts that the Northwest Atlantic leatherback turtle is threatened but not currently at risk of extinction (i.e., endangered) due to its overall population size. For example, based on nesting counts from 2004 and 2005, the total estimated adult population size ranges between 17,000 and 52,000 turtles (Turtle Expert Working Group 2007). While the petition identified an overall increase in nesting trends (e.g., Turtle Expert Working Group 2007), it also identified stalled (e.g., Garner et al., 2017) or decreasing trends (e.g., Eckert et al., 2012; Eckert et al., 2013) at some nesting beaches. Finally, the petition identifies numerous existing regulatory mechanisms that may have contributed to the increase in overall population size.

        We find that the petition contains substantial scientific and commercial information describing the threats to the Northwest Atlantic leatherback turtle. These threats may contribute to the extinction risk of the subpopulation (NMFS and USFWS 2013). Some demographic factors (e.g., abundance and trends of nesting females at some beaches) suggest improvement, possibly as a result of regulatory mechanisms and conservation efforts (Turtle Expert Working Group 2007). However, trends at specific nesting beaches warrant further review. Based on the information included in the petition and our files, we conclude that the Northwest Atlantic leatherback turtle may warrant listing as threatened or endangered under the ESA.
        Petition Finding
        After reviewing the information contained in the petition, as well as information readily available in our files, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific and commercial information indicating that the petitioned action to identify the Northwest Atlantic leatherback turtle as a DPS and list it as threatened may be warranted. Therefore, in accordance with section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.14(h)(2)), NMFS and the USFWS will jointly commence a status review of the species.
        During the status review, NMFS and USFWS will consider the species in light of the DPS Policy and evaluate the extinction risk of any such DPS. NMFS and USFWS will then make a 12-month finding regarding the identification of DPS(s) and whether an endangered or threatened listing is warranted as required by section 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA. If listing is found to be warranted, we will publish a proposed rule and solicit public comments before developing and publishing a final rule.
        Information Solicited
        To ensure that we base the status review on the best available scientific and commercial data, we are soliciting information on the leatherback turtle. Specifically, we are soliciting information in the following areas: (1) Historical and current distribution; (2) migratory movements and behavior; (3) genetic population structure, including recommendations on global DPS structure; (4) historical and current population status and trends; (5) current or planned activities that may adversely impact leatherback turtles; and (6) ongoing efforts to conserve leatherback turtles. We request that all information be accompanied by: (1) Supporting documentation such as maps, bibliographic references, or reprints of pertinent publications; and (2) the submitter's name, address, and any association, institution, or business that the person represents.
        We are also requesting information on areas within U.S. jurisdiction that may qualify as additional critical habitat for leatherback turtles. Please identify: Physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the species that may require special management considerations; areas occupied by the species containing those essential features; and unoccupied areas essential for conservation of the species (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(A); 50 CFR 424.12).
        References Cited

        A complete list of references, including those submitted with the petition and those readily available in NMFS' files, is available upon request to the NMFS Office of Protected Resources (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: December 1, 2017.
          Alan D. Risenhoover,
          Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2017-26276 Filed 12-5-17; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 697
        [Docket No.  0104-13093-1093-01; I.D.  032301C]
        RIN 0648-AP18
        Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act Provisions; American Lobster Fishery

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

          ACTION:
          Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR)

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS announces that it is considering, and seeking public comment on, revisions to Federal American lobster regulations for the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) in response to recommendations from the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) to NMFS in Addendum II to Amendment 3 of the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for American Lobster (ISFMP).  Addendum II, approved by the ASMFC on February 1, 2001, revises the Amendment 3-egg production schedule in each of seven lobster conservation management areas (LCMAs) to end overfishing of American lobster stocks by the end of 2008.  The management measures defined in Addendum II to meet the egg production targets include a series of minimum gauge size increases (increases in the minimum allowable harvest size of American lobster) in five of the seven LCMAs, trap gear modifications, and a 4-year trap reduction schedule for LCMA 3.

          DATES:

          Written comments must be received at the appropriate address or facsimile (fax) number (see ADDRESSES) no later than 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on or before June 25, 2001.

          ADDRESSES:
          Written comments must be sent to: Harold C. Mears, Director, State, Federal, and Constituent Programs Office, Northeast Region, NMFS, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930.  Comments may also be sent via fax to (978) 281-9117. Comments submitted via e-mail or Internet will not be accepted.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Peter Burns, Fishery Management Specialist, (978) 281-9144, fax (978) 281-9117.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The fishery for American lobster takes place from North Carolina to Maine.  More than 50 percent of American lobsters harvested are landed in Maine, with the balance landed mostly in or from Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Long Island Sound and Georges Bank.  Over 80 percent of the lobster harvest occurs in state waters, which extend from the coast to 3 nautical miles (5.56 km) from shore.  The lobster fishery occurs year-round in the United States, including the summer and fall months when the lobsters are molting. Approximately 97 percent of lobsters are taken in lobster traps. The rest are taken in trawls, gillnets, and dredges and by divers.
        Prior to December 1999, the American lobster resource was managed in state waters by the ASMFC under the auspices of the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act (ACFCMA), and in Federal waters by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).  Acknowledging that approximately 80 percent of the American lobster harvest occurs in state waters, and in an effort to establish a more effective lobster management regime by enhancing interjurisdictional cooperation, NMFS issued a final rule in December 6, 1999 (64 FR 68228) for the American lobster fishery.  That final rule removed management measures issued under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and replaced them with the same and a variety of new management measures issued under the authority of ACFCMA.  ACFCMA provides NMFS with the authority to implement regulations in Federal waters that are compatible with effective implementation of the ISFMP and consistent with the national standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.  Such Federal regulations are promulgated pursuant to ACFCMA at 50 CFR part 697.

        Amendment 3 of the ISFMP was approved by the ASMFC in December 1997 to achieve a healthy American lobster resource and develop a management regime that provides for sustained harvest, maintains opportunities for participation, and provides for the cooperative development of conservation measures by all stakeholders.  Following the May 2000 release of an updated peer-reviewed lobster stock assessment (ASMFC Stock Assessment Peer Review Report No. 00-01), which revised lobster egg production estimates and confirmed that overfishing of lobster stocks is occurring throughout the species range, the ASMFC developed Addendum II to Amendment 3 for implementing additional measures needed to rebuild American lobster stocks.  Addendum II, approved by ASMFC in February 2001, establishes a revised egg production schedule to restore egg production in each LCMA to greater than the overfishing definition by the end of 2008.  Measures under the addendum to help achieve this goal include a series of minimum gauge size increases and an increase in the minimum escape vent size of lobster trap gear fished in state and Federal waters of LCMA 2 (inshore Southern New England), LCMA 3 (offshore waters), LCMA 4 (inshore Northern Mid-Atlantic), LCMA 5 (inshore Southern Mid-Atlantic), and the Outer Cape Management Area, but not LCMA 1 (Gulf of Maine) and LCMA 6 (Long Island Sound).  The addendum also calls for a revised timeline for LCMA 3 trap reductions, previously approved by the ASMFC under Addendum I.  By approving Addendum II, the states have agreed to implement the first annual LCMA-specific gauge increases by December 31, 2001, and to implement the escape vent increase by 2003.  On February 26, 2001, NMFS received a recommendation from ASMFC to implement complementary Federal measures for Federal waters of LCMAs 2, 4, 5, and the Outer Cape, as well as in LCMA 3 (comprised entirely of Federal waters).
        Specifically, the minimum allowable harvest size of American lobster in state waters of LCMAs 2,4,5 and the Outer Cape is scheduled to increase from 3 1/4 inches (in.) (8.26 cm) to 3 9/32 in. (8.33 cm) in 2001, and increase 1/32 in. (0.08 cm) annually until 2004 to an ultimate minimum size of 3 3/8 in. (8.57 cm).  The ASMFC recommends that the gauge increases in Federal waters of LCMA 2, 4, 5, and the Outer Cape, as well as in LCMA 3 follow this same schedule.  If the egg production targets of the ISFMP have not been reached by 2004, ASMFC further recommends additional annual increases in LCMA 3 of 1/32 in. (0.08 cm) until 2008, to an ultimate minimum size of 3 ½ in. (8.89 cm).  The current minimum allowable harvest size for American lobster in all Federal waters is 3 1/4 in. (8.26 cm).
        Under Addendum II, states will require that each lobster trap have at least one rectangular escape vent measuring 2 in. (5.08 cm) by 5 3/4 in. (14.61 cm), or at least two circular escape vents, measuring 2 ½ in. (6.35 cm) in diameter.  The ASMFC recommends that Federal regulations implement these new escape vent size requirements in Federal waters.  At the current time, Federal regulations require that all lobster trap gear have a rectangular portal with an unobstructed opening not less than 1 15/16 in. (4.92 cm) by 5 3/4 in. (14.61 cm); or two circular portals with unobstructed openings not less than 2 7/16 in. (6.19 cm) in diameter.
        Also, Addendum II recommends that the trap reduction schedule previously adopted for LCMA 3 under Addendum I of Amendment 3 to the ISFMP be updated to account for the elapsed time between the two addenda.  If implemented through Federal regulations, each LCMA 3 trap allocation of greater than 1200 traps would be reduced on a sliding scale basis over 4 years, not to fall below 1200 traps.  LCMA 3 allocations of less than 1200 traps would remain at their initial qualifying level and not increase from that baseline number.  No allocation would exceed 2656 traps during the first year of implementation.  At the end of the fourth year, the maximum number of traps allowed for any vessel would be 2267.  At the current time, fishing effort in LCMA 3 is restricted to a fixed maximum limit of 1800 traps per vessel.
        Addendum II furthermore recommends that NMFS require LCMA 3 lobstermen to maintain vessel logs to record lobster harvest.  Current Federal regulations do not require vessel logs.  Another component of the addendum includes a review of management measures in all LCMAs, by June 2001, to determine if other measures are needed to achieve ISFMP stock rebuilding objectives.  Any adjustments would be adopted by ASMFC as a separate addendum by January 2002, at which time ASMFC may recommend further changes to Federal regulations.
        ASMFC recommends that NMFS adopt Addendum II’s revised egg production schedule in all EEZ areas throughout the range of the lobster resource and implement the associated management measures (gauge increases, modifications to lobster trap gear requirements and LCMA 3 trap reduction schedule, and vessel log reporting requirement) in the Federal waters of the applicable LCMAs.  NMFS is considering proposed rulemaking to revise further the Federal lobster regulations to be compatible with the ASMFC’s ISFMP and is seeking comments on implementation of the ASMFC’s recommendations for Federal waters.

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 1851 note; 16 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.

          Dated: May 17, 2001.
          Clarence Pautzke,
          Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 01-13076 Filed 5-23-01; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE  3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        [Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2012-0097: FXES11130900000C2-156-FF09E32000]
        RIN 1018-AZ74
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Rule To Amend the Listing of the Southern Selkirk Mountains Population of Woodland Caribou

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; reopening of comment period.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the reopening of the public comment period on our May 8, 2014, proposed rule to amend the listing of the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) to the Southern Mountain caribou distinct population segment (DPS). The southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou is currently listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). On May 8, 2014, we proposed to list the Southern Mountain caribou DPS as threatened under the Act. This reopening of comment period will provide all interested parties with an opportunity to review additional scientific information and provide comment on the status of the Southern Mountain caribou DPS. Information previously submitted need not be resubmitted as it has already been incorporated into the public record and will be fully considered in the final listing determination.

          DATES:

          The comment period for the proposed rule published May 8, 2014, at 79 FR 26504, is reopened. We will consider comments received or postmarked on or before April 23, 2015. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES section, below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date. Any comments that we receive after the closing date may not be considered in the final decision on this action.

          ADDRESSES:

            Document availability: You may obtain a copy of the proposed rule and associated documents on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2012-0097, or by contacting the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

            Comment submission: You may submit written information by one of the following methods:
          (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R1-ES-2012-0097, which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click the Search button. In the Search panel on the left side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, click on the box next to “Proposed Rule” to locate this document. You may submit a comment by clicking on “Comment Now!” Please ensure that you have found the correct rulemaking before submitting your comment.
          (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R1-ES-2012-0097; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: BPHC; 5275 Leesburg Pike; Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.

          We request that you send comments only by the methods described above. We will post all comments received on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see the Information Requested section, below, for more information).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Michael Carrier, State Supervisor, Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office, 1387 S. Vinnell Way, Room 368, Boise, ID (telephone 208-378-5243; facsimile 208-378-5262). If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal Information Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Background
        On May 8, 2014, we published in the Federal Register (79 FR 26504) a document consisting of: (1) A 12-month finding on a petition to delist the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou); (2) a proposed rule to amend the current listing of this population by defining the Southern Mountain caribou DPS, which includes the currently listed southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou, and to list that DPS as threatened under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); and (3) a determination that the approximately 30,010 acres (12,145 hectares) designated as critical habitat on November 28, 2012 (77 FR 71042), for the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou is applicable to the U.S. portion of the proposed Southern Mountain Caribou DPS. The May 8, 2014, proposed rule had a 60-day public comment period, ending July 7, 2014. On June 10, 2014, we extended the public comment period an additional 30 days, ending on August 6, 2014, and we announced the scheduling of two public informational sessions and hearings, which were held on June 25, 2014, in Sandpoint, Idaho, and on June 26, 2014, in Bonners Ferry, Idaho (79 FR 33169).

        Subsequent to the closing of the public comment period on August 6, 2014, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) finalized their assessment of the biological status of the Southern Mountain caribou population, changing it from threatened to endangered. In August 2014, COSEWIC, in accordance with Canada's federal Species At Risk Act (SARA), submitted their assessment of endangered biological status to the Canadian federal Environment Minister for consideration of changing the legal status of the Southern Mountain caribou in Canada under SARA to endangered. The recommended change in the legal status under SARA is pending review and decision by the federal Environment Minister. Although we were aware that COSEWIC's assessment was underway and we received some of the preliminary information contained in their assessment, we were not able to incorporate the information into our proposed rule (79 FR 26504, May 8, 2014), because the assessment was not yet finalized by COSEWIC. The assessment is now available from COSEWIC for public review (http://www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/document/default_e.cfm?documentID=2575) and is also available for public inspection at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2012-0097. The 2014 COSEWIC assessment provides an updated synthesis and review of existing data and information about the species in Canada since the previous assessment by COSEWIC in 2002. The updated assessment includes an analysis of population size and trend and current threats to the population. Additionally, the assessment considered two population viability analyses, which are also available for public inspection at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2012-0097. This assessment, along with the population viability analyses, will be important sources of information for our status review and final listing determination for the Southern Mountain caribou DPS.

        Additionally, peer review of the proposed amended listing was conducted, and the report is available at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2012-0097.
        Information Requested

        We intend that any final action resulting from the proposed rule will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available, and be as accurate and complete as possible. Therefore, we are again seeking written comments and information from other concerned Federal and State agencies, the scientific community, or any other interested party during this reopened comment period on our proposed rule that published in the Federal Register on May 8, 2014 (79 FR 26504). We are particularly interested in comments and information regarding the current status and population trends of the local populations that comprise the proposed Southern Mountain caribou DPS. This information will be used to determine the status of the DPS as either not warranted for listing, threatened, or endangered.
        If you submitted comments or information on the proposed rule (79 FR 26504) during the initial comment period from May 8, 2014, to July 6, 2014, or the extended comment period (79 FR 33169) from July 7, 2014, to August 6, 2014, please do not resubmit them. We have incorporated them into the public record as part of the original comment period, and we will fully consider them in our final determination.

        Please note that 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, as 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 comments and materials concerning the proposed rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you send comments only by the methods described 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 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. Please include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
        If you submit a comment via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire comment—including any personal identifying information—will be posted on the Web site. We will post all hardcopy comments on http://www.regulations.gov as well. If you submit a hardcopy comment that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

        Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing the proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2012-0097, or by appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
        Authority

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

          Dated: March 11, 2015.
          Robert Dreher,
          Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

      [FR Doc. 2015-06640 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 4310-55-P