        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        [Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2011-0005; 92220-1113-0000-C5]
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To Delist or Reclassify From Endangered to Threatened Six California Species

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Notice of 90-day petition findings and initiation of status reviews.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 90-day finding on a petition to delist Oenothera californica (avita) subsp. eurekensis (Eureka Valley evening-primrose) and Swallenia alexandrae (Eureka Valley dunegrass), and reclassify the tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi), Acmispon dendroideus (Lotus scoparius subsp.) var. traskiae (San Clemente Island broom), Malacothamnus clementinus (San Clemente Island bush-mallow), and Castilleja grisea (San Clemente Island Indian paintbrush) from endangered to threatened 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 the petitioned actions may be warranted. Therefore, with the publication of this notice, we are initiating status reviews of these taxa to determine if the respective actions of delisting and reclassifying are warranted. Section 4(c)(2)(A) of the Act also requires a status review of listed species at least once every 5 years. We are therefore electing to conduct these reviews simultaneously. To ensure that these status reviews are comprehensive, we are requesting scientific and commercial data and other information regarding these species and subspecies. Based on these status reviews, we will issue 12-month findings on the petition, which will address whether the petitioned actions are warranted under section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act.

          DATES:

          To allow us adequate time to conduct this review, we request that we receive information on or before March 21, 2011. Please note that if you are using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see
            ADDRESSES section, below), the deadline for submitting an electronic comment is Eastern Standard Time on this date.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit information by one of the following methods:

            Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the box that reads “Enter Keyword or ID,” enter the Docket number for this finding, which is [insert docket number]. Check the box that reads “Open for Comment/Submission,” and then click the Search button. You should then see an icon that reads “Submit a Comment.” Please ensure that you have found the correct rulemaking before submitting your comment.

            U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, Attn: [FWS-insert docket number]; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203.
          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).

          After March 21, 2011, you must submit information directly to the Field Office (see
            FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Please note that we might not be able to address or incorporate information that we receive after the above requested date.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          For information regarding Acmispon dendroideus (
            Lotus scoparius subsp.) var. traskiae, Malacothamnus clementinus and Castilleja grisea, contact Jim Bartel, Field Supervisor, by mail at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, 6010 Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, CA 92009; by telephone at (760-431-9440); or by facsimile at (760-431-9624).
          For information regarding Oenothera californica (
            avita) subsp. eurekensis,
            Swallenia alexandrae, and the tidewater goby, contact Diane Noda, by mail at Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, 2493 Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, CA 93003; by telephone (805-644-1766); or by facsimile (805-644-3958). 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 delisting or reclassifying a species may be warranted, we are required to promptly review the status of the species (status review). For the status reviews to be complete and based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we request information on Oenothera californica (avita) subsp. eurekensis,
          Swallenia alexandrae, the tidewater goby, Acmispon dendroideus (Lotus scoparius subsp.) var. traskiae, Malacothamnus clementinus, and Castilleja grisea 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/delisting/downlisting determination for a species under section 4(a) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (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; or
        (e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
        Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as references to 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, cannot 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 these status reviews by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. If you submit information via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire submission—including any personal identifying information—will be posted on the Web site. If you submit 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 you may make an appointment during normal business hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad or Ventura Fish and Wildlife Offices (see
          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
        Background

        Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)) 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.

        Section 4(c)(2)(A) of the Act requires that we conduct a review of listed species at least once every 5 years. We are then, under section 4(c)(2)(B), to determine, on the basis of such a review, whether or not any species should be removed from the List (delisted), or reclassified from endangered to threatened, or threatened to endangered. Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.21 require that we publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing those species currently under active review. We published a notice May 21, 2010 (75 FR 28636), announcing the review of Acmispon dendroideus (Lotus scoparius subsp.) var. traskiae, Malacothamnus clementinus, and Castilleja grisea. This notice announces our active review of the Oenothera californica (avita) subsp. eurekensis, Swallenia alexandrae, and the tidewater goby.
        Petition History

        On May 18, 2010, we received a petition dated May 13, 2010, from The Pacific Legal Foundation, requesting the Service to delist Oenothera californica (avita) subsp. eurekensis and Swallenia alexandrae, and to reclassify the tidewater goby, Acmispon dendroideus (Lotus scoparius subsp.) var. traskiae, Malacothamnus clementinus, and Castilleja grisea based on the analysis and recommendations contained in the most recent 5-year reviews for these taxa. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, as required by 50 CFR 424.14(a). The petition contained minor nomenclatural discrepancies for some taxa. However, we have used the currently accepted names of these taxa in this finding, and the finding addresses all of the petitioned taxa.
        Previous Federal Actions

        Under the Act, we maintain a List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants at 50 CFR 17.11 (for animals) and 17.12 (for plants) (List). We amend the List by publishing final rules in the Federal Register. Section 4(c)(2)(A) of the Act requires that we conduct a review of listed species at least once every 5 years. Section 4(c)(2)(B) requires that we determine: (1) Whether a species no longer meets the definition of threatened or endangered and should be removed from the List (delisted); (2) whether a species listed as endangered more properly meets the definition of threatened and should be reclassified to threatened (downlisted); or (3) whether a species listed as threatened more properly meets the definition of endangered and should be reclassified to endangered (uplisted). Using the best scientific and commercial data available, we will consider a species for delisting if the data substantiate that the species is neither endangered nor threatened for one or more of the following reasons: (1) The species is considered extinct; (2) the species is considered to be recovered; or (3) the original data available when the species was listed, or the interpretation of such data, were in error.

        The two Eureka Valley plants were listed as endangered in 1978 (Table 1). A recovery plan was published for both in 1982. Critical habitat has not been designated for either plant. A notice of review initiation was published for the two Eureka Valley plants in 1983 (48 FR 55100; December 8, 1983), 1991 (56 FR 56882; November 6, 1991), and 2005 (70 FR 39327; July 7, 2005). For the review conducted in 1983, the Service concluded in a notice of 5-year review completion that there were no substantial data to suggest a change in status for either of these two plants (50 FR 29900; July 22, 1985). A status review for the two Eureka Valley plants was next completed in 1994 (Noell 1994). Based on this 1994 status review, the Service recommended downlisting each of these two plants. The 5-year review conducted in 2007 for each of these two plants notes that the Service did not publish a proposed rule to downlist either of these species following the 1994 status review, because, under the 1994 Desert Protection Act, the lands where these plants occurred were passed from Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to National Park Service (NPS), and at the time, the Service was uncertain about how the NPS would manage the threats to the species (Service 2007a, p. 4; Service 2007b, p. 2). In the 2007 5-year review, the Service recommended delisting Oenothera californica (avita) subsp. eurekensis (Service 2007a, p. 14) and Swallenia alexandrae (Service 2007b, p. 11).

        The tidewater goby was listed as endangered in 1994 (Table 1). In 1999, the Service proposed to delist populations of tidewater goby in areas north of Orange and San Diego Counties and retain populations in Orange and San Diego Counties as an endangered distinct population segment (64 FR 33816; June 24, 1999). Critical habitat in Orange and San Diego Counties was designated in 2000 (65 FR 69693 November 20, 2000). The proposed rule to delist northern populations was withdrawn in 2002 (67 FR 67803; November 7, 2002). In 2003, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California ordered the Service to promulgate a revised critical habitat rule that considered the entire geographic range of the tidewater goby, and the Service published a new critical habitat rule in 2008 (73 FR 5920; January 31, 2008). A recovery plan for the tidewater goby was published in 2005. A notice of review initiation was published in 2006 (71 FR 14538; March 22, 2006), and the review was completed in 2007 (73 FR 11945; March 5, 2008). The Service recommended downlisting the tidewater goby (Service 2007c, p. 36); however, the Service recommended that the proposed downlisting action be deferred until taxonomic research referred to in the Genetics section of the 2007 5-year review was published, because there was a high likelihood that taxonomic changes to the tidewater goby were imminent (Service 2007c, p. 35). Part of this research was recently published (Earl et al. 2010) and will be considered in the 12-month status review.

        The three San Clemente plants were listed as endangered in 1977 (Table 1). A recovery plan was published for each in 1984. Critical habitat has not been designated for any of these three plants. Notice of review initiations were published in 1982 (47 FR 42387; September 27, 1982), 1987 (52 FR 25523; July 7, 1987), 1991 (56 FR 56882; November 6, 1991), 2005 (70 FR 39327; July 7, 2005), and 2010 (75 FR 28636; May 21, 2010). A 5-year status review was completed for each of these three plants in 2007 (73 FR 11945; March 5, 2008). In the 5-year status reviews, the Service recommended downlisting Acmispon dendroideus (Lotus scoparius subsp.) var. traskiae (Service 2007d, p. 22), Malacothamnus clementinus (Service 2007e, p. 28), and Castilleja grisea (Service 2007f, p. 19).

          Table 1—Previous Federal Actions for the Six Taxa Addressed in This Petition Finding

            Species name
            Date listed and status
            Critical habitatdesignated

            Recovery plan published

            Most recent 5-year review andrecommendation

              Oenothera californica (avita) subsp. eurekensis (Eureka Valley evening-primrose)
            May 27, 1978 (43 FR 17910) Endangered
            NA
            December 13, 1982
            September 24, 2007 Delist.

              Swallenia alexandrae (Eureka Valley dunegrass)
            May 27, 1978 (43 FR 17910)Endangered

            NA
            December 13, 1982
            September 24, 2007 Delist.

            Tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi)
            February 4, 1994 (59 FR 5494) Endangered
            January 31, 2008 (73 FR 5920)
            December 7, 2005
            September 28, 2007 Downlist.

              Acmispon dendroideus (Lotus scoparius subsp.) var. traskiae (San Clemente Island broom)
            August 11, 1977 (42 FR 40682) Endangered
            NA
            January 26, 1984
            September 24, 2007 Downlist.

              Malacothamnus clementinus (San Clemente Island bush-mallow)
            August 11, 1977 (42 FR 40682) Endangered
            NA
            January 26, 1984
            September 28, 2007 Downlist.

              Castilleja grisea (San Clemente Island Indian paintbrush)
            August 11, 1977 (42 FR 40682) Endangered
            NA
            January 26, 1984
            September 24, 2007 Downlist.

        Species Information

          Oenothera californica (
          avita) subsp. eurekensis (Eureka Valley evening-primrose) is a short-lived herbaceous perennial in the Onagraceae (evening-primrose) family that forms small basal rosettes of leaves. During years with sufficient rainfall, plants undergo rapid stem elongation in April and May and bloom between April and July. In general, O. c. subsp. eurekensis occupies the stabilized, gentle dune slopes, extending out onto the shallower sand fields bordering the dune systems of Eureka Valley, Inyo County, California (Bagley 1986). These occupied dune systems include the Eureka Dunes, Saline Spur Dunes, and Marble Canyon Dunes, all of which are public lands managed by Death Valley National Park. For more information on the life history, biology, and distribution of O. c. subsp. eurekensis, see the 2007 5-year review of the species on http://www.regulations.gov or http://www.fws.gov/endangered/.

          Swallenia alexandrae (Eureka Valley dunegrass) is a perennial, hummock-forming (traps and accumulates wind-blown soil and sand at the base of plants) grass. Swallenia is a monotypic genus of Poaceae (grass family). Plants are dormant during the winter, but begin to produce new shoot growth around February. While growth accelerates in May, plants produce loose, multi-branched clusters of flowers between April and June and disperse seeds between May and July (Service 1982). In general, S. alexandrae occupies relatively steep slopes of three dune area systems in the southern portion of Eureka Valley (Bagley 1986): Eureka Dunes, Saline Spur Dunes, and Marble Canyon Dunes. These dunes are all within 9.3 mi (15 km) of each other. All populations are on public lands managed by Death Valley National Park. For more information on the life history, biology, and distribution of S. alexandrae, see the 2007 5-year review of the species on http://www.regulations.gov or http://www.fws.gov/endangered/.

        The tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi) is a small fish that inhabits discrete locations of brackish water along the California coast. The species is found from Tillas Slough (mouth of the Smith River, Del Norte County) near the Oregon border south to Cockleburr Canyon (northern San Diego County). The tidewater goby is known to have formerly inhabited at least 135 localities within this range (Service 2005). The northern limit of the species' range has not changed; however, the southern limit is now 9.2 mi (14.8 km) farther north from its historically known southernmost location, Agua Hedionda Lagoon (San Diego County) (Swift et al. 1989). Tidewater gobies appear to be naturally absent (now and historically) from three large (50 to 135 mi (80 to 217 km)) stretches of coastline where lagoons or estuaries are absent and steep topography or swift currents may prevent tidewater gobies from dispersing between adjacent localities (Swift et al. 1989). For more information on the life history, biology, and distribution of the tidewater goby, see the 2007 5-year review of the species on http://www.regulations.gov or http://www.fws.gov/endangered/.

          Acmispon dendroideus (Lotus scoparius subsp.) var. traskiae (San Clemente Island broom) is a semi-woody, short-lived (less than 5 years), subshrub in the Fabaceae (pea family). The subspecies is endemic to San Clemente Island (Isely 1993) and is one of five representatives of the genus Acmispon found on the island (U. S. Department of the Navy, Southwest Division 2002). Acmispon dendroideus var. traskiae is typically less than 4 feet (1.2 meters) in height, with slender, erect green branches (Munz 1974). Since the 1970s, the distribution of A. d. var. traskiae has been documented, and its range includes north-facing slopes over most of the eastern and western sides of the island (Service 1984; U. S. Department of the Navy, Southwest Division 2002; Junak and Wilken 1998; Junak 2006). Occurrence data for this species also span the entire length of the island, with several occurrences documented in Wilson Cove, and one occurrence documented at the southern tip of the island east of Pyramid Cove; a distance of approximately 19 mi (31 km) (Junak and Wilken 1998; Junak 2006). The majority of the remaining occurrences tend to be clustered on north-facing slopes on the eastern side of the island. For more information on the life history, biology, and distribution of A. d. var. traskiae, see the 2007 5-year review of the species as Lotus dendroideus var. traskiae on http://www.regulations.gov or http://www.fws.gov/endangered/.

          Malacothamnus clementinus (San Clemente Island bush-mallow) is a rounded subshrub (plants with stems woody at the base only) in the Malvaceae (mallow) family. It grows up to 6.6 feet (2 meters) tall, with numerous branched stems arising from its base (Munz and Johnston 1924; Munz and Keck 1959; Bates 1993; S. Junak pers. comm. 2006). The species' leaves are angularly 3-5 lobed or nearly circular or ovate, less than 2 inches (5 centimeters) in length and conspicuously bicolored, with green, sparsely pubescent (covered with short, fine hairs) upper surfaces and veiny, white, and hairy under surfaces that are densely matted with branching hairs (Munz and Johnston 1924). Plants bloom between March and August (California Native Plant Society 2001). Malacothamnus clementinus is the only species in its genus that occurs on San Clemente Island (Tierra Data Inc. 2005). Malacothamnus clementinus is restricted to San Clemente Island, where it occurs in a range of conditions, including rock crevices along canyon walls, at the base of rocky walls, at the base of escarpments between coastal terraces, along canyon rims and ridgelines, and in vegetated flats (S. Junak pers. comm. 2006; Junak and Wilken 1998; U. S. Department of the Navy, Southwest Division 2001). The plant is often associated with maritime cactus scrub on coastal flats at the southwestern end of the island (Junak and Wilken 1998). The collection of moisture in rock crevices and at the base of canyon walls and escarpments may provide favorable conditions for this species (S. Junak pers. comm. 2006). For more information on the life history, biology, and distribution of M. clementinus, see the 2007 5-year review of the species on http://www.regulations.gov or http://www.fws.gov/endangered/.

          Castilleja grisea (San Clemente Island Indian paintbrush) is a highly branched perennial subshrub in the Orobanchaceae (broom-rape) family. The species is endemic to San Clemente Island (Chuang and Heckard 1993) and is the only representative of the genus Castilleja found on the island (Helenurm et al. 2005). Castilleja grisea is typically 11.5 to 31.5 inches (3 to 8 decimeters) in height and covered with a dense white-wooly felt. The flowers of C. grisea are yellow. The original range and distribution of C. grisea on San Clemente Island is speculative, because its decline began before thorough botanical studies were completed. However, since initial surveys were conducted in 1996 and 1997, C. grisea has expanded its distribution to include steep canyon walls on the western side of the island (Junak and Wilken 1998). Occurrence data (as defined by the reporters, not equivalent to CNDDB occurrences) for this species span the southern two-thirds of the island, a distance of approximately 17.5 mi (28 km). For more information on the life history, biology, and distribution of C. grisea, see the 2007 5-year review of the species on http://www.regulations.gov or http://www.fws.gov/endangered/.

        Evaluation of Information for This Finding
        Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 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.
        We must consider these same five factors in delisting a species. We may delist a species according to 50 CFR 424.11(d) if the best available scientific and commercial data indicate that the species is neither endangered nor threatened for the following reasons:
        (1) The species is extinct;
        (2) The species has recovered and is no longer endangered or threatened; or
        (3) The original scientific data used at the time the species was classified were in error.

        In making this 90-day finding, we evaluated whether information regarding threats to Oenothera californica (avita) subsp. eurekensis, Swallenia alexandrae, the tidewater goby, Acmispon dendroideus (Lotus scoparius subsp.) var. traskiae, Malacothamnus clementinus and Castilleja grisea, as presented in the petition and other information available in our files, is substantial, thereby indicating that the petitioned actions may be warranted. Our evaluation of this information is presented below.
        Information Provided in the Petition
        The petitioner requested the Service to delist Oenothera californica (avita) subsp. eurekensis and Swallenia alexandrae, and reclassify the tidewater goby, Acmispon dendroideus (Lotus scoparius subsp.) var. traskiae, Malacothamnus clementinus, and Castilleja grisea, based on the analysis and recommendations contained in the most recent 5-year reviews of these taxa. The petitioner cited the 5-year reviews for each of these respective species as supporting information for the petition.
        Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in Service Files

        On March 5, 2008 (73 FR 11945), we published a notice of completion of 58 5-year reviews, including the recommendation of status changes for the six petitioned species. Status change recommendations for these species are shown in Table 1. Each 5-year review contains general background and life history information, overview of recovery criteria, an analysis of threats specific to each taxon based on the five listing factors in section 4 the Act, and recommendation of status change, if appropriate. The petitioner cited the 5-year reviews for each of these respective species as supporting information for the petition, but provides no other information. In each 5-year review conducted for the six petitioned species, we analyzed the threats specific to each taxon based on the five listing factors in section 4 of the Act; we hereby cite and incorporate the data and recommendations in the 5-year reviews for each of these respective species. Accordingly, we have already previously evaluated information regarding threats as presented in the petition (see the 2007 5-year reviews of the species on http://www.regulations.gov or http://www.fws.gov/endangered/.) Based on the analyses and recommendations contained in the 5-year reviews for each of the six petitioned taxa, we conclude the petition and information in our files represent substantial information indicating the petitioned actions may be warranted.

        The primary rationale for the recommendations in the 2007, 5-year reviews to delist Oenothera californica (avita) subsp. eurekensis and Swallenia alexandrae was that the primary threat to the two plant taxa at the time of listing—unrestricted off-highway vehicle (OHV) use—has been eliminated (Service 2007a, p. 13; Service 2007b, p. 11). At the time of listing, the Eureka Dunes was managed by the Bureau of Land Management and open to unrestricted OHV use. Following publication of the proposed rule to list the two Eureka Valley plants, the Bureau closed the Eureka Dunes and some of the surrounding area to OHVs in 1976 and designated campsites, closed undesignated routes, installed vehicle barriers, increased ranger patrols to enforce vehicle closures, conducted monitoring, and instituted an educational outreach program (Service 2007a, p. 8; Service 2007b, p. 6). The 1994 Desert Protection Act passed management of the Eureka Valley from the Bureau to Death Valley National Park (Park). The Park designated all of the dune systems within Eureka Valley as wilderness areas, and illegal OHV use within these areas has occurred only on a sporadic basis. Other potential threats have been identified such as horseback riding and sandboarding and competition from Russian thistle, but we were unable to find evidence that these threats were having an adverse effect on the status of Oenothera californica (avita) subsp. eurekensis or Swallenia alexandrae (Service 2007a, p. 13; Service 2007b, p. 11).
        The primary rationale for the recommendation in the 2007, 5-year review to downlist tidewater goby was that the number of known occupied localities had more than doubled since the time it was listed from 48 localities to 106, indicating that the species was more resilient to perturbations and climatic factors such as drought than previously believed (Service 2007c, p. 35). In addition, threats identified at the time of listing had been reduced or were not as serious as thought. One of the main threats identified at the time of listing was habitat destruction and alteration. Current laws and regulations have largely eliminated the major destruction of habitat that occurred in the past along the coast of California (Service 2007c, p. 35).

        The primary reasons for the recommendations in the 2007, 5-year review to downlist Acmispon dendroideus (Lotus scoparius subsp.) var. traskiae, Malacothamnus clementinus, and Castilleja grisea were removal of feral pigs and goats from San Clemente Island by 1992 and subsequent increases in the distribution and abundance of each of these three plants (Service 2007d, p. 17; Service 2007e, pp. 21-22; Service 2007f, p. 14). In addition, in 2002 the Department of the Navy adopted the San Clemente Island Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan which helps promote the conservation of these three plants by identifying a number of goals and objectives designed to protect and restore habitat (Service 2007d, p. 17; Service 2007e, pp. 21-22; Service 2007f, p. 14).

        Since completion of the 5-year reviews for the six petitioned species, additional information has become available and will be considered in our status reviews. Specifically, we have received additional monitoring data for the two Eureka Valley plants, and, as noted above, additional genetic and taxonomic information for the tidewater goby has been published. The recently published genetic information indicates that there is a divergent southern clade of tidewater gobies in northern San Diego County that may warrant classification as a separate species (Earl et al. 2010, p. 103). This and any additional information we receive in response to this finding will be incorporated into our status reviews.
        Finding

        On the basis of our determination under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we have determined that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that delisting Oenothera californica (avita) subsp. eurekensis and Swallenia alexandrae and reclassifying the tidewater goby, Acmispon dendroideus (Lotus scoparius subsp.) var. traskiae, Malacothamnus clementinus, and Castilleja grisea may be warranted. This finding is based on information provided in our analysis of the threats to each taxon contained in the most recent 5-year reviews for each of these taxa.

        Because we have found that the petition presents substantial information indicating that delisting Oenothera californica (avita) subsp. eurekensis and Swallenia alexandrae, and reclassifying the tidewater goby, Acmispon dendroideus (Lotus scoparius subsp.) var. traskiae, Malacothamnus clementinus, and Castilleja grisea, may be warranted, we are initiating status reviews for each taxon to determine whether the petitioned actions of delisting or reclassifying are warranted.
        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. We will complete a thorough status review of the species following a substantial 90-day finding. In the resulting 12-month finding, we will determine whether a petitioned action is warranted. Because the Act's standards for 90-day and 12-month findings are different, as described above, a substantial 90-day finding does not mean that the 12-month finding will result in a warranted finding.
        5-Year Reviews

        Section 4(c)(2)(A) of the Act requires that we conduct a review of listed species at least once every 5 years. We are then, under section 4(c)(2)(B), to determine, on the basis of such a review, whether or not any species should be removed from the List (delisted), or reclassified from endangered to threatened, or threatened to endangered. Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.21 require that we publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing those species currently under active review. This notice announces our active review of the Oenothera californica (avita) subsp. eurekensis, Swallenia alexandrae, and tidewater goby. Active reviews for Acmispon dendroideus (Lotus scoparius subsp.) var. traskiae, Malacothamnus clementinus, and Castilleja grisea were announced on May 21, 2010 (75 FR 28636).
        References Cited

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

        The primary authors of this notice are the staff members of the Carlsbad and Ventura Fish and Wildlife Offices (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: January 3, 2011.
          Gregory E. Siekaniac,
          Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

      [FR Doc. 2011-1050 Filed 1-18-11; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
        49 CFR Part 571
        [Docket No. NHTSA-2002-11321; Notice 1]
        Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

          AGENCY:
          National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation.

          ACTION:
          Denial of petition for rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          This document denies a petition for rulemaking submitted by General Motors Corporation (GM) on October 19, 2001. The petitioner requested that NHTSA initiate rulemaking to amend the test conditions specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, “Occupant crash protection,” and FMVSS No. 214, “Side impact protection,” allowing vehicles equipped with automatic door locks (ADLs) to be tested with the doors locked. In its petition for rulemaking, GM stated that the proposed changes would allow vehicles equipped with ADLs to be tested according to their designed condition, better reflecting field performance. Further, GM stated that initiating such a rulemaking would encourage manufacturers to equip their vehicles with ADLs, resulting in better occupant protection.
          After examining four ADL designs and our crash test data, the agency is denying the petition for rulemaking for several reasons. Some ADL systems can be readily disabled, there is no evidence that ADLs provide a safety benefit, and testing ADL-equipped vehicles with all doors locked could degrade the minimum performance requirements specified in FMVSS Nos. 208 and 214.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          The following persons at NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590:

            For non-legal issues: Dr. William Fan, Office of Crashworthiness Standards, NVS-112, telephone (202) 366-4922, facsimile (202) 366-4329.

            For legal issues: Deirdre Fujita, Esq., Office of Chief Counsel, NCC-112, telephone (202) 366-2992, facsimile (202) 366-3820.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        1. Background
        a. The Provision
        Sections S8.1.7 and S16.2.4 of FMVSS No. 208, “Occupant crash protection,” specify that in frontal crash tests, all vehicle doors are fully closed and latched but not locked. In addition, FMVSS No. 208 requires that all portions of the test dummy shall be contained within the outer surfaces of the vehicle passenger compartment throughout the test. Section S6.8 of FMVSS No. 214, “Side impact protection,” specifies that in side impact tests, all doors, including any rear hatch and tailgate doors, are fully closed and latched but not locked. In addition, FMVSS No. 214 requires that any side door on the struck side shall not separate totally from the vehicle, and that any door on the non-struck side shall meet the following requirements:
        1. The door shall not disengage from the latched position,
        2. The latch shall not separate from the striker, and the hinge components shall not separate from each other or from their attachment to the vehicle, and
        3. Neither the latch nor the hinge systems of the door shall pull out of their anchorages.

        The above test requirements and procedures simulate a worst-case crash condition for real crashes with respect to the door latch/lock.

        b. Safety Problem
        Crash data indicate that 9,303 out of 33,387 fatally injured occupants in motor vehicle crashes were ejected or partially ejected from their vehicles in the year 2000. Among these, 8,847 were light vehicle occupants, and the remaining 456 were occupants of large trucks, buses, and other vehicles. According to annualized national estimates derived from the 1991-2000 National Automotive Sampling System investigated cases, an average of approximately 8,464 light vehicle occupants are ejected and killed annually, and 1,272 of the 8,464 fatal ejections occur through a side or rear door. (The majority of the remaining fatal ejections occur through the side window glazing.) Based on the annualized national estimates, we estimate that approximately 1,330 light vehicle occupants were ejected through an open door and killed in the year 2000. An estimated 1,227 of the occupants went through a side door opening and the remainder went through a rear door opening. Approximately 47 percent and 18 percent of the 1,330 fatal ejections occurred in side and frontal crashes, respectively. The remaining 35 percent occurred in rollover and other crashes.
        Currently, both FMVSS Nos. 208 and 214 specify that the vehicle doors are fully closed and latched, but not locked when tested. With respect to the lock position, this procedure simulates a worst-case crash condition for real-world crashes. By specifying a worst-case test condition, these requirements lead to stronger door latches, providing better occupant ejection safety protection.
        c. Automatic Door Locks (ADLs)
        Recently, many passenger vehicles have been equipped with ADLs. Four basic ADL designs currently exist: (1) Gear-based, (2) speed-based, (3) ignition-based, and (4) brake-based locking. Three of the designs are not sensitive to vehicle traveling speed. The following are general descriptions of these ADLs.
        1. Gear-based ADLs: All vehicle doors will automatically lock when the vehicle transmission is shifted out of the “park” position when all doors are closed and the engine running.
        2. Speed-based ADLs: All vehicle doors will automatically lock when:
        • All doors are closed while the transmission is in any position other than “park” and the vehicle brake pedal is inactive, and
        • The engine is running and the vehicle speed exceeds a pre-defined limit.
        3. Ignition-based ADLs: All vehicle doors will automatically lock when the vehicle ignition is turned on (regardless of whether the door is open).
        4. Brake-based ADLs: All vehicle doors will automatically lock when:
        • All doors become closed while the transmission is in any position other than “park” and the brake pedal is active, and
        • The engine is running, and the brake pedal becomes inactive.
        An ADL-equipped vehicle will automatically lock the doors whenever the driver completes the said procedures during a trip. Judging from the above general descriptions, NHTSA believes that only ADLs equipped with speed-based locking can assure that the doors will lock continuously when the vehicle is moving above a certain speed. However, there are instances when an ADL could be broken, disabled, defeated or unlocked manually before and/or during a crash. The other three ADL systems cannot assure that the doors will lock continuously when the vehicle is moving. Also, the owner's manuals of some vehicles explain how the owner can disable and/or modify the ADLs.
        2. Discussion
        a. The Petition for Rulemaking
        On October 19, 2001, GM submitted a petition for rulemaking (Docket No. NHTSA-02-11321-1) requesting that NHTSA initiate rulemaking to amend the test conditions of FMVSS Nos. 208 and 214 allowing vehicles equipped with ADLs to be tested with all doors locked. Currently, S8.1.7 and S16.2.4 of FMVSS No. 208 specify that in a frontal crash test, all vehicle doors are fully closed and latched but not locked. Similarly, S6.8 of FMVSS No. 214 specifies that in a side impact test, all doors, including any rear hatch or tailgate, are fully closed and latched but not locked. The petition for rulemaking indicates that GM has decided to equip all its future passenger cars and light trucks with ADLs that are programmed to lock while the vehicle is moving, and that the requested amendment would allow vehicles equipped with ADLs to be tested according to their designed condition. GM claims that this test condition would better reflect and predict field performance. In addition, GM claims that initiating such a rulemaking would encourage manufacturers to equip their vehicles with ADLs, and that this would result in better occupant protection.
        b. Agency Analysis
        Crash experience prior to the issuance of FMVSS Nos. 208 and 214 and subsequent analyses of the crash data indicate that vehicle doors can open in crashes due to the failure of hinge/latch/lock assembly systems, and that this can result in occupant ejections. In promulgating FMVSS Nos. 208 and 214, NHTSA decided to specify test conditions simulating a worst-case condition observed in real crashes with respect to the door lock position. Therefore, the test conditions of both standards currently require that all vehicle doors are fully closed and latched but not locked in a dynamic impact test. The goal is to require the installation of better door hinge/latch assemblies, thus minimizing side/rear door ejections.
        The agency recognizes that many late model year passenger cars and light trucks are equipped with ADLs. However, we have no data to indicate whether or not ADL-equipped vehicles have a reduced likelihood of opening in a real crash or to indicate consumer acceptance of ADLs. NHTSA is also concerned that there are many different ADL design concepts, and that there may be situations in which an ADL could be broken, disabled, or unlocked at the time of a crash. The test conditions currently specified in FMVSS Nos. 208 and 214 replicate these real world situations.

        As noted previously, there are four basic ADL designs: (1) Gear-based, (2) speed-based, (3) ignition-based, and (4) brake-based. Three of these designs are not sensitive to the traveling velocity of the vehicle. Many ADL systems have a manual control button on the driver side as a convenience feature. Drivers can unlock the doors of ADL-equipped vehicles, and the door will not necessarily relock. For instance, drivers can stop some ADL-equipped vehicles, unlock the doors by pushing the button, and discharge occupants. In this particular case, the gear-based ADLs would not relock the doors unless the driver shifted the transmission back to and then out of the “park” position. In addition, the brake-based ADLs would not relock the doors if the vehicle accelerated before all doors were fully closed. Therefore, there is no guarantee that ADLs will assure that the doors will be locked continuously when the vehicle is moving. While the speed-based ADLs may have the most potential for reducing unlocked doors in the real world, there is no indication that all ADLs produced in the immediate future would be of this type. Therefore, based on the reasons above, we believe that the test conditions specified in FMVSS Nos. 208 and 214 are appropriate for ADL-equipped vehicles. Allowing ADL-equipped vehicles to be tested with all doors locked could result in a reduction of the stringency of the test conditions and detract from safety.
        Finally, GM did not present any technical data in support of its assertion that allowing doors to be locked in the impact tests of FMVSS Nos. 208 and 214 would encourage manufacturers to install ADLs in their vehicles. Moreover, there is no evidence that ADLs will necessarily result in better occupant protection. Manufacturers have been complying with FMVSS Nos. 208 and 214 with the doors closed and latched, but not locked. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that manufacturers would be motivated to install ADLs based upon the requested amendment to these standards, particularly if there were an additional associated cost. ADL components are likely to be more expensive than standard mechanical locks, and electrical ADL circuitry in the vehicle environment could be more vulnerable to damage/repair/recall issues. Based on the foregoing reasons, the agency is not convinced that such an amendment by NHTSA would accelerate the installation of ADLs in future vehicles, nor that such acceleration would yield a safety benefit.

          Conclusion: Based upon the above analyses, we do not believe that there is sufficient reason to conclude that amending FMVSS Nos. 208 and 214 as petitioned would be appropriate or provide a safety benefit. Conducting research to determine whether or not ADLs could provide a safety benefit, to develop performance requirements for the various ADL designs, and to establish consumer acceptance of the various designs would take considerable time and is not included in the agency's current research plan.
        In accordance with 49 CFR part 552, this completes the agency's review of the petition for rulemaking. The agency has concluded that there is no reasonable possibility that the amendments requested by the petitioner would be issued at the conclusion of the rulemaking proceeding. Accordingly, the petition for rulemaking is denied.

          Authority:
          49 U.S.C. 30103, 30162; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.

          Issued on: November 13, 2003.
          Stephen R. Kratzke,
          Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.

      [FR Doc. 03-28941 Filed 11-19-03; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 665
        [Docket No. 070719388-81094-02]
        RIN 0648-AV29
        Fisheries in the Western Pacific; Crustacean Fisheries; Deepwater Shrimp

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:

          This proposed rule would designate deepwater shrimp of the genus Heterocarpus as management unit species (MUS), and require Federal permits and data reporting for deepwater shrimp fishing in Federal waters of the western Pacific. The proposed rule is intended to improve information on deepwater shrimp fisheries and their ecosystem impacts, and to provide a basis for future management of the fisheries, if needed.

          DATES:
          Comments on the proposed rule must be received by October 6, 2008.

          ADDRESSES:
          Comments on this proposed rule, identified by 0648-AV29, may be sent to either of the following addresses:

          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal www.regulations.gov; or
          • Mail: William L. Robinson, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Pacific Islands Region (PIR), 1601 Kapiolani Blvd, Suite 1110, Honolulu, HI 96814-4700.

          Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.) submitted voluntarily by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “NA” in the required name and organization fields if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

          Copies of the Fishery Management Plan for Crustacean Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region (FMP), and proposed FMP Amendment 13, which includes an environmental assessment (EA), are available from the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council), 1164 Bishop St., Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813, tel 808-522-8220, fax 808-522-8226, or www.wpcouncil.org.

          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 William L. Robinson, and by e-mail to David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov or fax to 202-395-7285.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Brett Wiedoff, NMFS PIR, 808-944-2272.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        This Federal Register document is accessible at the Office of the Federal Register website: www.gpoaccess.gov/fr.

        Crustacean fisheries in the western Pacific are federally-managed within the waters of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) around American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), Guam, Hawaii, and the Pacific Remote Island Areas (PRIA, comprising Palmyra Atoll, Kingman Reef, Jarvis Island, Baker Island, Howland Island, Johnston Atoll, Wake Island, and Midway Atoll). The EEZ around the CNMI and PRIA extends from the shoreline seaward to 200 nautical miles (nm), and the EEZ around the other islands extends from three to 200 nm offshore. Currently, the crustaceans FMP management unit species include the spiny lobsters Panulirus marginatus and P. penicillatus, slipper lobsters of the family Scyllaridae, and Kona (spanner) crab, Ranina ranina.
        Eight species of the deepwater shrimp genus Heterocarpus have been reported throughout the tropical Pacific, generally at depths of 200 to 1,200 meters on the outer reef slopes that surround islands and deepwater banks. Species distribution tends to be stratified by depth with some overlap. The deepwater trap fisheries have primarily targeted Heterocarpus ensifer and H. laevigatus.
        Western Pacific commercial trap fisheries for deepwater shrimp are intermittent. There have been sporadic operations in Hawaii since the 1960s, small-scale fisheries in Guam during the 1970s, and some activity in the CNMI during the mid-1990s. The fisheries have been unregulated, and there has been no comprehensive collection of information about the fisheries. Most of these fishing ventures have been short-lived, probably as a result of sometimes-frequent loss of traps, a shrimp product with a short shelf life and history of inconsistent quality, and the rapid localized depletion of deepwater shrimp stocks leading to low catch rates. Despite these hurdles, interest in deepwater shrimp fisheries continues.
        Amendment 13 would designate deepwater shrimp of the genus Heterocarpus as management unit species under the FMP, and would require Federal permits and reporting for deepwater shrimp fishing in the U.S. EEZ. The proposed monitoring program (permits and logbooks) is intended to improve understanding of these fisheries and their impact on marine ecosystems. Although currently there are no resource concerns regarding western Pacific deepwater shrimp, the proposed designation of these shrimp as management unit species would provide a basis for management of the fisheries, if warranted in the future.

        In addition to the proposed rule, Amendment 13 designates Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for Heterocarpus spp. as required under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. To reduce the complexity and the number of EFH identifications required for each individual species and life stages of the genus Heterocarpus in the western Pacific, EFH has been designated for the complete assemblage of adult and juvenile Heterocarpus spp. as the outer reef slopes between 300 and 700 meters surrounding every island and submerged banks in the western Pacific. The species complex designations includes all eight species of deepwater shrimp extant in the western Pacific (Heterocarpus ensifer, H. laevigatus, H. sibogae, H. gibbosus, H. Lepidus, H. dorsalis, H. tricarinatus and H. longirostris).
        In addition to adding deepwater shrimp to the management unit, this proposed rule would reorganize some existing regulations relating to the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) lobster limited access permit program. These regulations, now in paragraphs § 665.41(a)(1), (a)(3), (a)(4), and 665.41(d), would be consolidated into paragraph § 665.41(d). The regulations would also clarify that the harvest of crustacean management unit species within the NWHI Marine National Monument is subject to the requirements of 50 CFR part 404.
        To be considered, comments must be received by close of business on October 6, 2008, not postmarked or otherwise transmitted by that date.
        In addition to soliciting public comments on this proposed rule, NMFS is soliciting comments on proposed FMP Amendment 13 through October 14, 2008 as stated in the Notice of Availability published on August 14, 2008 (50 CFR Part 665). Public comments on this proposed rule, if received by October 14, 2008, will also be considered in the approval/disapproval decision for Amendment 13. Comments received after that date will not be considered in the approval/disapproval decision for Amendment 13, but will be considered for this proposed rule.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Crustaceans FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable laws, subject to further consideration after public comment.

        Amendment 13 includes an EA that discusses the impacts on the environment as a result of this rule. The purpose and need for the proposed action is to establish appropriate monitoring and management mechanisms for the domestic harvest of western Pacific deepwater shrimp. Based on the information in the EA, as compared to the no-action alternative, the preferred alternative would have no adverse impacts to essential fish habitat or habitat areas of particular concern. None of the action alternatives would be expected to change the impacts of U.S. vessels on deepwater shrimp resources in the short term, but impacts on the resource base could increase with higher future effort, so increasing fishery managers' understanding of the status of the stocks and fishing mortality would be an important outcome of this action. By including deepwater shrimp as management unit species, the foundation would be established for implementing control measures, should they become necessary. None of the action alternatives is anticipated to have any significant adverse impacts on seabird, sea turtle, or marine mammal populations because the fishery has a relatively low level of participation, and there have been no observed or reported interactions with protected resources in the deepwater shrimp fishery. The preferred alternative would provide for the sustained participation of fishing communities by helping to ensure the long-term availability of western Pacific deepwater shrimp. The complete analysis of the alternatives is contained in Amendment 13, including an EA, and is not repeated here. Copies of the environmental analytical documents is available from the Council (see ADDRESSES).
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        The Chief Council for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Council 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.

          A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained in the preamble to the proposed rule. This rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with other Federal rules. There are no disproportionate economic impacts from this rule based on home port, gear type, or relative vessel size. Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. § 605(b), the NMFS Pacific Islands Regional Office has determined that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities based on the pre-existing status of deepwater shrimp fisheries within the U.S. EEZ of the western Pacific. All vessels having the potential to participate in this fishery are considered to be small entities under the current Small Business Administration definition of small fish-harvesting businesses (gross receipts not in excess of $ 4.0 million, independently owned and operated, and not dominant in the field). While fishing for deepwater shrimp has been sporadic over the last several decades, in 1984, a total of 17 vessels reported catching approximately 159 tons of deepwater shrimp worth an estimated ex-vessel value of $780,000. More recent information is not possible because confidentiality rules restrict the release of information from the small number of participants.
          Alternative 1 (no action) would preclude Federal monitoring and management of known deepwater shrimp fisheries operating within the western Pacific. Alternative 2 would include deepwater shrimp as management unit species (MUS) under the Crustaceans FMP, enabling the Council and NMFS to develop management measures, as appropriate, for deepwater shrimp fisheries in the region. Alternative 3 would add deepwater shrimp to the MUS, as in Alternative 2, and would also require Federal permitting and reporting of harvest for vessels engaged in the deepwater shrimp fishery.
          Alternatives 1 and 2 would yield no economic impact to small entities (vessels). However, Alternative 3 would have a slightly adverse economic impact resulting in a requirement to pay a vessel permit fee of approximately $30. Applied on a 1984 dollar base, this represents only 0.06 percent of the average boat revenue for 1984. Alternative 3 represents the most adverse economic impact of the 3 alternatives. However, the fishery cannot be monitored and managed under the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, particularly National Standards 1 and 2, without accurate and reliable data on shrimp effort and production associated with required permitting, recordkeeping and reporting from the directed deepwater shrimp.

        As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.
        This proposed rule contains a collection-of-information requirement subject to review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement has been submitted to OMB for approval. The preferred alternative would require the owners of U.S. vessels that fish for deepwater shrimp management unit species in the western Pacific to obtain Federal fishing permits, and the vessel operators would be required to complete and submit Federal catch reports. Permit eligibility would not be restricted in any way, and the permit would be renewable on an annual basis.
        NMFS anticipates that initial permit applications would require 0.5 hours per applicant, with renewals requiring an additional 0.5 hours annually. It is estimated that NMFS may receive and process up to 10 permit applications each year. Thus, the total collection-of-information burden to fishermen for permit applications is estimated at five (5) hours per year. The cost for individual Federal permits has not been determined, but would represent only the administrative cost and is anticipated to be approximately $30 per permit.
        NMFS anticipates the time requirement to complete Federal catch reports to be approximately 10 minutes per vessel per fishing day. Assuming that 10 vessels fish during up to 100 days per year, the total collection-of-information burden estimate for fishing data reporting is estimated at 167 hours per year.

        Public comment is sought regarding: whether this proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Send comments on these or any other aspects of the collection of information to William L. Robinson (see ADDRESSES), and by e-mail to David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov or fax to 202-395-7285.
        Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to 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.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 665
          Administrative practice and procedure, American Samoa, Fisheries, Fishing, Guam, Hawaii, Hawaiian Natives, Northern Mariana Islands, Pacific remote island areas, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated: August 18, 2008.
          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 665 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 665—FISHERIES IN THE WESTERN PACIFIC
          1. The authority citation for 50 CFR part 665 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
            2. In § 665.12, revise the definition of “Crustaceans management unit species” to read as follows:

            § 665.12
            Definitions.

            Crustaceans management unit species means the following crustaceans:

                Common Name
                Scientific Name

                Spiny lobsters
                Panulirus marginatus P. penicillatus

                Slipper lobsters
                family Scyllaridae

                Kona crab
                Ranina ranina

                Deepwater shrimp
                Heterocarpus spp.

            3. In § 665.13, revise paragraphs (f)(2)(i) through (f)(2)(v), and add a new paragraph (f)(2)(vi) to read as follows:

            § 665.13
            Permits and fees.

            (f) Fees. * * *
            (2) * *  *
            (i) Hawaii longline limited access permit.
            (ii) Mau Zone limited access permit.
            (iii) Coral reef ecosystem special permit.
            (iv) American Samoa longline limited access permit.
            (v) Main Hawaiian Islands non-commercial bottomfish permit.
            (vi) Crustaceans permit.

            4. In § 665.41, revise paragraphs (a) and (d) to read as follows:

            § 665.41
            Permits.
            (a) Applicability. (1) The owner of any vessel used to fish for lobster in Crustaceans Permit Area 1 must have a lobster limited access permit issued for such vessel.
            (2) The owner of any vessel used to fish for lobster in Crustaceans Permit Areas 2, 3, or 4 must have a permit issued for that vessel.
            (3) The owner of any vessel used to fish for deepwater shrimp in Crustaceans Permit Areas 1, 2, 3, or 4 must have a permit issued for that vessel.
            (4) Harvest of crustacean management unit species within the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Marine National Monument is subject to the requirements of 50 CFR part 404.

            (d) Lobster Limited Access Permit Requirements.
            (1) A lobster limited access permit is valid for fishing only in Crustaceans Permit Area 1.
            (2) Only one permit will be assigned to any vessel.
            (3) No vessel owner will have permits for a single vessel to harvest lobsters in Permit Areas 1 and 2 at the same time.
            (4) A maximum of 15 limited access permits can be valid at any time.

            5. In § 665.42, add a new paragraph (c) to read as follows.

            § 665.42
            Prohibitions.

            (c) In any Crustaceans Permit Area, it is unlawful for any person to:
            (1) Fish for, take, or retain deepwater shrimp without a permit issued under § 665.41.
            (2) Falsify or fail to make, keep, maintain, or submit Federal reports and records of harvests of deepwater shrimp as required under § 665.14.

      [FR Doc. E8-19579 Filed 8-21-08; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 679
        RIN 0648-BB77
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Salmon

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of availability of fishery management plan amendments; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) submitted Amendments 10, 11, and 12 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Salmon Fisheries in the EEZ off the Coast of Alaska (FMP) to NMFS for review. If approved, Amendment 10 would provide authority for NMFS to recover the administrative costs of processing applications for any future permits that may be required under this FMP, except for exempted fishing permits and prohibited species donation permits. If approved, Amendment 11 would revise the timeline associated with the Council's process to identify Habitat Areas of Particular Concern so that the process coincides with the Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) 5-year review, revise habitat research priority objectives, and update EFH conservation recommendations for, and the analysis of the impacts of, non-fishing activities. If approved, Amendment 12 would comprehensively revise and update the FMP to reflect the Council's salmon management policy and Federal law. Amendments 10, 11, and 12 are intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the FMP, and other applicable laws.

          DATES:
          Written comments on the amendment must be received on or before 5 p.m., Alaska local time, on June 1, 2012.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by FDMS Docket Number NOAA-NMFS-2011-0295, by any one of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal http://www.regulations.gov. To submit comments via the e-Rulemaking Portal, first click the “submit a comment” icon, then enter NOAA-NMFS-2011-0295 in the keyword search. Locate the document you wish to comment on from the resulting list and click on the “Submit a Comment” icon on that line.
          • Fax: Address written comments to Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. Fax comments to 907-586-7557.
          • Mail: Address written comments to Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. Mail comments to P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668.
          • Hand delivery to the Federal Building: Address written comments to Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. Deliver comments to 709 West 9th Street, Room 420A, Juneau, AK.

          Instructions: Comments must be submitted by one of the above methods to ensure that the comments 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 to http://www.regulations.gov without change. All Personal Identifying Information (for example, name, address) voluntarily submitted by the commenter 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). You may submit attachments to electronic comments in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

          Electronic copies of the proposed Fishery Management Plan for the Salmon Fisheries in the EEZ off Alaska that incorporates Amendments 10, 11, and 12, and the draft Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review prepared for Amendment 12 may be obtained from http://www.regulations.gov or from the NMFS Alaska Region Web site at http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Gretchen Harrington, 907-586-7228.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires that each regional fishery management council submit any fishery management plan or fishery management plan amendment it prepares to NMFS for review and approval, disapproval, or partial approval by the Secretary of Commerce. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving a fishery management plan amendment, immediately publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing that the amendment is available for public review and comment.

        This notice announces that proposed Amendments 10, 11, and 12 to the FMP are available for public review and comment. The salmon fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ, 3 to 200 nautical miles) off Alaska are managed under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the Council under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. The following paragraphs provide information on Amendments 10, 11, and 12. Because Amendment 12 would comprehensively amend the FMP and incorporates FMP language for Amendments 10 and 11, it is described first in this NOA. Descriptions of Amendments 10 and 11 follow the description of Amendment 12.
        Fishery Management Plan for the Salmon Fisheries in the EEZ off the Coast of Alaska
        The FMP originally was approved in 1979 and last comprehensively revised in 1990. The FMP conserves and manages the Pacific salmon commercial and sport fisheries that occur in the EEZ off Alaska. The FMP establishes two management areas: the East Area is the EEZ in the Gulf of Alaska east of Cape Suckling (143°53.6″ West Longitude) and the West Area is the EEZ off the coast of Alaska west of Cape Suckling. The FMP manages commercial salmon fisheries differently in each area. In the East Area, the FMP delegates management of the commercial troll salmon fishery to the State of Alaska (State) to manage in compliance with the Pacific Salmon Treaty, Magnuson-Stevens Act, and FMP. The FMP prohibits commercial salmon fishing with net gear in the East Area. In the West Area, the FMP prohibits commercial salmon fishing, except for commercial salmon fishing with net gear in three defined areas of the EEZ adjacent to Cook Inlet, Prince William Sound, and the Alaska Peninsula. The FMP delegates management of the sport fishery to the State in both areas.
        Although the FMP has been amended nine times in the last two decades, no comprehensive consideration of management strategy or scope of Federal management has occurred since 1990. State fisheries regulations and Federal and international laws affecting Alaska salmon have changed since 1990, and the reauthorized Magnuson-Stevens Act expanded the requirements for FMPs. Additionally, the current FMP is vague with respect to management authority for commercial salmon fishing in the three defined areas that occur in the West Area.
        Therefore, the Council determined that the FMP must be updated, in order to comply with the current Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements, and amended, to more clearly reflect the Council's policy with regard to the State's continued management authority over commercial fisheries in the West Area, the Southeast Alaska commercial troll fishery, and the sport fishery.
        Amendment 12
        In December 2011, the Council voted unanimously to recommend Amendment 12 to the FMP. The Council considered revisions to the FMP at five separate meetings that occurred over more than a year. At each regularly scheduled and noticed public meeting, the Council took public testimony and considered written and oral public comments, providing stakeholders with opportunities for involvement on this issue. Additionally, the Council conducted a special open workshop for stakeholders in September 2011, which was attended by more than 20 members of the public, three Council members, Council staff, and State and Federal agency staff. The Council considered the comments and suggestions made during that workshop in developing Amendment 12.
        Amendment 12 would comprehensively revise the FMP to reflect the Council's salmon management policy, which is to facilitate State of Alaska salmon management in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, Pacific Salmon Treaty, and applicable Federal law. Under this policy, the Council identified six management objectives to guide salmon management under the FMP and achieve the management policy: (1) Prevent overfishing and achieve optimum yield, (2) manage salmon as a unit throughout their range, (3) minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality, (4) maximize economic and social benefits to the Nation over time, (5) protect wild stocks and fully utilize hatchery production, and (6) promote safety. The Council, NMFS, and the State of Alaska will consider these management objectives in developing FMP amendments and associated management measures.

        To reflect the Council's policy and objectives, Amendment 12 would redefine the FMP's management area to exclude the Cook Inlet, Prince William Sound, and the Alaska Peninsula net fishing areas and the sport fishery from the West Area. In removing these three areas and the sport fishery from the FMP, the Council provided a rationale for why Federal conservation and management are not necessary, consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The Council recognized that FMP management would only apply to the portion of the fisheries in the EEZ, and that salmon are more appropriately managed as a unit in consideration of all fishery removals to meet in-river escapement goals. The Council determined that excluding these areas and the sport fishery from the West Area and the FMP would allow the State to manage Alaska salmon stocks as seamlessly as practicable throughout their range, rather than imposing dual State and Federal management. Under Amendment 12, the FMP would continue to apply to the vast majority of the EEZ west of Cape Suckling and would maintain the prohibition on commercial salmon fishing in the redefined West Area.
        In the East Area, Amendment 12 would maintain the current scope of the FMP and would reaffirm that management of the commercial and sport salmon fisheries in the East Area is delegated to the State. The FMP relies on a combination of State management and management under the Pacific Salmon Treaty to ensure that salmon stocks, including trans-boundary stocks, are managed as a unit throughout their ranges and interrelated stocks are managed in close coordination. Maintaining the FMP in the East Area would leave existing management structures in place, recognizing that the FMP is the nexus for the application of the Pacific Salmon Treaty and other applicable Federal law.
        The Council also recommended a number of FMP provisions to update the FMP and bring it into compliance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable Federal law. Amendment 12 would include these changes in a reorganized FMP with a more concise title, “Fishery Management Plan for the Salmon Fisheries in the EEZ off Alaska.”
        The primary new FMP provision is a mechanism to establish annual catch limits (ACLs) and accountability measures (AMs) for the salmon stocks caught in the East Area commercial troll fishery, the only commercial fishery authorized under the FMP. Amendment 12 would not establish ACLs or AMs in the West Area because no commercial salmon fisheries are authorized in the West Area. The mechanism to establish ACLs and AMs for the commercial troll fishery builds on the FMP's existing framework for establishing status determination criteria. The commercial troll fishery harvests primarily Chinook and coho salmon; though chum, sockeye, and pink salmon are also harvested occasionally. The FMP currently separates these salmon stocks into three tiers for the purposes of status determination criteria.
        Tier 1 stocks are Chinook salmon stocks covered by the Pacific Salmon Treaty. Amendment 12 would not establish a mechanism for specifying ACLs and AMs for Chinook salmon because the Magnuson-Stevens Act exempts stocks managed under an international fisheries agreement in which the United States participates from the ACL requirement (16 U.S.C. 1853 note).
        Under Amendment 12, the mechanisms for specifying ACLs for Tier 2 (coho salmon) and Tier 3 (coho, pink, chum, and sockeye salmon stocks managed as mixed-species complexes) salmon stocks would be established using the State's scientifically-based management measures to control catch and prevent overfishing. This approach represents an alternative approach to the methods prescribed in NMFS's National Standard 1 Guidelines (50 CFR 600.310) for specifying ACLs. The National Standard 1 Guidelines contemplate limited circumstances where the standard approaches to specification of reference points, including ACLs, and management measures detailed in the guidelines may not be appropriate. The National Standard 1 Guidelines specifically cite Pacific salmon as an example of stocks that may require an alternative approach. Under this flexibility within the guidelines, the Council may propose an alternative approach for satisfying the requirements of National Standard 1, other than those set forth in the guidelines. The guidelines require that the Council document its rationale for proposing an alternative approach in an FMP amendment and document its consistency with the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Amendment 12 would modify the FMP to include the rationale for this alternative approach as the mechanism for specifying ACLs.
        The Council proposes an alternative approach because the State's escapement-based management system is a more effective management system for preventing overfishing of Alaska salmon than a system that places rigid numeric limits on the number of fish that may be caught. Escapement is defined as the annual estimated size of the spawning salmon stock in a given river, stream, or watershed. Given salmon's particular life history attributes, the Council's preferred method to annually ensure that surviving spawners will maximize present and future yields is a system that establishes escapement goals intended to maximize surplus productivity of future runs, estimates run strength in advance, monitors actual run strength and escapement during the fishery, and utilizes in-season management measures, including fishery closures, to ensure that minimum escapement goals are achieved. Further, escapement-based management, with real-time monitoring of run strength, inherently accounts for total catch and all sources of natural mortality. As part of the alternative approach the Council recommends that Amendment 12 establish a peer review process in the FMP that utilizes the State's existing salmon expertise and processes for developing escapement goals as fishing level recommendations.
        The State's escapement-based management system includes the added features of in-season monitoring to confirm actual run strength and in-season management measures that adjust fishing pressure, or close a fishery, to ensure that escapement goals are met if pre-season predictions of run strength prove inaccurate. Under Amendment 12, these features would be the AMs to prevent ACLs from being exceeded and to correct overages of the ACL if they do occur.

        Amendment 12 also would revise the definition of optimum yield. For the East Area, several economic, social, and ecological factors are involved in the definition of OY. For Chinook salmon stocks in Tier 1, an all-gear maximum sustainable yield (MSY) is prescribed in terms of catch by the Pacific Salmon Treaty and takes into account the biological productivity of Chinook salmon and ecological factors in setting this limit. Under Amendment 12, the portion of the all-gear catch limit allocated to troll gear would represent the OY for that fishery and takes into account the economic and social factors considered by the State of Alaska in making allocation decisions. For stocks in Tiers 2 and 3, MSY currently is defined in terms of escapement. MSY escapement goals account for biological productivity and ecological factors, including the consumption of salmon by a variety of marine predators. Under Amendment 12, the OY for the troll fishery would be that fishery's annual catch, which, when combined with the catch from all other salmon fisheries, results in a post-harvest run size equal to the MSY escapement goal for each indicator stock. The portion of the annual catch harvested by the troll fishery reflects the biological, economic, and social factors considered by the State of Alaska in determining when to open and close the coho salmon harvest by the troll fishery.
        For the redefined West Area under Amendment 12, commercial fishing is prohibited; therefore the directed harvest OY would be zero. The redefined West Area has been closed to commercial net fishing since 1952 and commercial troll fishing since 1973 and there has not been any commercial yield from this area. This proposed OY recognizes that salmon are fully utilized by state-managed fisheries and that the State manages fisheries based on the best available information using the State's escapement goal management system. This OY also recognizes that non-Alaska salmon are fully utilized and managed by their respective management authorities when they return to their natal regions.
        Amendment 12 would add a fishery impact statement to the FMP that includes fishery information required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1853(a)(2), (3), (5), (9), (11), and (13)). The fishery impact statement contained in Amendment 12 analyzes the effects of the conservation and management measures on participants in the fisheries, fishing communities affected by the FMP, and safety of human life at sea. The fishery impact statement also describes the salmon fishery, specifies the present and probable future condition of the fishery, and describes the commercial, recreational, and charter fishing sectors which participate in the salmon fishery. Additionally, the fishery impact statement assesses the economic impacts of the salmon fishery by sector.
        Amendment 12 also would revise the current FMP process for Federal review of State management measures to more fully describe the process and bring the process into compliance with Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements (16 U.S.C. 1856(a)(3)(B)). With the delegation of management authority of the East Area commercial troll salmon fishery and the East Area sport fishery to the State of Alaska, the Council and NMFS must stay apprised of State management measures governing commercial and sport salmon fishing in the East Area and, if necessary, review those measures for consistency with the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable Federal law. Also, members of the public may request that the Secretary review State salmon management measures in the East Area for consistency with the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable Federal law. Under Amendment 12, the FMP would describe (1) how the Council and NMFS fulfill this oversight role, (2) the ways in which the Council and NMFS will monitor State management measures that regulate salmon fishing in the East Area, (3) the process by which NMFS will review State management measures governing salmon fisheries in the East Area for consistency with the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable Federal law, (4) the process by which a member of the public can petition NMFS to review State management measures in the East Area for consistency with the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable Federal law, and (5) the process NMFS will follow if NMFS determines that State management measures in the East Area are inconsistent with the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, or other applicable Federal laws.
        Amendment 12 would remove existing FMP language governing the issuance of Federal salmon permits. The Council recommended removing FMP language related to Federal salmon permits because Federal permits are no longer necessary. All current participants have State of Alaska limited entry permits. According to language included in the original 1979 FMP, provisions for Federal salmon permits were established as a complement to the State limited entry permit, in order to limit capacity in the EEZ so that persons who did not receive a State limited entry permit would not simply shift their fishing efforts into Federal waters. Additionally, the 1979 FMP explains that there was an interest in ensuring that the few vessels that had fished in the EEZ but not landed their catch in Alaska could continue to have access to the EEZ, even if they were not eligible for a state limited entry permit. The problems identified in the 1979 FMP were addressed by this Federal permit system. In 1979 or 1980, NMFS issued 2 non-transferrable limited entry permits and these permits are no longer active in the fishery.

        An Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review was prepared for Amendment 12 that describes the management background, the purpose and need for action, the management alternatives, and the environmental, social, and economic impacts of the alternatives (see ADDRESSES). Additional details on the basis of specific policy and management measures are provided in the analysis.
        Amendment 10
        In October 2009, the Council adopted a motion to revise all six of its fishery management plans to provide authority for recovering the administrative costs of processing applications for permits required under those plans, except for exempted fishing permits and prohibited species donation permits. Amendment 10 would amend the FMP to provide authority for NMFS to recover the administrative costs of processing applications for any future permits that may be required under this FMP, except for exempted fishing permits and prohibited species donation permits. Amendment 10 would implement the following FMP language: “NMFS may assess and collect fees to recover the administrative costs incurred by the Federal government in processing applications for permits required to participate in the fisheries managed under this FMP as authorized by the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C 1853(b).” If Amendments 10 and 12 are approved by NMFS, this language would be included at section 4.2 of the FMP. If Amendment 10 is approved but Amendment 12 is not, then this language would be included at section 5.2 of the FMP.
        Amendment 11
        In April 2011, the Council recommended Amendment 11 to (1) revise the timeline associated with the Council's process to identify Habitat Areas of Particular Concern so that the process coincides with the EFH 5-year review, (2) revise habitat research priority objectives, and (3) update EFH conservation recommendations for, and the analysis of the impacts of, non-fishing activities. If Amendments 11 and 12 are approved by NMFS, Amendment 11 would to include the most recent scientific information resulting from the 5-year review in chapter 7 of the FMP and the FMP's Appendix A “Essential Fish Habitat and Habitat Areas of Particular Concern”. If Amendment 11 is approved but Amendment 12 is not, then this language would be included in section 6.3 of the FMP and in the FMP's Appendix E. These changes are necessary to update the FMP based upon the best scientific information available and the guidelines articulated in the final rule to implement the EFH provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (see 50 CFR part 600, subpart J).

        NMFS is soliciting public comments on proposed Amendments 10, 11, and 12 through the end of the comment period (see DATES). NMFS will consider all comments received by the end of the comment period on Amendments 10, 11, and 12, in the FMP approval/disapproval decision. To be considered, comments must be received, not just postmarked or otherwise transmitted, by 5 p.m. Alaska local time on the last day of the comment period. Comments received after that date will not be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the amendment.
        NMFS intends to publish in the Federal Register a proposed rule that would implement Amendment 12 and seek public comment on that proposed rule, following NMFS's evaluation of the proposed rule under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Public comments on the proposed rule must be received by the end of the comment period for Amendment 12 to be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on Amendment 12. Implementing regulations are not needed for either Amendment 10 or Amendment 11, and therefore no proposed rule for these amendments will be published.

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

          Dated: March 28, 2012.
          Carrie Selberg,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2012-7854 Filed 3-30-12; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P