        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 622
        RIN 0648-BI96
        Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Amendment 18

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of availability (NOA); request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          The Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) Fishery Management Council (Council) has submitted Amendment 18 to the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for the Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, U.S. Waters (Amendment 18) for review, approval, and implementation by NMFS. If approved by the Secretary of Commerce, Amendment 18 would modify the target reduction goal for juvenile red snapper mortality in the Federal Gulf shrimp trawl fishery in the 10-30 fathom depth zone, and would modify the FMP management measures framework procedure. The purposes of Amendment 18 are to promote economic stability, to achieve optimum yield in the Federal Gulf shrimp fishery by reducing effort constraints, and to equitably distribute the benefits from red snapper rebuilding, while continuing to protect, the Gulf red snapper stock.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received on or before September 30, 2019.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on Amendment 18, identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2019-0045,” by either of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2019-0045, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to Frank Helies, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.

            Instructions: 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 by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

          Electronic copies of Amendment 18, which includes a fishery impact statement, a Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) analysis, and a regulatory impact review, may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office website at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/amendment-18-modifying-shrimp-effort-threshold.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Frank Helies, telephone: 727-824-5305, or email: Frank.Helies@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires each regional fishery management council to submit any FMP or FMP amendment to NMFS for review, and approval, partial approval, or disapproval. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving an FMP or amendment, publish an announcement in the Federal Register notifying the public that the FMP or amendment is available for review and comment.
        The Council prepared the FMP being revised by Amendment 18, and if approved, Amendment 18 would be implemented by NMFS through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
        Background
        The 2005 Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) 7 stock assessment for Gulf red snapper identified bycatch of red snapper by the Gulf shrimp fishery as a primary factor affecting the recovery of the stock (SEDAR 7 2005). The assessment indicated a need to reduce the red snapper bycatch mortality attributed to shrimp trawls by 74 percent, compared to levels of effort and mortality experienced during the baseline 2001-2003 period.

        To end overfishing of red snapper and rebuild the stock by 2032 in compliance with the rebuilding plan, the Council developed Amendment 14 to the FMP to cap shrimp fishing effort in statistical zones 10-21 in 10-30 fathom (18.29 m-54.86 m) depth zone of the western Gulf (i.e., the area monitored for juvenile red snapper bycatch). The reduction goal for juvenile red snapper mortality was linked to a reduction in shrimp fishing effort of 74 percent below fishing effort during the baseline 2001-2003 period. The final rule for implementing this reduction published on January 29, 2008 (73 FR 5117). Consistent with Amendment 14, NMFS reduced the threshold level to 67 percent of the baseline in 2011. Amendment 14 also stated that the target reduction goal should decrease to 60 percent (i.e., shrimp effort could increase) by 2032 (the final year of the red snapper rebuilding plan); however, the framework procedure to implement this reduction was never established by the Council.
        The Gulf shrimp fishery has not exceeded the allowable threshold effort levels established in Amendment 14. Since the early 2000s, the Gulf shrimp fishery has experienced economic losses, primarily as a result of high fuel costs and reduced sales prices caused by competition with imported shrimp. These economic losses have resulted in the reduction in the number of vessels within the fishery, and consequently, a reduction in commercial effort, when compared to historical levels.

        Through Amendment 13 to the FMP, the Council took additional steps in 2006 to cap shrimp fishing effort in response to increased levels of bycatch of species including red snapper through establishment of the Federal commercial Gulf shrimp moratorium permit (71 FR 56039; September 26, 2006). The permit moratorium was later extended until October 26, 2026, by the final rule for Amendment 17A to the FMP (81 FR 47733; July 22, 2016) (50 CFR 622.50(b)).
        The Gulf red snapper is no longer overfished or undergoing overfishing, and continues to rebuild, consistent with the rebuilding plan (SEDAR 52 2018). Also, as described in Amendment 18, recent research indicates that the effect of the shrimp fishery on red snapper mortality is less than previously determined. In response to a request by the Council, the NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC) conducted an analysis to determine if effort in the shrimp fishery could increase without affecting red snapper rebuilding. The SEFSC analyzed how increases in Gulf-wide may affect the red snapper rebuilding plan and catch level projections from the SEDAR 52 stock assessment. This analysis of Gulf-wide effort increases was used as a proxy for changes in effort in the specific area monitored for purposes of the threshold because the results from SEDAR 52 could not be broken out into specific depth areas in particular statistical zones. The analysis indicated that increasing shrimp effort to the level considered in Amendment 14 (60 percent below the baseline years of 2001-2003) is unlikely to affect the rebuilding timeline of red snapper, and would have little impact on red snapper annual catch limits.
        Actions Contained in Amendment 18
        Amendment 18 would modify the target reduction goal for juvenile red snapper mortality in the Federal Gulf shrimp trawl fishery, and would modify the FMP framework procedures.
        Target Reduction Goal
        Amendment 18 would reduce the trawl bycatch mortality on red snapper to 60 percent below the baseline effort in the years 2001-2003. Although the Gulf red snapper stock is in a rebuilding plan until 2032, it is no longer overfished or undergoing overfishing (SEDAR 52 2018). While the red snapper stock acceptable biological catch (ABC) has consistently increased under the rebuilding plan, the target reduction goal of shrimp trawl bycatch mortality on red snapper has remained the same since 2011. The higher the target reduction of shrimp trawl bycatch mortality on red snapper, the more likely that the effort threshold would be exceeded, triggering a seasonal closure for the Gulf shrimp fishery. Although a shrimp closure has not been implemented to date as a result of effort reaching the threshold, shrimp effort has come within 2 percent of the 67-percent threshold in 2014, 2016, and 2017, indicating that a future commercial shrimp closure could occur. As noted previously, the analysis done by the SEFSC indicates that allowing shrimp effort to increase consistent with the lower threshold would not impact the red snapper rebuilding plan and would have only a small impact on red snapper catch levels. The projected reduction in the red snapper ABC in the short term (over the next 3 years) is no more than 100,000 lb (45,359 kg) per year and, in the long term, no more than 200,000 lb (90,719 kg) per year.
        FMP Framework Procedures
        Amendment 18 would revise the FMP framework procedure to allow changes to the target reduction goal for juvenile red snapper mortality through the standard open framework documentation process. Amendment 18 would also modify the FMP abbreviated documentation process to allow specification of an ABC recommended by the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee based on results of a new stock assessment and using the Council's ABC control rule. The changes to the framework process in Amendment 18 would provide for consistency across all abbreviated framework procedures under the Council's jurisdiction and would facilitate faster management action, if necessary, for the Council by providing a more streamlined approach to modify any future effort reduction goals.
        Proposed Rule for Amendment 18

        A proposed rule that would implement Amendment 18 has been drafted. In accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS is evaluating the proposed rule to determine whether it is consistent with the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable laws. If that determination is affirmative, NMFS will publish the proposed rule in the Federal Register for public review and comment.
        Consideration of Public Comments
        The Council has submitted Amendment 18 for Secretarial review, approval, and implementation. Comments on Amendment 18 must be received by September 30, 2019. Comments received during the respective comment periods, whether specifically directed to Amendment 18 or the proposed rule, will be considered by NMFS in the decision to approve, disapprove, or partially approve Amendment 18. All comments received by NMFS on the amendment or the proposed rule during their respective comment periods will be addressed in the final rule.

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

          Dated: July 29, 2019.
          Alan D. Risenhoover,
          Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2019-16420 Filed 7-31-19; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 660
        [I.D. 040302B]
        Pacific Fishery Management Council; Notice of Intent

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS); request for written comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS and the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) announce their intent to prepare an EIS in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) for Amendment 16 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP).  This amendment will incorporate rebuilding plans for groundfish species that have been declared overfished by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).  The amendment will also establish procedures for periodic review and revision of rebuilding plans.  The Council has already held public scoping meetings and will continue to accept written comments to determine the issues of concern and the appropriate range of management alternatives to be addressed in the EIS.

          DATES:
          Written comments will be accepted on or before May 31, 2002.

          ADDRESSES:
          Send comments on issues and alternatives for the EIS to John DeVore, Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Pl., Suite 200, Portland, OR  97220 or Becky Renko, NMFS, Northwest Region, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, BIN C15700, Bldg. 1, Seattle, WA  98115-0070.  Comments also may be sent via facsimile (fax) to the Council at 503-326-6831.  Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or Internet.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          John Devore, phone: 503-326-6352; fax: 503-326-6831 and e-mail: John.Devore@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the United States has management authority over all living marine resources within the exclusive economic zone (EEZ), which extends from three to 200 nautical miles offshore.  The Council develops FMPs and FMP amendments governing fisheries off the coasts of California, Oregon and Washington for approval and implementation by the Secretary of Commerce.
        The Council implemented the original Groundfish FMP in 1982. Groundfish stocks are harvested in numerous commercial, recreational, and tribal fisheries in state and Federal waters off the West Coast.  Groundfish are also harvested incidentally in non-groundfish fisheries, most notably fisheries for pink shrimp, spot and ridgeback prawns, California halibut, and sea cucumbers.

        The FMP manages 82 species, of which eight have been declared overfished by the Secretary pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act and overfishing criteria adopted by the Council under Amendment 11 to the FMP.  Under Section 304(e)(3) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1854(e)(3)), the Council is required, within one year, to prepare an FMP, FMP amendment, or proposed regulations to rebuild any species that has been declared overfished.  In 2000, after three species had been declared overfished, NMFS approved Amendment 12 to the Groundfish FMP.  Amendment 12 provided that rebuilding plans would be developed according to so-called “framework procedures” under the Groundfish FMP, but would not be incorporated directly into the FMP itself.  Amendment 12 was subsequently deemed inconsistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act in the case of Natural Resources Defense Council v. Evans, 168 F. Supp.2d 1149 (N.D. Calif. 2001), in that the rebuilding plans were not made part of the FMP.  The court also found that the environmental assessment prepared for Amendment 12 was deficient under NEPA for failure to adequately discuss appropriate alternatives.
        Amendment 16 to the FMP, which is now in development, is intended to comply with the Court's directive to include rebuilding plans in the FMP, and also to provide for rebuilding of additional species that have been declared overfished.  Specifically, rebuilding plans for five of the eight overfished stocks (lingcod, cowcod, Pacific ocean perch (POP), widow rockfish, and darkblotched rockfish) will be incorporated into the FMP through Amendment 16.  Three additional rebuilding plans (for bocaccio, canary rockfish and yelloweye rockfish) are pending the completion of new stock assessments and rebuilding analyses, and will be adopted in subsequent plan amendments.
        Initially, NMFS intended to prepare an environmental assessment (EA) for Amendment 16.  An EA is used to determine whether the proposed action (in this case adopting rebuilding plans and procedures) will have a significant impact on the human environment, as defined by NEPA and its implementing regulations. If a significant impact is anticipated to occur, an EIS must be prepared.  During public scoping for the EA, it became apparent that the proposed action may cause significant impacts, so NMFS decided to proceed with an EIS rather than an EA.
        Alternatives

        As currently planned, the Amendment 16 EIS will evaluate the effects of two sets of alternatives that might be adopted under Amendment 16.  The first set of alternatives will address the effects of different procedures that might be followed for revising rebuilding plans.  This could include a variety of strategies based on the results of the biennial reviews of rebuilding plans required by section 304(e)(7) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act at 16 U.S.C. 1854(e)(7).  The second set of alternatives will analyze effects of different rebuilding parameters.  These parameters include the target rebuilding period, the fishing mortality management strategy (e.g., constant catch versus constant fishing mortality rate) and rates associated with the strategy, and levels of probability or risk that rebuilding targets will be achieved.
        Scoping

        Public involvement in the scoping of issues and alternatives is an important part of the EIS process.  Meetings of the Council have been and will continue to be the principal opportunities for public participation in scoping Amendment 16 alternatives and issues.  Scoping began in March 1999 when lingcod and POP were the first groundfish species to be declared overfished.  Since that time there has been substantial opportunity for public input at 11 Council meetings.  Since the proposed action has already been subject to a lengthy development process that has included early and meaningful opportunity for public participation, no additional public hearings are planned. However, written comments on the scope of issues and alternatives may be submitted as described under ADDRESSES.

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

          Dated: April 9, 2002.
          Jack H. Dunnigan,
          Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 02-9203 Filed 4-15-02; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        [Docket No. FWS-R3-ES-2011-0028; MO 92210-0-0008]
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Golden-Winged Warbler as Endangered or Threatened

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Notice of petition finding and initiation of status review.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce a 90-day finding on a petition to list the golden-winged warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera) as endangered or 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 listing the golden-winged warbler may be warranted. Therefore, with the publication of this notice, we are initiating a review of the status of the species to determine if listing the golden-winged warbler is warranted. To ensure that this status review is comprehensive, we are requesting scientific and commercial data and other information regarding this species. Based on the status review, we will issue a 12-month finding on the petition, which will address whether the petitioned action is warranted, as provided in the Act.

          DATES:

          To allow us adequate time to conduct this review, we request that we receive information on or before August 1, 2011. Please note that if you are using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES section, below), the deadline for submitting an electronic comment is 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on this date. After August 1, 2011, you must submit information directly to the Wisconsin Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section below). Please note that we might not be able to address or incorporate information that we receive after the above requested date.

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

            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 FWS-R3-ES-2011-0028. 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-R3-ES-2011-0028; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 2042-PDM; 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).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Field Supervisor, Wisconsin Ecological Services Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Office, 2661 Scott Tower Drive, New Franken, WI 54229-9565; by telephone (920-866-1725); or by facsimile (920-866-1710). If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Request for Information

        When we make a finding that a petition presents substantial information indicating that listing a species may be warranted under section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act, we are required to promptly review the status of the species (status review). For the status review to be complete and based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we request information on golden-winged warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera) 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, such as information related to the hybridization between the golden-winged warbler and the blue-winged warbler (Vermivora cyanoptera);
        (c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns;
        (d) Historical and current population levels, and current and projected trends; and
        (e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, its habitat, or both.

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

        You may submit your information concerning this status review by one of the methods listed in 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 Wisconsin Ecological Field Office (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.
        Petition History

        On February 10, 2010, we received a petition, from Anna Sewell, requesting the golden-winged warbler be listed as endangered or threatened under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, as required by 50 CFR 424.14(a). In an April 16, 2010, letter to the petitioner Anna Sewell, we responded that we had reviewed the information presented in the petition and determined that issuing an emergency regulation temporarily listing the species under section 4(b)(7) of the Act was not warranted. This finding addresses the petition.
        Previous Federal Action(s)
        To date, no Federal actions have been taken with regard to the golden-winged warbler.
        Species Information
        The golden-winged warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera) is a neotropical migrant (breeding in North America and wintering in Central and South America) belonging to the Order Passeriformes and Family Parulidae (Sibley 2003, p. 429). It is classified as a discrete species by the American Ornithologists' Union (AOU 1998, p. 534). The golden-winged warbler is a small-sized passerine, weighing only 8.8 grams (g) (0.31 ounces (oz)). Total body length is 120.65 millimeters (mm) (4.75 inches (in)), with a wingspan of 190.5 mm (7.5 in). Diagnostic features include slate gray plumage on the chest, breast, nape and mantle, with contrasting yellow patches on the upper wing coverts (sets of small feathers that cover the upper wing area) and crown. An adult male in breeding plumage expresses a black throat patch and auriculars (groups of feathers that cover the sides of a bird's head where the bird's ear openings are located), with contrasting white supercilium (a plumage feature on the head) and malar region (around the cheeks). All of those features are less distinct in females. Both sexes can show a yellow wash on the mantle extending to secondary coverts (Confer 1992, not paginated; Sibley 2003, p. 429).

        Golden-winged warblers breed across the north-central and eastern United States, expanding into southeastern Canada. The breeding range can be thought of as two distinct areas: The northern portion, which extends into southern Canada (southwestern Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, and eastern Saskatchewan) and spreads south into Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan, and the eastern portion, which includes parts of the Appalachians (Georgia, North Carolina, and Tennessee) and into Kentucky, Virginia, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and New York, with low numbers in Connecticut, Vermont, and New Hampshire (InfoNatura 2007; Buehler et al. 2010, p. 8, 31). Breeding locations between the two distinct areas (Indiana, Ohio, and Illinois, and western New York) hold low numbers of birds (Sauer et al. 2008, not paginated; Buehler et al. 2006, not paginated). The northern and eastern breeding ranges are linked by a narrow corridor located in the St. Lawrence River Valley in north central New York (Buehler et al. 2010, p. 8). Wintering locations include areas in southern Central America and northern South America (Buehler et al. 2006, not paginated).

        For breeding sites, the golden-winged warbler depends mostly on early successional habitats. These are habitats that have previously undergone an amount of disturbance by a natural or human-caused event that creates a structurally diverse landscape. These habitats can occur in upland or lowland areas (Buehler et al. 2010, p. 2). Landscapes that consist of forest edge, shrubs, forests with open canopy, habitats with grassy openings, and wetlands with scattered trees can be viable nesting habitats (Rossell et al. 2003, p. 1099; Buehler et al. 2010, p. 10). Breeding sites have been documented in abandoned farmlands, powerline cuts, recently logged sites, and locations along stream borders (Confer 1992, not paginated; Service 2009, not paginated). Habitat tracts of 10-50 hectares (ha) (24-37 acres (ac)) can support several pairs and are preferred over both smaller and larger areas (Confer 1992, not paginated). Nest success measures vary throughout breeding range and within the breeding season; however, rough estimates are between 40 percent at sites in New York to approximately 75 percent at sites in North Carolina (Buehler et al. 2007, p. 1440; Buehler et al. 2010, p. 20-21). Population estimates are approximately 210,000 individuals globally (Partners in Flight PIF Landbird Database).

        The diet of the golden-winged warbler consists of small bugs, larvae, and spiders (Service 2009, not paginated). Golden-winged warblers can lay three to six eggs, in nests that are low to the ground and concealed by vegetation (Buehler et al. 2007, p. 1440).
        Evaluation of Information for This Finding
        Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424 set forth the procedures for adding a species to, or removing a species from, the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act:
        (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;
        (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
        (C) Disease or predation;
        (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
        (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
        In considering what factors constitute threats, we must look beyond the exposure of the species to a factor to evaluate whether the species may respond to the factor in a way that causes actual impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a factor and the species responds negatively, the factor may be a threat, and, during the subsequent status review, we attempt to determine how significant a threat it is. The threat may be significant if it drives, or contributes to the risk of, extinction of the species such that the species may warrant listing as endangered or threatened as those terms are defined in the Act. The identification of factors that could impact a species negatively may not be sufficient to compel a finding that substantial information has been presented suggesting that listing may be warranted. The information should contain evidence or the reasonable extrapolation that any factor(s) may be operative threats that act on the species to the point that the species may meet the definition of endangered or threatened under the Act.
        In making this 90-day finding, we evaluated whether information regarding threats to the golden-winged warbler, as presented in the petition and other information available in our files, is substantial, thereby indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. Our evaluation of this information is presented below.
        A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of the Species' Habitat or Range.
        Information Provided in the Petition

        The petition claims that threats causing the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the golden-winged warbler's habitat or range include habitat loss and modification. The petition suggests that loss of early successional habitat has contributed to declining population trends throughout the species' range (Petition, p. 11; Hunter et al. 2001; NatureServ Explorer). Golden-winged warblers require early successional landscapes originating from natural or anthropogenic disturbance. Prior to European settlement, early successional landscapes occurred via stochastic events such as natural fires and storms, and through disturbances to landscapes from other species (for example, bison, elk, and beaver habitat modifications) (Petition, p. 11; Hamel et al. 2005). After European settlement in the 19th century, conversion of natural landscapes to agriculture resulted in the suppression of natural fires and a decrease in natural land disturbance. Golden-winged warblers shifted from using naturally created, early successional breeding habitat, to early successional habitat created by anthropogenic means (Petition, p. 12; Klaus and Buehler 2001). Within recent decades there has been a decrease in early successional habitat due to reforestation of the eastern United States, development, and changes in agricultural practices. The petition claims that the golden-winged warbler now breeds within a matrix of human-developed landscape (urban/suburban development, agriculture, and reforestation practices), thus leading to its decline in what was historically viable breeding habitat (Petition, p. 12; NatureServe2010).

        The petition also claims that golden-winged warblers now rely on human interference to create early successional habitat that consists of shrubs, open canopy, habitats with forested edge, and/or grassy patches (Petition, p. 12; Klaus and Buehler 2001). The petition claims that in the United States, the decline in availability of habitat used by golden-winged warblers and other early successional habitat-dependent species (such as grassland birds) is increasingly becoming a concern (Petition, p. 13; Motzkin and Foster 2004). Although the petition (Petition, p. 14) states that habitat modification or loss is the primary obstacle for golden-winged warbler stabilization, Confer et al. (2003) state that other factors must be involved in population declines, because in areas where ample suitable habitat exists, such as in Massachusetts, the warblers have become extirpated;.
        Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in Service Files

        Information provided by the petitioner and readily available in our files indicates the golden-winged warbler may be declining rangewide due to loss, degradation, and modification of early successional habitat. Forest maturation, land development, wetland destruction and loss, and lack of natural events that create viable breeding sites contribute to the reduction of available nesting habitat (Buehler et al. 2006, p. 1; Buehler et al. 2010, p. 118).

        In the north-central breeding range, long-term trends (1966-2007) estimate populations to be decreasing by 1.4 percent per year (Sauer et al. 2008, not paginated). In this breeding region, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan together hold approximately 69 percent of the global breeding population of golden-winged warblers (Buehler et al. 2010, p. 31). Long-term trends (1966-2007) for Michigan estimate a population decline of 8.1 percent per year, with numbers relatively stable in Minnesota and Wisconsin. In the north-central breeding range, nests are found in wetland and upland shrub habitats consisting of old fields and pastures, clearcuts, and regenerating aspen tracts. The major threats to populations in the north-central breeding range include habitat loss, wetland drainage, and habitat succession (Buehler et al. 2010, p. 35).

        In Canada (Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, and Saskatchewan), long-term Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data from 1966-2007 (Buehler et al. 2007, p. 144; Sauer et al. 2008, not paginated) indicate a relatively stable breeding population. This region supports approximately 18.2 percent of the global breeding population. Limited, short-term data collected over the last 10 years suggest a 4 percent per year population decline (Sauer et al. 2008, p. 1). More data are needed to accurately predict population trends for this region.

        The Northeast supports 11 percent of the total global breeding population (Buehler et al. 2010, p. 74). In this breeding range, long-term trend information (1966-2007) from BBS data indicates an 8.8 percent per year decline in populations. More recent data from the past 25 years (1980-2007) estimate the same negative trend, at a loss of 6.2 percent per year (Sauer et al. 2008, p.1). Loss of early successional habitat and fragmentation of existing habitat contribute to the decline of populations in the Northeast region. Tens of millions of hectares of habitat has been lost as abandoned farmland passes through early successional to late successional stages (Confer et al. 2003, p. 142). This advancement in forest succession is taking place in many areas of the Northeast. Forest regeneration without regular natural disturbance, such as fire, results in dense canopy lacking open patches and low shrub layers. Landscapes with these characteristics are structurally different than forests that are regularly undergoing natural disturbance (Buehler et al. 2010, p. 118), and these dense forest habitats do not support golden-winged warblers. In the Northeast breeding range specifically, close associations with the blue-winged warbler (Vermivora cyanoptera) could also be contributing to the decline of golden-winged warblers. Breeding golden-winged warbler pairs in the Northeast overlap with blue-winged warbler breeding pairs, and these interactions can lead to golden-winged warblers either being pushed out of territories or to hybridization between the two species. More research is needed to understand if these interspecific interactions may be a threat to the golden-winged warbler (golden-winged and blue-winged warbler hybridization is discussed under factor E (Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence).

        In the southeastern breeding range, populations are too low to estimate decade-long trends; however, long-term trend information (1966-2007) from BBS data indicate a 7.3 percent decline per year (Sauer et al. 2008, p. 1). This region only supports 1.4 percent of the global breeding population (Buehler et al. 2010, p. 58). Research indicates that the decline of early successional habitat has led to the extirpation of golden-winged warblers in the southern districts of Cherokee National Forest, Tennessee (Klaus et al. 2005, p. 232). In areas of hardwood forests previously occupied by breeding pairs, early successional habitat has declined because of the occurrence of natural forest succession without the intervention of forest harvest or natural disturbance (Klaus et al. 2005, p. 232). Habitat loss may be the cause of population declines in the southeastern breeding range, because other potential threats such as blue-winged warbler interactions are not as common in this region.

        Deforestation events have increased in golden-winged warbler wintering grounds, specifically the montane oak forests in Central and South America (Buehler et al. 2007, p. 4). The population dynamics of golden- and blue-winged warblers on wintering grounds lends support to the assertion that interspecific competition does not appear to be occurring in this region. Golden-winged warblers occupy areas that are further south and mostly separated from those of blue-winged warblers, with limited overlap occurring in northern Panama, Costa Rica, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Guatemala (Confer 1992, not paginated; Buehler et al. 2010, p. 120). Although it is unclear if the loss of overwintering habitat affects survival, overall golden-winged warbler population declines may be related. Potential threats to the species on wintering grounds need to be examined to determine if changes in wintering habitat are limiting to golden-winged warbler population viability.

        The degradation of migratory stopover sites could impact fitness of individuals, or more directly cause mortality (Buehler et al. 2010, p. 120). Other anthropogenic factors could impact individuals along migratory routes or at stopover sites. One report compiled data from 47 studies that monitored bird strikes at communication towers and found that golden-winged warbler mortality was identified at 15 towers, which accounted for 542 individuals (Shire et al. 2000, p.8).

        BBS data indicate that the golden-winged warblers' breeding range has been shifting for the last 150 years and population numbers have declined (Confer et al. 2003, p. 142; Sauer et al. 2008, p. 1; Buehler et al. 2010, p. 24). Breeding populations in other States may become extirpated (Connecticut, South Carolina, Georgia, Indiana, Illinois, and Rhode Island) (Confer 1992, not paginated; Buehler et al. 2010, p. 25) and, already, the golden-winged warbler has not been verified to be breeding in Massachusetts (USGS North American Breeding Bird Atlas Explorer).
        Golden-winged warblers require specific habitat characteristics found in early successional landscapes for nesting, and loss of this habitat may continue to reduce populations by limiting fecundity and, therefore, reproductive success, leading to population declines. In general, we expect golden-winged warbler populations to continue to decline, as a response to the reduction in breeding areas due to destruction, modification, and curtailment of early successional habitats. Loss of overwintering habitat and degradation of migratory stopover sites may also contribute to continuing population declines by reducing survival or reducing overall fitness, which can translate to reduced fecundity.
        Summary of Factor A
        In summary, the petition and information in our files identifies the loss of early successional habitat by changes in agricultural practices, forest maturation, land development, wetland destruction and loss, and lack of natural disturbance events as potential threats to the golden-winged warbler. Furthermore, winter habitat is affected by increasing deforestation and migrating individuals are impacted by the increasing number of communication towers. Therefore, we find that the information provided in the petition, as well as other information readily available in our files, presents substantial scientific or commercial information to indicate that the golden-winged warbler may warrant listing due to the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the species' habitat or range.
        B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes.
        Information Provided in the Petition
        The petition did not present any information with respect to Factor B.
        Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in Service Files
        The information in our files does not indicate any threat to golden-winged warbler due to overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes. Therefore, we find that the petition and information readily available in our files does not provide substantial scientific or commercial information to indicate that the overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes may present a threat to the golden-winged warbler such that the petitioned action may be warranted. However, we will further investigate the potential threat of overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes in our status review for this species.
        C. Disease or Predation
        Information Provided in the Petition
        The petition did not present any information with respect to Factor C.
        Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in Service Files

        Our files indicate that, although nest predation may be a leading cause of nest loss for golden-winged warblers, there is not enough data indicating that nest predation rates are limiting factors in population declines (Buehler et al. 2010, p. 125). Therefore, the information in our files does not indicate any threat to golden-winged warblers due to disease or predation. We find that the petition and information readily available in our files do not provide substantial scientific or commercial information to indicate that disease or predation may present a threat to the golden-winged warbler such that the petitioned action may be warranted. However, we will further investigate the potential threat of disease or predation in our status review for this species.
        D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
        Information Provided in the Petition
        The petition claims that the only way to ensure protection for the golden-winged warbler is to mandate Federal protection across the species' entire North and South America range (Petition, pp. 22-23). The petition suggests that existing regulatory mechanisms do not adequately protect the golden-winged warbler. State regulations provide the species protection from only the sale or take of individuals; in addition, State regulations are insignificant because they protect the species at localized areas only, versus the entire range, and do not address habitat protection or conservation (Petition, pp. 16-23).
        Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in Service Files
        In Canada, golden-winged warblers are protected under the Migratory Bird Convention Act of 1916 and by the Schedule One of Canada's Species at Risk Act. The Committee of the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) lists the bird as threatened in Quebec, Ontario, and Manitoba. In the United States, under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended, it is unlawful to take, capture, kill, or possess migratory birds, their nests, eggs, and young. These protections extend to the golden-winged warbler. The Service has identified the golden-winged warbler nationally as a Bird of Conservation Concern, which is a designation assigned to the species by the Division of Migratory Bird Management. This designation indicates that the species is one which, without additional conservation actions, is likely to become a candidate for listing under the Act.

        The Service also identifies the species as a bird of management concern at the Bird Conservation Region (BCR) scale (developed by the North American Bird Conservation Initiative) in regions 12 (Boreal Hardwood Transition Zones), 13 (Lower Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Plain), 23 (Prairie Hardwood Transitions Zones), and 28 (Appalachian Mountains) (Service 2008, pp. 28, 29, 39, 44). Partners in Flight ranks the golden-winged warbler as a Watch List Species in need of immediate management action (Buehler et al. 2010, p. 127 cited from Rich et al. 2004). The golden-winged warbler is listed as a Species of Global Concern on the Audubon Society's species watch list (The National Audubon Society, not paginated). The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) lists golden-winged warblers as Near Threatened on their Global Continental Conservation Status list (BirdLife International 2008). These various classifications, however, are not regulatory in nature.

        The golden-winged warbler is State-listed as threatened, endangered, or of special concern in some areas of its range. Regulatory protections for State-listed species vary by individual States, but in general, State-listed species do not receive the same level of protection, especially with regard to habitat loss, afforded to Federally listed species. The Service is leading a cooperative effort with Federal and State agencies, researchers, universities and other nongovernment organizations to determine the extent of threats to the golden-winged warbler population. Developed in 2003, the Golden Winged Warbler Working Group consists of Federal, State, and nonprofit entities. The Working Group prioritizes research and monitoring activities, investigates hybridization range and species genetics, develops habitat classification measures and management priorities, and works with the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS, U.S. Department of Agriculture) to integrate species-specific management into legislation such as the Farm Bill (Buehler et al. 2007, p. 1442). The working group conducts a variety of conservation efforts and research throughout the species' range. These collaborative efforts were initiated separately from the petition for listing this species under the Act, and solely because of the interest of the cooperating organizations in improving the status of this species, which is widely recognized as a species of conservation concern.
        Summary of Factor D
        The petition and information in our files suggest that individual State-level protections are not adequately protecting the warbler, as evidenced by declining population trends in all breeding areas and declining habitat trends on the wintering grounds. In addition, the existing regulatory mechanisms do not provide habitat conservation or protection measures, nor do they directly address management incentives for the golden-winged warbler. The formation of the Golden Winged Warbler Working Group is leading the development of conservation initiatives; however, this group does not have authority to implement wide-scale population-level protection. Declining population trends in all breeding areas, as well as declining habitat trends on the wintering grounds of golden-winged warbler, continue, and existing legislation does not protect the golden-winged warbler or its habitat throughout the species' range. Therefore, we find that the information provided in the petition, as well as other information readily available in our files, presents substantial scientific or commercial information to indicate that the golden-winged warbler may warrant listing due to the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms.
        E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence.
        Interactions With Blue-Winged Warbler
        Information Provided in the Petition

        The petition claims that golden-winged warblers are being displaced by the expansion of blue-winged warblers, resulting in golden-winged warblers being pushed north into Ontario and west into Minnesota (Petition, p. 15; Hamel et al. 2005). The expansion of blue-winged warblers into golden-winged warblers' habitat may be correlated with loss of early successional habitat (Petition, p. 15; NatureServe 2010). The range of the golden-winged and blue-winged warblers overlap considerably, and data from one study found that golden-winged warblers nesting near blue-winged warblers laid fewer eggs (Petition, p. 15; Confer et al. 2003, p. 141).
        Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in Service Files

        Data from the last 150 years document the replacement of golden-winged warblers with blue-winged warblers in areas of the Northeast (Buehler et al. 2010, p. 75). The expansion of blue-winged warblers may result in the displacement of golden-winged warblers, a decrease in productivity, or an increase in hybridization events (Confer et al. 2003, p. 141; Buehler et al. 2010, p. 121).

        The golden-winged warbler is closely related to the blue-winged warbler, and interbreeding between the two species occurs, producing fertile young (Confer 1992, not paginated; Buehler et al. 2010, p. 5). The two hybrids that can result from the cross-mating of the two species are Brewster's warbler and Lawrence's warbler. The Brewster's warbler is a first-generation hybrid, meaning a cross between golden-winged and blue-winged parents. It holds the dominate traits of both parents (white ventral plumage of the golden-winged warbler but overall coloration of the blue-winged warbler). Brewster's hybrids can back-cross with golden-winged or blue-winged warblers to produce viable offspring (Gough and Sauer 1997, not paginated). The Lawrence's warbler is a cross between a Brewster's warbler and a golden-winged warbler, or a Brewster's warbler and a blue-winged warbler. The Lawrence's warbler displays the recessive traits (feather coloration of the golden-winged, with yellow plumage of the blue-winged) (Gough and Sauer 1997, not paginated; Buehler et al. 2010, p. 5).
        The population-level impacts of interactions between golden-winged and blue-winged warblers, and variables contributing to hybridization events, are unclear. In two hybridization zones, nest success rates for the golden-winged warbler were lower in New York at sites that had documentation of species hybridization compared to sites in North Carolina that had no evidence of hybridization (Klaus and Buehler 2001, p. 300). This suggests that in areas where the two species occur together, reproductive efforts of golden-winged warblers may be suppressed due to hybridization. However, in New York there are areas of overlap where the two species are sympatric and co-exist without detected impacts to golden-winged warbler productivity (Confer and Larkin 1998, p. 213).

        The degree of hybridization may vary within different geographic locations. For example, interspecific interactions between blue-winged and golden-winged warblers may be more pronounced in the northeastern United States, where populations overlap considerably (Buheler et al. 2010, p. 118). In upland areas of New York and Pennsylvania, golden-winged warblers might be limited by habitat loss in addition to blue-winged warbler hybridization, while populations in North Carolina may be limited only by habitat loss (Buehler et al. 2007, p. 1440). In some areas of the southeastern United States, the golden-winged warbler population has declined in the absence of blue-winged warblers (Buheler et al. 2010, p. 121). Therefore, other factors likely contribute to declines of golden-winged warbler populations in the southeastern breeding range.

        More research is needed to fully understand the possible effects of hybridization on the golden-winged warbler. The information in the petition and in Service files provides limited data on golden-winged and blue-winged warbler interactions. We find the information provided in the petition discusses one possible threat, the possible reduction of golden-winged warbler productivity due to blue-winged warblers occupying golden-winged warbler breeding sites. Information in Service files indicates that interspecific interactions, such as species hybridization, may be a threat to the golden-winged warbler, especially in specific geographic locations. Both the petition and Service files recognize that blue-winged warblers are expanding into golden-winged warblers' range and that this expansion could be correlated with the loss of early successional habitat. Although the effects of interspecific interactions (reduced breeding productivity or hybridization) between the blue-winged and golden-winged warbler remain unclear, we find that the information provided in the petition, as well as other information readily available in our files, presents substantial scientific or commercial information to indicate that the golden-winged warbler may warrant listing due to other natural or manmade factors affecting the species' continued existence due to these factors.
        Brown-headed Cowbird Nest Parasitism
        Information Provided in the Petition
        The petition states that brown-headed cowbirds (Molothrus ater) are parasitizing golden-winged warbler nests, with evidence suggesting that the rate of parasitism reduces fledgling success (Petition, p. 15). The study cited in the petition was conducted in New York and found a 50 percent loss in fledgling success in nests with brown-headed cowbird eggs. However, the small sample size of nests (34 nonparasitized nests and 7 parasitized nests) may lead to statistical error (Confer et al. 2003, p. 141). This study found that fledgling rate in nonparasitized nests was high (68 percent), while fledgling rate in parasitized nests was low (32 percent), and that this difference is enough to warrant concern about brown-headed cowbird parasitism limiting golden-winged warbler fledgling success (Confer et al. 2003, p. 141). The petition concludes that nest parasitism, coupled with other factors, leads to reduced fledgling success (Petition, p. 15).
        Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in Service Files

        The rate of cowbird parasitism varies within the range of golden-winged warblers. Golden-winged warbler nests, especially in agricultural landscapes, experience moderate rates of parasitism (Confer 1992, not paginated). In a sample size of nests found in the eastern United States, central Michigan, central New York, and eastern New Jersey, 11 of 113 nests were parasitized (Coker and Confer 1990, p. 551). In nests found in New York, from 1988 to 1994, 30 percent had at least one cowbird egg or chick, which reduced fledgling success by 17 percent (Confer et al. 2003, p. 138). Although brown-headed cowbirds were present, cowbird parasitism was not recorded in nests of golden-winged warblers in areas of Tennessee and North Carolina (Klaus and Buehler 2001, p. 29) and was not apparently impacting golden-winged populations in West Virginia or Ontario (Buehler et al. 2010, p. 23). At breeding sites in north central New York, cowbird parasitism was correlated with a reduction in incubated eggs and a reduction in the proportion of incubated eggs that hatched; however, parasitism did not significantly affect nestling success rate (Confer et al. 2003, p. 138).
        Although there is evidence indicating golden-winged warblers are susceptible to brown-headed cowbird parasitism, it has not yet been determined if brown-headed cowbird parasitism has a substantial impact on golden-winged warbler nest success rates throughout the species' breeding range. Brown-headed cowbird parasitism may be a greater concern for warblers nesting in the northeast United States, compared to warblers in the north central breeding range.
        We find that, based on information in the petition, as well as other information readily available in our files, we are unsure of the impact cowbird parasitism may have on the golden-winged warbler. However, we will further investigate the potential impacts of cowbird parasitism in our 12-month status review.
        Finding
        On the basis of our analysis under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we determine that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the golden-winged warbler throughout its entire range may be warranted. This finding is based on information provided under Factors A (present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the species' habitat or range), D (the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms), and E (other natural or manmade factors affecting the species' continued existence). Specifically, we find that the following may pose threats to the golden-winged warbler throughout all or a significant portion of its range, such that the petitioned action may be warranted: Habitat modification and loss of early successional habitat (Factor A); inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (because existing regulations only provide protection from the sale or take of individuals at localized areas, rather than the entire range, and do not address habitat protection or conservation) (Factor D); and interactions with blue-winged warblers (Factor E). We determine that the information provided under Factors B (overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific or educational purposes) and C (disease or predation) is not substantial.
        Because we have found that the petition presents substantial information indicating that listing the golden-winged warbler may be warranted, we are initiating a status review to determine whether listing the golden-winged warbler under the Act is 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. In a 12-month finding, we will determine whether a petitioned action is warranted after we have completed a thorough status review of the species, which is conducted following a substantial 90-day finding. Because the Act's standards for 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.
        References Cited

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

        The primary authors of this notice are the staff members of the Wisconsin Ecological Services Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

          Authority:

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

          Dated: May 4, 2011.
          Rowan W. Gould,
          Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

      [FR Doc. 2011-13731 Filed 6-1-11; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 635
        RIN 0648-XB162
        Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Public Conference Call Regarding Recreational Yellowfin Tuna Fishery Data Collection

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of public conference call.

          SUMMARY:
          In order to better inform the public and NMFS, a conference call that is open to the public will be held to discuss historical and future data collection in the U.S. recreational yellowfin tuna fishery and the relationship to international yellowfin tuna management (e.g., quota establishment or tracking landings).

          DATES:
          An operator-assisted conference call that is open to the public will be held on April 27, 2012, from 10 a.m. to noon, EDT (phone number 888-593-8429; participant pass code 1629891). During this call, members of the public may ask questions and provide comments, after a brief background presentation.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Randy Blankinship at 727-824-5399 or Dianne Stephan at 978-281-9347.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Atlantic tunas are managed under the dual authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) and the Atlantic Tuna Conventions Act (ATCA), which authorizes the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to promulgate regulations as may be necessary and appropriate to implement recommendations of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). The authority to issue regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and ATCA has been delegated from the Secretary to the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA. On October 2, 2006, NMFS published in the Federal Register (71 FR 58058) final regulations, effective November 1, 2006, implementing the 2006 Consolidated Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Fishery Management Plan, which details the management measures for Atlantic HMS fisheries.
        At its 2011 meeting, the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) actively considered country-specific yellowfin tuna allocations, as well as the potential landings histories that could be the basis for those allocations. While the final recommendation did not establish any country-specific allocations, some members of the Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Advisory Panel and the public have expressed an interest in discussing historical and future data collection in the U.S. recreational yellowfin tuna fishery, in case the issue comes up at the 2012 ICCAT meeting.
        NMFS is facilitating the public discussion of this topic through this public conference call. The purpose of this call is to discuss historical and future data collection in the U.S. recreational yellowfin tuna fishery and the relationship to international yellowfin tuna management (e.g., quota establishment or tracking landings). During the call, the background of recreational yellowfin tuna data collection—as well as recent international management developments—will be briefly reviewed. The potential for future data collection will also be discussed. The public will have the opportunity to ask questions and engage in the discussion.

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

          Dated: April 20, 2012.
          Galen Tromble,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2012-9971 Filed 4-20-12; 4:15 pm]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 679
        [Docket No. 0809031176-81596-01]
        RIN 0648-AX25
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands and Gulf of Alaska Groundfish; Limited Access Privilege Programs

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes regulations implementing Amendment 90 to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area and Amendment 78 to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska. This proposed regulation would amend the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Amendment 80 Program and the Central Gulf of Alaska Rockfish Program to allow post-delivery transfers of cooperative quota to cover overages. This action is necessary to mitigate potential overages, reduce enforcement costs, and provide for more precise total allowable catch management. This action is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Fishery Management Plans, and other applicable law.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received no later than February 19, 2009.

          ADDRESSES:
          Send comments to Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. You may submit comments, identified by “RIN 0648-AX25,” by any one of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal Web site at http://www.regulations.gov.

          • Mail: P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802.
          • Fax: (907) 586-7557.
          • Hand delivery to the Federal Building: 709 West 9th Street, Room 420A, Juneau, AK.

          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 (e.g., name, address) voluntarily submitted 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 N/A in the required fields, if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe portable document file (pdf) formats only.

          Copies of Amendments 90 and 78, and the Regulatory Impact Reviews/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analyses (RIR/IRFAs) prepared for this action may be obtained from the NMFS Alaska Region at the address above or from the Alaska Region Web site at http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov. This proposed action was categorically excluded from the need to prepare an environmental assessment under the National Environmental Policy Act.

          The Council has submitted Amendments 90 and 78 for review by the Secretary of Commerce, and a Notice of Availability (NOA) of the FMP amendments was published in the Federal Register on December 17, 2008 with comments on the FMP amendments invited through February 17, 2009. All written comments received by February 17, 2009, whether specifically directed to the FMP amendments, this proposed rule, or both, will be considered in the approval or disapproval decision on the FMP amendments.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Glenn Merrill, (907) 586-7228.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The groundfish fisheries in the exclusive economic zone off Alaska are managed under the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (BSAI FMP) and the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA FMP). The FMPs were prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Amendment 80 to the BSAI FMP implemented the Amendment 80 Program. Amendment 68 to the GOA FMP implemented the Central GOA Rockfish Program (Rockfish Program). Regulations implementing Amendment 80 were published on September 14, 2007 (72 FR 52668), and regulations implementing Amendment 68 were published on November 20, 2006 (71 FR 67210). These regulations are located at 50 CFR part 679.
        Background

        NMFS issued quota share (QS) under the Amendment 80 Program and the Rockfish Program. Under the Amendment 80 Program, NMFS issued QS to persons based on their qualifying harvest histories using specific trawl catcher/processor vessels in six BSAI non-pollock groundfish fisheries during 1998 through 2004. Under the Rockfish Program, NMFS issued QS to persons based on their qualifying harvest histories using trawl catcher vessels and trawl catcher/processors in several Central GOA (CGOA) rockfish fisheries and associated species that were harvested during those rockfish fisheries during 1996 through 2002. These two programs are commonly known as limited access privilege programs (LAPPs) because the participants in these fisheries may receive exclusive access to fishery resources if specific conditions are met. Each year, the person issued QS may choose to participate in either a fishery cooperative with other QS holders, or to fish in a limited access fishery with all other non-cooperative participants who hold QS. The total amount of QS assigned to all members of a cooperative yields an amount of cooperative quota (CQ), which is a permit that provides an exclusive harvesting privilege for a specific amount of groundfish, in specific fisheries, in a given year. In addition, a cooperative also receives a specific amount of CQ that may be used for the incidental catch of a specific amount crab or halibut. Incidentally caught crab or halibut cannot be retained, processed, or sold, and are commonly called prohibited species catch (PSC). QS holders who choose to participate in the limited access fishery are not assigned an exclusive harvest or PSC use privilege, but can compete for the allocation of groundfish and PSC remaining after CQ has been assigned to all cooperatives.
        Once a person joins a cooperative or the limited access fishery, they are required to participate in only that cooperative or the limited access fishery for that calendar year. A person who wishes to join a cooperative must designate the IFQ derived from his QS to the cooperative, and the specific vessels that will be fishing for that cooperative prior to the start of the fishing season for that LAPP. For example, persons wishing to participate in an Amendment 80 cooperative must assign their QS and vessels to an Amendment 80 cooperative by November 1 of each year to be eligible to fish in a cooperative for the following calendar year. Once a person assigns his QS or a vessel to a cooperative, he cannot reassign his QS or his vessel to another cooperative or the limited access fishery during that calendar year.
        The specific groundfish species for which NMFS issues QS, and the PSC species that may be issued CQ if a person joins a cooperative under the Amendment 80 Program and Rockfish Program are shown in Table 1.

          Table 1—Groundfish and PSC Species That May Yield CQ in the Amendment 80 Program and Rockfish Program

            Groundfish species for which QS is issued and that can yield CQ
            PSC species for which CQ can be issued

              BSAI Amendment 80 Program

            Aleutian Islands Pacific ocean perch
            Pacific halibut.

            Atka mackerel
            Zone 1 Bristol Bay red king crab.

            Flathead sole
            Zone 1 Chionoecetes opilio crab.

            Pacific cod
            Zone 2C. opilio
               crab.

            Rock sole
            Zone 1C. bairdi crab.

            Yellowfin sole
            Zone 2C. bairdi crab.

              CGOA Rockfish Program

            Northern rockfish (catcher vessels & catcher/processors)
            Pacific halibut.

            Pacific ocean perch (catcher vessels & catcher/processors).

            Pelagic shelf rockfish (catcher vessels & catcher/processors).

            Thornyhead rockfish (catcher vessels & catcher/processors).

            Trawl sablefish (catcher vessels & catcher/processors).

            Rougheye rockfish (catcher/processors only).

            Shortraker rockfish (catcher/processors only).

            Pacific cod (catcher vessels only).

        The mechanisms for joining a cooperative, the process for issuing CQ for groundfish or PSC species, and the monitoring and enforcement provisions necessary to ensure proper accounting of catch under the Amendment 80 and Rockfish Programs are described in detail in the final rules implementing those LAPPs and are not repeated here (see 72 FR 52668, September 14, 2007, for the Amendment 80 Program; and 71 FR 67210, November 20, 2006, for the Rockfish Program).
        The size of each annual CQ allocation to a cooperative is based on the amount of QS held by the members of the cooperative relative to the total QS pool for a given groundfish fishery. For example, if a cooperative in the Amendment 80 Program was comprised of members holding QS equaling 40 percent of the QS pool in the yellowfin sole fishery, that cooperative would receive CQ to harvest 40 percent of the annual total allowable catch (TAC) of yellowfin sole that is assigned to the Amendment 80 Program. Any catch of groundfish or PSC species that is assigned CQ under the specific LAPP (i.e., either the Amendment 80 or Rockfish Program) is debited from a cooperative's CQ account.
        The Amendment 80 Program and the Rockfish Program allow cooperatives to transfer their unused CQ between cooperatives. Transfers allow cooperatives to tailor their operations to specific harvesting conditions. All transfers must be approved by NMFS before they become effective. Once a CQ transfer has been approved by NMFS, the CQ account of the transferring cooperative is debited and the CQ account of the receiving cooperative is credited.
        CQ Overages Under Current System
        Under existing regulations, a cooperative in either the Amendment 80 Program or the Rockfish Program is prohibited from catching groundfish or PSC on an annual basis that exceeds the amount of CQ that is issued to that cooperative (see § 680.7(n)(7)(i) for the Rockfish Program, and § 680.7(o)(4)(v) for the Amendment 80 Program). This prohibits a cooperative and its members from having a negative CQ balance for a given species, and subsequently receiving transferred CQ after the landing to rectify the negative CQ balance. A transfer of CQ after fish have been landed to rectify a negative CQ balance is commonly known as a post-delivery transfer.

        If a harvester fishing for a cooperative delivers more groundfish, or catches more PSC, than the amount of CQ that the cooperative has been issued, that harvester and cooperative have violated existing regulations. This is commonly known as an overage. Overages can occur either through deliberate actions, or more commonly through unintentional errors such as miscalculating the weight of catch to be delivered relative to the amount of CQ available. As an example, harvesters operating a catcher vessel in the Rockfish Program may not know the precise weight of a delivery of groundfish, and estimates made onboard the vessel using a sample of average weight may be higher or lower than the actual delivery weight. Similarly, a harvester operating a trawl catcher/processor under either the Amendment 80 Program or Rockfish Program may not realize that he has harvested more than the amount of CQ assigned to his cooperative for a given groundfish or PSC species until after the catch from a haul has been weighed and the catch composition sampled by an onboard observer. If a harvester is making his or her last fishing trip for a cooperative for the year for a given groundfish or PSC species and no additional CQ is available in his or her account, then an overage may occur. However, in most cases harvesters attempt to protect against potential overages by maintaining catch below their CQ holdings, and harvesting and using slightly less than the maximum amount of groundfish or PSC available on their CQ account, resulting in less value for the catch than possible.
        Overages by cooperatives in the Rockfish Program and Amendment 80 Program are likely to be uncommon. In 2007, the first year under the Rockfish Program, no overages of CQ occurred. Results from 2008, the second year of the Rockfish Program, and the first year of the Amendment 80 Program are pending.
        Currently, catcher vessel landings of groundfish are offloaded and processed by the facility receiving the delivery. PSC that is caught at sea is sampled, weighed, and returned to the sea by an onboard observer according to specific sampling protocols. The amount of groundfish and PSC CQ used by the vessel is reported once the vessel offloads its catch of groundfish. Catcher/processor landings are weighed, sampled, and recorded by onboard observers. The results from landings on a catcher/processor are reported to NMFS daily. Once a final weight has been determined, the applicable groundfish or PSC species is debited from the CQ account for the cooperative. Any CQ overage is noted and referred to NOAA Office for Law Enforcement (OLE).
        Enforcement actions that may occur for a CQ overage would most likely rely on catch accounting records that show the violation. Violations from exceeding an exclusive annual harvest privilege in other LAPPs, such as the BSAI Crab Rationalization Program, and the Halibut and Sablefish IFQ Program are often apparent and not disputed because reliable records of observer sampling and offloads are generated at the time of landings. NMFS expects that similar violations that may occur in the Amendment 80 Program or Rockfish Program also would be apparent because reliable records of catch are kept under these two LAPPs. The amount and type of penalties that may be assessed are within the discretion of NOAA General Counsel.
        Need for Proposed Action
        Allowing post-delivery transfers in the Amendment 80 Program and Rockfish Program could mitigate potential overages, reduce enforcement costs, and provide for more precise TAC management and more value from the harvests for participants. Post-delivery transfers also would increase flexibility to the fleet and allow more efficient use of resources. As an example, this provision could allow harvesters to make landings for their cooperative and settle up CQ accounts after delivery. The flexibility to complete transfers after delivery reduces the potential that some CQ will remain unharvested if a cooperative is not able to harvest its CQ allocation without the risk of an overage, and minimizes the potential for CQ overages because a CQ account can be balanced after delivery through a transfer from another cooperative with the appropriate amount of CQ.
        The Proposed Action
        This action proposes to allow post-delivery transfers to cover overages of CQ. There would be no limit on the size of a post-delivery transfer or on the number of post-delivery transfers a cooperative could undertake, but a vessel that is assigned to that cooperative could not begin a new fishing trip for that cooperative if the CQ account balance was zero or negative for any of the groundfish or PSC species CQ assigned to a cooperative. No cooperative could have a negative balance in an annual CQ account for any groundfish or PSC species after the end of a calendar year.
        No member of a cooperative would be permitted to use any vessel assigned to that cooperative to begin a new fishing trip for any groundfish CQ species until the overage was accounted for and the CQ balance of the cooperative for all groundfish or PSC species for which CQ is assigned was positive. NMFS proposes to define the term “fishing trip” for purposes of this requirement to provide a clear standard for fishery participants. A fishing trip would be defined as the period beginning when a vessel operator commences harvesting any groundfish species that is assigned CQ under the relevant LAPP and ending when the vessel operator removes any groundfish CQ species whether processed or unprocessed from that vessel. The specific groundfish and PSC species for both LAPPs are listed above in Table 1. The proposed definition of a fishing trip would effectively extend from the first harvest of a groundfish species that is issued CQ in the applicable LAPP until the beginning of a delivery of groundfish from a catcher vessel, or the beginning of offloading of processed groundfish from a catcher/processor. This definition would ensure that no member of a cooperative could commence fishing for any groundfish species on the cooperative's CQ permit on any vessel until the CQ accounts of all groundfish and PSC species assigned to that cooperative are positive. This provision is intended to discourage harvesters from continuing to debit groundfish or PSC against their cooperative's CQ account for numerous fishing trips and run a negative balance without ensuring that adequate unused CQ exists that can be transferred from another cooperative to cover that negative balance. This proposed rule would not modify existing regulations that require that CQ issued to a cooperative can be transferred only among other cooperatives, and that participants in a limited access fishery in either of these two LAPPs may not transfer any unused TAC to cooperatives as CQ.
        The proposed action would prohibit a cooperative from maintaining a negative balance in its CQ accounts after the end of the calendar year for which that CQ was issued. This prohibition would effectively require that all post-delivery transfers of CQ must be completed by December 31 of each year. Overages that are not covered by December 31 of each year would be subject to a penalty or other enforcement action. This action would be expected to reduce the risk of potential overages because cooperatives would have time to settle up their CQ accounts by the end of the calendar year, rather than potentially exceed a CQ account at the time of landing.
        Expected Effects of the Proposed Action

        The RIRs describe in detail the predicted effects of the proposed action on harvesters, processors, communities, management and enforcement, consumers, and the nation (see ADDRESSES). Only the effects of the proposed action on harvesters are described here. Overall, the number of overages at the time of landing may increase slightly under the proposed action, but the risk that an overage would be subject to penalty would decrease.

        Harvesters are likely to improve efficiency under this alternative through greater flexibility in harvesting. Overages could be covered with post-delivery transfers. Under the status quo, harvesters may be required to wait in port or remain idle on the fishing grounds until a transfer can be processed and a positive CQ balance is available. Under the proposed action, harvesters could finish their fishing trip and settle the balance when back in port. Some production efficiency gains should be realized by allowing harvesters to more precisely harvest the total CQ allocation with fewer uncovered overages. Harvesters also are likely to minimize the number of overage violations, which should be reduced through post-delivery transfers. Based on public testimony received during Council deliberations and NMFS' review of overage rates in the Rockfish Program and Amendment 80 Program described in the RIR/IRFAs prepared for this proposed action (see ADDRESSES), it is unlikely that harvesters will have excessive overages by unreasonable reliance on the provision for post-delivery transfers. The available data indicate that overages are rare currently, and would likely continue to be in the future. This proposed action would benefit cooperatives and the members of cooperatives fishing under a cooperative's CQ permit.
        Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
        The NMFS Restricted Access Management Program (RAM) would continue to oversee share accounts and share usage. At the time of landing, RAM would maintain a record of any overage, but instead of reporting overages to NOAA OLE immediately, RAM would defer reporting until December 31 of the calendar year for which the CQ permit was issued. RAM would use the same process for processing post-delivery inter-cooperative transfer requests as is currently used to process inter-cooperative transfers under regulations at § 679.81 for the Rockfish Program, and at § 679.91 for the Amendment 80 Program.
        Summary of Regulatory Changes
        This action proposes the following changes to the existing regulatory text at 50 CFR part 679:
        • Add two new paragraphs to define the term “fishing trip” at § 679.2;
        • Modify the existing prohibitions at § 679.7(n)(7)(i) for the Rockfish Program and § 679.7(o)(4)(v) for the Amendment 80 Program to clarify that a person cannot begin a fishing trip with a vessel assigned to a Rockfish Program cooperative or Amendment 80 Program cooperative, if that Amendment 80 or Rockfish cooperative does not hold unused CQ for all species for which CQ is assigned; and
        • Add prohibitions at § 679.7(n)(7)(vi) for the Rockfish Program and § 679.7(o)(4)(vi) for the Amendment 80 Program to prohibit a person from having a negative balance in a CQ account for any species after the end of the calendar year for which that CQ permit was issued.
        Classification
        The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with Amendments 90 and 78, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and other applicable laws, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

        IRFAs were prepared for Amendment 90 and Amendment 78 that describe the impact this proposed rule would have on small entities. Copies of the RIR/IRFAs prepared for this proposed rule are available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). The RIR/IRFAs prepared for this proposed rule incorporate by reference extensive RIR/IRFAs prepared for Amendment 68 to the GOA FMP that implemented the Rockfish Program, and Amendment 80 to the BSAI FMP that implemented the Amendment 80 Program. The RIR/IRFAs prepared for Amendment 68 and Amendment 80 detailed the impacts of those LAPPs on small entities. These analyses are available from the NMFS Alaska Region, Records Office, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802, e-mail Records.fakr@noaa.gov, and on the Alaska Region Web site at http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.

        The IRFAs for this proposed action describe the action, why this action is being proposed, the objectives and legal basis for the proposed rule, the type and number of small entities to which the proposed rule would apply, and projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements of the proposed rule. The IRFAs identify any overlapping, duplicative, or conflicting federal rules and describes any significant alternatives to the proposed rule that accomplish the stated objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable statutes, and that would minimize any significant adverse economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities. The description of the proposed action, its purpose, and its legal basis are described in the preamble and are not repeated here.
        This action directly regulates holders of CQ who might use post-delivery transfers to cover overages. Estimates of the number of small entities holding CQ are based on estimates of gross revenues. Landings data from the most recent season for which data are available are used to make these estimates. In the Rockfish Program, seven cooperatives formed in the first year (2007). Estimates of the number of these cooperatives that are small entities are based on estimates of gross revenues from the most recent year for which complete data are available (2005). Since rockfish prices vary from year to year, the gross revenues of participants are difficult to predict. Of the seven cooperatives that received CQ in the first year of the Rockfish Program, five are estimated to be large entities and two are estimated to be small entities. In the Amendment 80 Program, estimates of the number of these cooperatives that are small entities are based on estimates of gross revenues from the most recent year for which complete data are available (2007). In the first year of the Amendment 80 Program (2007), one cooperative formed. This cooperative is estimated to be a large entity.
        Any cooperative wishing to cover an overage will be required to engage in a transfer of CQ. The required reporting and recordkeeping for a post-delivery transfer would be the same as for any other transfer of CQ.
        All of the directly regulated individuals would be expected to benefit from this action relative to the status quo alternative because the proposed action would allow greater flexibility and a longer time period over which to account for overages. Holders of CQ would be expected to benefit the most because the proposed action would provide CQ holders greater flexibility to maximize the harvest of their allocation without risking overages. Non-cooperative members would not be expected to benefit from this action because those persons do not receive an exclusive annual harvest privilege. This action would not be expected to have any effect on non-cooperative members. Among the three alternatives considered, the proposed action would best minimize potential adverse economic impacts on the directly regulated entities. Under the status quo, no post-delivery transfers would be allowed and small entities would continue to be penalized for overages. A third alternative for both Amendment 78 and Amendment 90 would have allowed post-delivery transfers, but with more limitations and restrictions than the preferred alternative. The preferred alternative gives small entities the most flexibility to account for overages.
        Allowing post-delivery transfers should reduce the number of overages that result in forfeiture of catch and other penalties.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679
          Alaska, Fisheries, Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements.

          Dated: December 30, 2008.
          John Oliver,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 CFR part 679 as follows:

          PART 679—FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA
          1. The authority citation for 50 CFR part 679 is amended to read as follows:

            Authority:
            16 U.S.C. 773 et seq.; 1801 et seq.; 3631 et seq.; Pub. L. 108-199; Pub. L. 108-447; and Pub. L. 109-479.

          2. In § 679.2, paragraphs (4) and (5) are added to the term “Fishing trip” to read as follows:

            § 679.2
            Definitions.

              Fishing trip means:

            (4) For purposes of 679.7(n)(7), the period beginning when a vessel operator commences harvesting any Rockfish Program species and ending when the vessel operator offloads or transfers any Rockfish Program species whether processed or unprocessed from that vessel.
            (5) For purposes of 679.7(o)(4), the period beginning when a vessel operator commences harvesting any Amendment 80 species and ending when the vessel operator offloads or transfers any Amendment 80 species whether processed or unprocessed from that vessel.

            3. In § 679.7, paragraphs (n)(7)(i) and (o)(4)(v) are revised, and paragraphs (n)(7)(vi) and (o)(4)(vi) are added to read as follows:

            § 679.7
            Prohibitions.

            (n) * * *
            (7) * * *
            (i) Begin a fishing trip for any Rockfish Program species with any vessel assigned to a Rockfish cooperative if the total amount of unharvested CQ that is currently held by that Rockfish cooperative is zero or less for any species for which CQ is assigned.

            (vi) Have a negative balance in a CQ account for any species for which CQ is assigned after the end of the calendar year for which a CQ permit was issued.

            (o) * * *
            (4) * * *
            (v) Begin a fishing trip for any Amendment 80 species with any vessel assigned to an Amendment 80 cooperative if the total amount of unharvested CQ that is currently held by that Amendment 80 cooperative is zero or less for any species for which CQ is assigned.
            (vi) Have a negative balance in a CQ account for any species for which CQ is assigned after the end of the calendar year for which a CQ permit was issued.

      [FR Doc. E8-31365 Filed 1-2-09; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P