        NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
        48 CFR Parts 1823, 1846, and 1852
        RIN 2700-AE17
        Drug- and Alcohol-Free Workforce and Mission Critical Systems Personnel Reliability Program

          AGENCY:
          National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          NASA is proposing to amend the NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) to remove requirements related to the discontinued Space Flight Mission Critical Systems Personnel Reliability Program and to revise requirements related to contractor drug and alcohol testing.

          DATES:
          Interested parties should submit comments to NASA at the address below on or before July 7, 2015 to be considered in formulation of the final rule.

          ADDRESSES:

          Interested parties may submit comments, identified by RIN number 2700-AE17 via the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments may also be submitted to Marilyn E. Chambers via email at marilyn.chambers@nasa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        A. Background
        NASA is proposing to revise the NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) to remove policy at 1846.370 NASA contract clauses, and the related clause at 1852.246-70, Mission Critical Space System Personnel Reliability Program. Additionally, other revisions, partially related to the removal of the Mission Critical Space System Personnel Reliability Program, and to clarify and update the guidance, are proposed to Subpart 1823.5, Drug-Free Workplace, and the associated clause at 1852.223-74, Drug- and Alcohol-Free Workforce.
        NASA discontinued the Mission Critical Space System Personnel Reliability Program (the Program) effective April 8, 2014. As stated at 79 FR 7391, the Agency conducted an analysis of its existing regulations and determined that 14 CFR part 1214, entitled “Space Flight Mission Critical Systems Personnel Reliability Program,” was obsolete and had been replaced by other measures to ensure that contractor employees assigned to mission-critical positions meet established screening requirements. Accordingly, NFS policy implementing the Program is no longer needed. However, the Program was linked to the prescription for the Drug- and Alcohol-Free Workforce clause which directed contracting officers to use the clause in all solicitations and contracts containing the clause at 1852.246-70, “Mission Critical Space Systems Personnel Reliability Program.” With the discontinuance of the Program, the prescription for this clause must be revised.
        NASA's authority to require contractor alcohol and drug testing is derived from the Civil Space Employee Testing Act of 1991, Public Law 102-195, sec. 21, 105 Stat. 1616 to 1619. The Act states the success of the United States civil space program is contingent upon the safe and successful development and deployment of the many varied components of that program and that the greatest efforts must be expended to eliminate the abuse of alcohol and use of illegal drugs. To this end, NASA is authorized to prescribe regulations which require contractors to conduct preemployment, reasonable suspicion, random, and post-accident testing of contractor employees responsible for safety-sensitive, security, or national security functions for use, in violation of applicable law or Federal regulation, of alcohol or a controlled substance. While the NFS drug and alcohol testing requirements are partially tied to the Mission Critical Space System Personnel Reliability Program, rescission of the program does not remove the need for such testing. Furthermore, 14 CFR, subpart 1214.5, contained two key terms and their definitions that will be helpful to Agency contracting officers in determining which contracts should include the drug and alcohol testing requirements. These terms are “mission critical space system” and “mission critical positions/duties.” This rule proposes to add these terms to NFS 1823.570, Drug- and Alcohol-free Workplace, and the associated clause at 1852.223-74, Drug- and Alcohol-Free Workforce.
        Two other terms, “employee” and “controlled substance,” are referenced, but not defined at 1823.570-1. These terms are defined at FAR 23.503. Additionally, NFS 1823.570-1 contained the statement, “The use of a controlled substance in accordance with the terms of a valid prescription, or other uses authorized by law shall not be subject to the requirements of 1823.570 to 1823.570-3 and the clause at 1852.223-74.” This exemption of a controlled substance used in accordance with the terms of a valid prescription, or other uses authorized by law was removed from the definitions and added to paragraph (c)(1) of the clause, so that contractors may easily see when use of a controlled substance may be permitted.
        A revised section (b)(2) to the clause adds a reference to NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) 3792.1, NASA's Plan for a Drug Free Workplace, Appendices A and B on “Testing Designated Positions” (TDPs) for federal employees, as a guide for contractors to use when determining if an employee is in a sensitive position and subject to drug and alcohol testing.
        The most recent titles and references for the applicable Federal drug testing programs are added: “Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs” published by the Department of Health and Human Services 73 FR 71858 and the procedures in 49 CFR part 40, “Procedures for Transportation Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing Programs. Additionally, the rule expands the list of drugs required to be tested for from “marijuana and cocaine” to add amphetamines, opiates and phencyclidine (PCP) in accordance with the Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs Mandatory Guidelines, Section 3.1, and 49 CFR 40.85.

        Based on the Civil Space Employee Testing Act requirements, the current clause at 1852.223-74 requires contractors to conduct “post-accident” drug and alcohol testing. A new paragraph (5) is added to specify post-accident testing is required when the contractor determines the employee's actions are reasonably suspected of having caused or contributed to an accident resulting in death or personal injury requiring immediate hospitalization or damage to Government or private property estimated to exceed $20,000. Additionally, the contractor is advised that the contracting officer may request the results of this post-accident testing. The purpose of this is to inform any accident investigation NASA may conduct. The contractor is required to provide only information on whether the testing was conducted and whether results showed any evidence of drug or alcohol use in violation of the clause. The contractor is not required to provide the names of individuals tested or of individual employee's test results.
        B. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
        Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. This proposed rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
        C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

        NASA does not expect this proposed rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. However, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has been performed and is summarized as follows:
        • This proposed rule amends the NFS to remove requirements related to the Mission Critical Space System Personnel Reliability Program which was discontinued effective April 8, 2014. The NFS contains a clause at 1852.246-70, Mission Critical Space System Personnel Reliability Program, which implemented the requirements of the Program on NASA contracts involving critical positions designated in accordance with 14 CFR 1214.5, Mission Critical Space System Personnel Reliability Program. With the discontinuance of the Program the clause is no longer necessary and is removed.
        • NFS 1823.570-2, Contract clause, requires the contracting officer to insert the clause at 1852.223-74, Drug- and Alcohol-Free Workforce, in all solicitations and contracts containing the clause at 1852.246-70, “Mission Critical Space Systems Personnel Reliability Program.” With the discontinuance of the Program, the prescription for this is revised to remove the reference to the Program. However, because NASA's contractor drug and alcohol testing requirements are based on the statutory requirements of the Civil Space Employee Testing Act of 1991, Public Law 102-195, sec. 21, 105 Stat. 1616 to 1619, the terms “mission critical space systems” and “mission critical positions/duties,” previously used in the Program, are carried over to the drug and alcohol testing clause as a point of reference for defining contract personnel and contract functions which come under the civil space employee testing requirements. While the term “mission critical space systems” is carried over, the definition is revised from “The Space Shuttle and other critical space systems, including Space Station Freedom, designated Expendable Launch Vehicles (ELV's), designated payloads, Shuttle Carrier Aircraft and other designated resources that provide access to space” to “the collection of all space-based and ground-based systems used to conduct space missions or support activity in space, including, but not limited to, the crewed space system, space-based communication and navigation systems, launch systems, and mission/launch control.” The revised definition deletes obsolete references such as the “Space Station Freedom” and “Shuttle Carrier Aircraft” and characterizes the systems which are critical to NASA's space mission.
        • The statement that use of a controlled substance in accordance with a valid prescription or otherwise authorized by law is moved from the definitions to 1823.570-1 to paragraph (c)(1) of the clause, so that contractors may readily see when use of a controlled substance may be permitted.
        • A reference is added to NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) 3792.1, NASA's Plan for a Drug Free Workplace, Appendices A and B on “Testing Designated Positions” (TDPs) for federal employees, as a guide for contractors to use when designating “sensitive” positions. This is intended as a guide and does not change the application of the policy.
        • The clause contained an outdated Federal Register reference to the Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs, published by the Department of Health and Human Services. The reference to the Department of Transportation's procedures at 49 CFR part 40 is revised to include the appropriate title, Procedures for Transportation Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing Programs.
        • The list of drugs required to be tested is revised from marijuana and cocaine to add amphetamines, opiates and phencyclidine (PCP) in accordance with the Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs Mandatory Guidelines, Section 3.1, and 49 CFR part 40 Section 40.85.
        • A new paragraph (5) is added to specify that post-accident testing is required when the contractor determines the employee's actions are reasonably suspected of having caused or contributed to an accident resulting in death or personal injury requiring immediate hospitalization or damage to Government or private property estimated to exceed $20,000. Additionally, the contractor is informed that the contracting officer may request the results of this post-accident testing.
        The proposed rule will not change the application of the clause. This proposed rule imposes no new reporting requirements. This proposed rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules. No alternatives were identified that would meet the objectives of the rule. Excluding small business concerns that may be subject to the rule would not be in the best interest of the small business concerns or the Government, because drug and alcohol testing of contractors performing functions related to mission critical space systems is statutorily mandated and is necessary in order to protect human life and the nation's civil space assets. NASA invites comments from small business concerns and other interested parties on the expected impact of this proposed rule on small entities. NASA will also consider comments from small entities concerning the existing regulations in subparts affected by this proposed rule in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 610 and RIN number 2700-AE17 in correspondence.
        D. Paperwork Reduction Act
        The proposed rule does not contain information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

          List of Subjects in 48 CFR 1823, 1846, and 1852
          Government procurement.

          Cynthia D. Boots,
          Alternate Federal Register Liaison.

        Accordingly, 48 CFR parts 1823, 1846, and 1852 are proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 1823—ENVIRONMENT, ENERGY AND WATER EFFICIENCY, RENEWABLE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES, OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY, AND DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE

        1. The authority citation for part 1823 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
          42 U.S.C. 2473(c)(1)

          1823.570-1
          [Revised]

        2. Section 1823.570-1 is revised by:
        a. Removing the introductory paragraph,
        b. Revising the definition for “Employee in a sensitive position”, and
        c. Adding the definitions for “Mission Critical Space Systems” and “Mission Critical Positions/Duties” to read as follows:

          Subpart 1823.5—Drug-Free Workplace

            1823.570-1
            Definitions.

              “Employee in a sensitive position” means a contractor or subcontractor employee who has been granted access to classified information; a contractor or subcontractor employee in other positions that the contractor or subcontractor determines could reasonably be expected to affect safety, security, National security, or functions other than the foregoing requiring a high degree of trust and confidence; and includes any employee performing in a position designated “mission critical” or performing mission-critical duties. The term also includes any applicant who is tentatively selected for a position described in this paragraph.
            “Mission Critical Space Systems” means the collection of all space-based and ground-based systems used to conduct space missions or support activity in space, including, but not limited to, the crewed space system, space-based communication and navigation systems, launch systems, and mission/launch control.
            “Mission Critical Positions/Duties” means positions or duties which, if performed in a faulty, negligent, or malicious manner, could jeopardize mission critical space systems and/or delay a mission.

            1823.570-2
            [Revised]

        3. Section 1823.570-2 is revised to read as follows:

          1823.570-2
          Contract clause.
          The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1852.223-74, “Drug- and Alcohol-Free Workforce,” in all solicitations and contracts exceeding $5 million in which work is performed by an employee in a sensitive position. However, the contracting officer shall not insert the clause at 1852.223-74 in solicitations and contracts for commercial items.

          PART 1846—QUALITY ASSURANCE

        4. The authority citation for part 1846 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
          U.S.C. 2473(c)(1).

          1846.370
          [Revised]

        5. Section 1846.370 is revised to read as follows:

          1846.370
          NASA contract clauses
          The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1852.246-73, Human Space Flight Item, in solicitations and contracts for human space flight hardware and flight-related equipment if the highest available quality standards are necessary to ensure astronaut safety.

          PART 1852—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES

        6. The authority citation for part 1852 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
          51 U.S.C. 20113(a) and 48 CFR chapter 1.

          1852.223-74
          [Revised]

        7. Section 1852.223-74 is revised by:
        a. Amending paragraph (a),
        b. Amending paragraphs (b)(2) through (b)(4)
        c. Adding a new paragraph (b)(5) to read as follows:

          1852.223-74
          Drug- and alcohol-free workforce.
          As prescribed in 1823.570-2, insert the following clause:

            Drug- and Alcohol-Free Workforce (XX/XXXX)
            (a) Definitions.

              “Employee in a sensitive position” means a contractor or subcontractor employee who has been granted access to classified information; a contractor or subcontractor employee in other positions that the contractor or subcontractor determines could reasonably be expected to affect safety, security, National security, or functions other than the foregoing requiring a high degree of trust and confidence; and includes any employee performing in a position designated mission critical or performing mission critical duties. The term also includes any applicant who is tentatively selected for a position described in this paragraph.
            “Mission Critical Space Systems” means the collection of all space-based and ground-based systems used to conduct space missions or support activity in space, including, but not limited to, the crewed space system, space-based communication and navigation systems, launch systems, and mission/launch control.
            “Mission Critical Positions/Duties” means positions or duties which, if performed in a faulty, negligent, or malicious manner, could jeopardize mission critical space systems and/or delay a mission.]
            (b) * * *
            (2) In determining which positions to designate as “sensitive,” the contractor may use NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) 3792.1, NASA's Plan for a Drug Free Workplace, Appendices A and B on “Testing Designated Positions” (TDPs) for Federal employees, as a guide for the criteria and in designating “sensitive” positions for contractor employees.
            (3) This clause neither prohibits nor requires the Contractor to test employees in a foreign country. If the Contractor chooses to conduct such testing, this does not authorize the Contractor to violate foreign law in conducting such testing.
            (4) The Contractor's program shall conform to the “Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs” published by the Department of Health and Human Services (73 FR 71858) and the procedures in 49 CFR part 40, “Procedures for Transportation Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing Programs.”
            (i) The Contractor shall test for the following drugs: Marijuana, Cocaine, Amphetamines, Opiates and Phencyclidine (PCP) in accordance with the Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs Mandatory Guidelines, Section 3.1, and 49 CFR 40.85.
            (ii) The contractor shall comply with the requirements and procedures for alcohol testing at 49 CFR part 40.
            (iii) The use of a controlled substance in accordance with the terms of a valid prescription, or other uses authorized by law shall not be subject to the requirements this clause.
            (5) The contractor shall conduct post-accident testing when the contractor determines the employee's actions are reasonably suspected of having caused or contributed to an accident resulting in death or personal injury requiring immediate hospitalization or damage to Government or private property estimated to exceed $20,000. Upon request, the Contractor shall provide the results of post-accident testing to the Contracting Officer.

          1852.246-70
          [Removed]

        8. Section 1852.246-70 is removed.

      [FR Doc. 2015-10945 Filed 5-7-15; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 7510-13-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        RIN 1018-AH70
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designating Critical Habitat for Plant Species from the Islands of Maui and Kahoolawe, HI

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; reopening and extension of comment period and notice of availability of draft economic analysis.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce the availability of the draft economic analysis for the proposed designations of critical habitat for plant species from the islands of Maui and Kahoolawe, Hawaii. In earlier Federal Register notices published August 26, 2002, we reopened the comment period and provided notice of a public hearing (67 FR 54764 and 67 FR 54766) for the proposed designations or non-designations of critical habitat for these plants. We are now providing notice of extending the comment period to allow peer reviewers and all interested parties to comment simultaneously on the proposed rule and the associated draft economic analysis. Comments previously submitted need not be resubmitted as they will be incorporated into the public record as part of this extended comment period and will be fully considered in preparation of the final rule.

          DATES:
          We will accept public comments until November 1, 2002.

          ADDRESSES:
          Written comments and information should be submitted to Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Office, 300 Ala Moana Blvd., P.O. Box 50088, Honolulu, HI 96850-0001. For further instructions on commenting, refer to Public Comments Solicited section of this notice.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Paul Henson, Field Supervisor, Pacific Islands Office, at the above address (telephone: 808/541-3441; facsimile: 808/541-3470).

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        Seventy plant species reported from the islands of Maui and Kahoolawe were listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), between 1991 and 1999 (56 FR 1450, 56 FR 47686, 56 FR 55770, 57 FR 20589, 57 FR 20772, 57 FR 46325, 59 FR 9304, 59 FR 10305, 59 FR 14482, 59 FR 32932, 59 FR 49025, 59 FR 49860, 59 FR 56333, 59 FR 62346, 61 FR 53108 and 64 FR 48307). Seventeen of these species are endemic to the islands of Maui and/or Kahoolawe, while 53 species are reported from one or more other islands, as well as Maui and/or Kahoolawe.

        In other published proposals (65 FR 7919), we proposed that critical habitat was prudent for 37 plants from the islands of Maui and Kahoolawe. In a November 7, 2000 (65 FR 66808), we proposed that critical habitat was prudent for 11 plants that are reported from Maui and Kahoolawe as well as from Kauai and Niihau. In addition, at the time we listed Clermontia samuelii, Cyanea copelandii ssp. haleakalaensis, Cyanea glabra, Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. hamatiflora, Dubautia plantaginea ssp. humilis, and Kanaloa kahoolawensis, on September 3, 1999 (64 FR 48307), we determined that designation of critical habitat was prudent for these six taxa from Maui and Kahoolawe. No change is made to these 54 prudency determinations in this revised proposal, and they are hereby incorporated by reference (64 FR 48307; 65 FR 66808; 65 FR 79192).

        In the December 18, 2000, proposed rule, we determined that critical habitat was not prudent for Acaena exigua, a species known only from Kauai and Maui, because it had not been seen recently in the wild, and no viable genetic material of this species was known to exist. No change is made here to the December 18, 2000, prudency determination for this species and it is hereby incorporated by reference (65 FR 79192).
        We propose critical habitat designations for 61 species within 13 critical habitat units totaling approximately 51,208 hectares (ha) (126,531 acres (ac)) on the island of Maui, and within 2 critical habitat units totaling approximately 714 ha (18,972 ac) on the island of Kahoolawe (67 FR 15856).

        Critical habitat receives protection from destruction or adverse modification through required consultation under section 7 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) with regard to actions carried out, funded, or authorized by a Federal agency. Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that the Secretary shall designate or revise critical habitat based upon the best scientific and commercial data available, and after taking into consideration the economic impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. We have prepared a draft economic analysis of the proposed critical habitat designation. The draft economic analysis is available on the Internet and from the mailing address in the Public Comments Solicited section below.

        The public comment period for the April 3, 2002, proposal originally closed on June 3, 2002 (67 FR 15856). On August 26, 2002, we published a Federal Register notice (67 FR 54766) of the reopening of the comment period for the proposed designations and non-designations of critical habitat for plant species on the islands of Maui and Kahoolawe, as well as for the proposed designations and non-designations of critical habitat for plant species on the islands of Kauai, Niihau, Molokai, Maui, Kahoolawe, Hawaii, and Oahu; and we announced that the comment period would close on September 30, 2002. On August 26, 2002, we also published a Federal Register notice (67 FR 54764) that announced the reopening of the comment period and gave notice of a public hearing for the proposed designations and non-designations of critical habitat for plant species on the islands of Maui and Kahoolawe. The public hearing was held on September 12, 2002, on the island of Maui. We are now announcing the availability of the draft economic analysis and the extension of the comment period for the proposed designations and non-designations of critical habitat for plant species on the islands of Maui and Kahoolawe. We will accept public comments on the proposal and the associated draft economic analysis for the islands of Maui and Kahoolawe until November 1, 2002. The extension of the comment period gives all interested parties the opportunity to comment on the proposal and the associated draft economic analysis for the islands of Maui and Kahoolawe. Comments already submitted on the proposed designations and non-designations of critical habitat for plant species from the islands of Maui and Kahoolawe need not be resubmitted as they will be fully considered in the final determinations.
        Public Comments Solicited
        We will accept written comments and information during this re-opened comment period. If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposal by any of several methods:
        (1) You may submit written comments and information to the Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Office, 300 Ala Moana Blvd., P.O. Box 50088, Honolulu, HI 96850-0001.
        (2) You may send comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to: Maui_crithab@r1.fws.gov. If you submit comments by e-mail, please submit them as an ASCII file and avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Please also include “Attn: RIN 1018—AH70” and your name and return address in your e-mail message. If you do not receive a confirmation from the system that we have received your e-mail message, contact us directly by calling our Honolulu Fish and Wildlife Office at telephone number 808/541-3441.
        (3) You may hand-deliver comments to our Honolulu Fish and Wildlife Office at the address given above.

        Comments and materials received, as well as supporting documentation used in preparation of the proposal to designate critical habitat, will be available for inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the address under (1) above. Copies of the draft economic analysis are available on the Internet at http://pacificislands.fws.gov or by request from the Field Supervisor at the address and phone number under (1 and 2) above.
        Author(s)
        The primary author of this notice is John Nuss, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Regional Office, 911 NE 11th Avenue, 4th Floor, Portland, OR 97232-4181.
        Authority

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

          Dated: September 25, 2002.
          Paul Hoffman,
          Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

      [FR Doc. 02-25039 Filed 10-1-02; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        RIN 0648-AW30
        Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Skate Complex Fishery; Amendment 3 to the Northeast Skate Complex Fishery Management Plan

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

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

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS announces that the New England Fishery Management Council (Council) has submitted Amendment 3 to the Northeast Skate Complex Fishery Management Plan (FMP) (Amendment 3), incorporating a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), for review by the Secretary of Commerce. NMFS is requesting comments from the public on Amendment 3, which was developed by the Council to rebuild overfished skate stocks and implement annual catch limits (ACLs) and accountability measures (AMs) consistent with the requirements of the reauthorized Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Amendment 3 would implement a rebuilding plan for smooth skate and establish an ACL and annual catch target (ACT) for the skate complex, total allowable landings (TAL) for the skate wing and bait fisheries, seasonal quotas for the bait fishery, reduced possession limits, in-season possession limit triggers, and other measures to improve management.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before February 26, 2010.

          ADDRESSES:

          An FEIS was prepared for Amendment 3 that describes the proposed action and its alternatives and provides a thorough analysis of the impacts of proposed measures and their alternatives. Copies of Amendment 3, including the FEIS and the IRFA, are available from Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Newburyport, MA 01950. These documents are also available online at http://www.nefmc.org.
          You may submit comments, identified by 0648-AW30, by any one of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
          • Fax: (978) 281-9135, Attn: Tobey Curtis.
          • Mail: Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope, “Comments on Skate Amendment 3.”

            Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to http://www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (for example, name, address, etc.) 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. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Tobey Curtis, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281-9273; fax: (978) 281-9135.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        In 2003, NMFS implemented the Skate FMP to manage a complex of seven skate species in the Northeast Region: winter (Leucoraja ocellata); little (L. erinacea); thorny (Amblyraja radiata); barndoor (Dipturus laevis); smooth (Malacoraja senta); clearnose (Raja eglanteria); and rosette (L. garmani). The FMP established biological reference points and overfishing definitions for each species based on abundance indices in the Northeast Fisheries Science Center bottom trawl survey. In February 2007, NMFS informed the Council that, based on trawl survey data updated through 2006, winter skate was considered overfished. The Council was therefore required to initiate a rebuilding plan for winter skate, consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
        At the time the amendment was initiated, the objectives of Amendment 3 were to rebuild winter skate and thorny skate (a species that has been overfished since FMP implementation) to their respective biomass targets, and to implement ACLs and AMs for the skate complex, consistent with the reauthorized Magnuson-Stevens Act. However, over the course of developing the amendment, the objectives were modified to reflect more recent scientific information. Primarily, this includes the results of a new stock assessment completed in December 2008 by the Northeast Data Poor Stocks Working Group (DPWG). This assessment updated the minimum biomass thresholds and biomass targets for six of the seven skate species in the complex, resulting in a change in status for some species.
        These new biomass reference points, as well as the most recent trawl survey data, indicate that winter skate is not overfished; however, thorny skates remain overfished, and smooth skates are now also considered to be overfished. Thorny skate was also determined to be experiencing overfishing in 2007 (but not in 2008); therefore, under the requirements of the reauthorized Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Skate FMP must be amended to establish a rebuilding plan for smooth skate and establish ACLs and AMs by 2011. The final objectives of Amendment 3 are to rebuild smooth and thorny skate, promote biomass increases in other skate stocks, and implement ACLs and AMs for the skate complex.
        Amendment 3 includes the following management measures: New biological reference points reflecting the results of the DPWG; a new ACL framework that includes an ACT (22,982 mt per year) and TAL (9,427 mt per year) allocated to the skate wing (66.5 percent) and bait (33.5 percent) fisheries; reduced possession limits for the skate wing and bait fisheries; in-season possession limit triggers to slow the rate of landings as the TAL is approached; AMs for ACL and TAL overages; and new annual review and specifications procedures.

        Public comments are being solicited on Amendment 3 and its incorporated documents through the end of the comment period stated in this notice of availability. A proposed rule that would implement Amendment 3 will be published in the Federal Register for public comment. Public comments on the proposed rule must be received by the end of the comment period provided in this notice of availability of Amendment 3 to be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the amendment. All comments received by February 26, 2010, whether specifically directed to Amendment 3 or the proposed rule for Amendment 3, will be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on Amendment 3. Comments received after that date will not be considered in the decision to approve or disapprove Amendment 3. To be considered, comments must be received by close of business on the last day of the comment period.

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

          Dated: December 22, 2009.
          Alan D. Risenhoover,
          Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. E9-30693 Filed 12-24-09; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No. 041021287-4287-01; I.D. 101804E]
        RIN 0648-AS82
        Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery; Control Date

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

          ACTION:
          Advance notice of proposed rulemaking; notice of a control date for the purposes of controlling entry in the general category Atlantic sea scallop fishery.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS announces that it is considering, and is seeking public comment on, proposed rulemaking to control future access to the open access vessel permit category (general category) Atlantic sea scallop fishery if a management regime is developed and implemented under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) to limit the number of participants in this sector of the scallop fishery.  This sector of the fishery includes vessels with general category permits, as well as vessels with limited access scallop permits that land scallops while not on a scallop day-at-sea (DAS).  This announcement is intended, in part, to promote awareness of potential eligibility criteria for future access so as to discourage speculative entry into the fishery while the New England Fishery Management Council (Council) considers whether and how access to the general category sea scallop fishery should be controlled.  The date of publication of this notice, November 1, 2004, shall be known as the “control date” and may be used for establishing eligibility criteria for determining levels of future access to the sea scallop fishery subject to Federal authority.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received on or before 5:00 p.m., local time, December 1, 2004.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
          • E-mail: sccontroldate@NOAA.gov.  Include in the subject line the following: “Comments on the Atlantic Sea Scallop Control Date Notice.”
          • Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
          • Mail:  Paper, disk, or CD-ROM comments should be sent to Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930.  Mark the outside of the envelope, “Comments on the Atlantic Sea Scallop Control Date Notice.”
          • Fax:  (978) 281-9135.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Peter W. Christopher, Fishery Policy Analyst, 978-281-9288; fax 978-281-9135. email: peter.christopher@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The Atlantic sea scallop is a benthic bivalve shellfish that supports a major commercial fishery on the Atlantic coast.  Its distribution in Federal waters ranges from the international boundary with Canada, west to Georges Bank and southern New England, and then south to near the North Carolina/Virginia border.  Sporadic concentrations of scallops are also found in the Gulf of Maine and south to areas off North Carolina.  As scallop populations have rebuilt from being overfished, inshore areas have become more important to smaller commercial scallop fishing vessels.  Notable areas where this inshore fishery takes place include the Gulf of Maine; the Great South Channel near Cape Cod, Massachusetts; the Nantucket Lightship Area; off Long Island, New York; off the central New Jersey coast; and off the Delmarva Peninsula.
        Landings of scallop meats were 54.9 million lb (24.9 million kg) in 2003 (an increase of 8.1 percent compared to 2002), with a dockside value of $224.3 million.  Of this amount, 1.9 million lb (861,826 kg) (3.5 percent) of scallop meats were landed by 335 vessels with general category scallop permits.  Of this general category fishing activity, 175 vessels with general category permits used scallop dredges to land 1.3 million lb (589,670 kg) of scallops, according to Federal dealer reports.  In addition to the 660,000 lb (299,371 kg) that vessels with general category permits were reported to have landed during March 1 to December 31, 2002, limited access vessels landed an additional 96,000 lb (43,545 kg)(12.7 percent of the general category landings) while fishing under general category rules, according to the analysis in the Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery Management Plan (FMP) Amendment 10 document.
        Further, the number of general category scallop permits issued between 2000 and 2004 is higher than the number of permits issued between 1994 and 1999.  During the years 1994 to 1999 the number of permits issued ranged from 1,960 (in 1994) to 2,074 (in 1999).  During the years 2000 to 2004 the number of permits issued ranged from 2,247 (in 2000) to 2,536 (in 2003).  Since March 1, 2004, general category permits issued during the 2004 fishing year stand at 2,367.
        According to the stock projections in the Framework 16 to the Atlantic Sea Scallop FMP and Framework 39 to the Northeast Multispecies FMP analysis, the current sea scallop Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) estimate is about 55 million lb (25 million kg) of meats.  Annual landings are expected to vary considerably from this amount at times, due to natural variability in scallop recruitment.  The Council notes that current capacity in the scallop fishery is sufficient to harvest or exceed MSY, and additional fishing by vessels that fish under general category rules has the potential to cause overfishing.  The Council is also concerned that such fishing may change the historic distribution of landings among vessels, reduce the number of fishing days allocated to limited access vessels, and allow vessels that are not traditional participants in the scallop fishery to enter the fishery in response to improving scallop resource conditions coupled with increasing restrictions and declining prices in other fisheries.
        The Council's original intent in establishing the general category scallop permit implemented in 1994 through Amendment 4 to the Atlantic Sea Scallop FMP, was to accommodate customary scallop bycatch in other fisheries and allow a flexible program for seasonal or opportunistic fisheries targeting inshore scallops.  In response to recent concerns raised to the Council about expansion of directed scallop fishing under general category rules, the Council may consider development of an amendment to the Atlantic Sea Scallop FMP or framework action that could restrict access in the general category scallop fishery to control harvest capacity.  Future entry into the general category fishery may be based on levels of participation (e.g., permit categories based on historic harvest levels of a vessel) or other criteria related to overall harvest capacity.

        The control date is intended to discourage speculative entry into the general category scallop fishery while controlled access restrictions are considered by the Council.  The control date will help to distinguish established participants from speculative entrants to the fishery.  Although entering the fishery after the control date will not ensure fishing vessels of future access to the sea scallop resource on the grounds of previous participation, additional and/or other qualifying criteria may also be applied.  The Council may choose different and variably weighted methods to qualify participants based on the type and length of participation in the general category scallop fishery.
        This notification established November 1, 2004, as the control date for potential use in determining historical or traditional participation in the general category scallop fishery.  Consideration of a control date does not commit the Council or NMFS to develop any particular management system or criteria for participation in this fishery.  The Council may choose a different control date, or may choose a management program that does not make use of such a date.
        Fishers are not guaranteed future participation in the fishery, regardless of their entry dates or level of participation in this fishery before or after the control date.  The Council may choose to give variably weighted consideration to fishers active in the fishery before and after the control date.  The Council may also choose to take no further action to control entry or access to the fishery, in which case the control date may be rescinded.  Any action by the Council will be taken pursuant to the requirements for the development of FMP amendments established under the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
        This notification also gives the public notice that interested participants should locate and preserve records that substantiate and verify their participation in the general category scallop fishery in Federal waters.

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

          Dated: October 27, 2004.
          Rebecca Lent,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 04-24344 Filed 10-29-04; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 679
        [RTID 0648-XA980]
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology Amendments to the Fishery Management Plans for the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crabs, Scallops, and Salmon

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

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

          SUMMARY:
          The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) submitted Amendment 51 to the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands (BSAI) King and Tanner Crabs (Crab FMP), Amendment 17 to the FMP for the Scallop Fishery Off Alaska (Scallop FMP), and Amendment 15 to the FMP for the Salmon Fisheries in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) Off Alaska (Salmon FMP) (collectively Amendments). If approved, these Amendments would add to or modify language in the Crab, Scallop, and Salmon FMPs to more transparently reflect and align the FMPs with the way bycatch is currently reported in the fisheries managed by the Council. These Amendments are intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act); the Crab, Scallop, and Salmon FMPs; and other applicable laws.

          DATES:
          Comments on the Amendments must be received no later than August 13, 2021.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2021-0036, by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to https://www.regulations.gov and enter NOAA-NMFS-2021-0036 in the Search box. Click on the “Comment” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region NMFS, Attn: Records Office. Mail comments to P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668.

            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 proposed Amendments, the draft Categorical Exclusion, and the draft Analysis (referred to as the “Analysis”) prepared for this action may be obtained from www.regulations.gov or from the NMFS Alaska Region website at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/region/alaska.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Megan Mackey, 907-586-7228.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that each regional fishery management council submit any FMP amendment it prepares to NMFS for review and approval, disapproval, or partial approval by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary). The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving an FMP amendment, immediately publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing that the amendment is available for public review and comment. The Council has submitted the Amendments to the Secretary for review. This notice announces that the proposed Amendments are available for public review and comment.

        NMFS manages the crab, scallop, and salmon fisheries in Alaska's exclusive economic zone under the Crab, Scallop, and Salmon FMPs. The Council prepared these FMPs under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Regulations governing U.S. fisheries and implementing the FMPs appear at 50 CFR parts 600, 679, and 680.
        Section 303(a)(11) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that any FMP establish a standardized bycatch reporting methodology (SBRM) to assess the amount and type of bycatch occurring in the fishery, and include conservation and management measures that, to the extent practicable and in the following priority—(A) minimize bycatch, and (B) minimize the mortality of bycatch that cannot be avoided (16 U.S.C. 1853(a)(11)).
        On January 19, 2017, NMFS published a final rule (82 FR 6317) establishing national guidance for compliance with this requirement. As required by 50 CFR 600.1610(b), regional fishery management councils, in coordination with NMFS, must review their FMPs and make any necessary changes so all FMPs are consistent with the guidance by February 21, 2022.
        The national guidance, codified at 50 CFR 600.1605(a), defines a SBRM as “an established, consistent procedure or procedures used to collect, record, and report bycatch data in a fishery.” This information, in conjunction with other relevant sources, is used to assess the amount and type of bycatch occurring in the fishery and inform the development of conservation and management measures to minimize bycatch. The regulations require that an FMP identify the required procedure that constitutes the SBRM for the fishery and explain how the procedure meets the purpose to collect, record, and report bycatch data.
        The SBRM final rule requires the Council to explain how the SBRMs meet the stated purpose in the rule based on an analysis of four considerations: (1) Characteristics of bycatch in the fishery, (2) the feasibility of the reporting methodology, (3) the uncertainty of data resulting from the methodology, and (4) how the data will be used to assess the amount and type of bycatch occurring in the fishery (50 CFR 600.1610(a)). The Council must address these considerations when reviewing or establishing an SBRM.
        In February 2020, the Council received a report on current FMPs managed by the Council and their consistency with the SBRM final rule. At that meeting, the Council determined that the FMPs for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area, Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska, and Fish Resources of the Arctic Management Area were in compliance with the SBRM final rule. The Council also determined that the Crab, Scallop, and Salmon FMPs needed to be updated to explicitly identify the SBRMs to be consistent with the SBRM final rule and should therefore be amended.
        The Council took final action at its February 2021 meeting. In taking final action, the Council noted that changes to the Crab, Scallop, and Salmon FMPs were necessary to ensure those FMPs are consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the SBRM final rule. During deliberation, the Council recognized that the Crab, Scallop, and Salmon FMPs currently contain management measures such as the State's Scallop and Crab Observer Programs, industry reports, and fish tickets that provide SBRMs consistent with the national guidance. However, these are not explicitly identified as the SBRM in each FMP.
        The Council recommended the three FMPs be amended to explicitly state the SBRMs and explain how they meet the purpose of collecting, recording, and reporting bycatch data. The Council also noted that the descriptions of the management measures that contribute to the SBRM (such as the Crab Observer Program) may be a bit outdated. These management measures may be updated as the FMPs are amended by this action, and any such updates will be consistent with the SBRM regulations and be done in coordination with the State. Updates to the language of management measures for SBRM consistency would not add any new reporting requirements.
        This proposed action would not add any new reporting requirements and would not change any regulatory requirements. This action would only add to or modify language in the Crab, Scallop, and Salmon FMPs to more transparently reflect and align with how bycatch is currently reported in the fisheries managed by the Council by explicitly stating the SBRM in each fishery.
        Crab FMP
        The combination of the Crab Observer Program and industry reports provides a standard reporting methodology that is consistent with the SBRM final rule. Descriptions of these management measures currently exist in the Crab FMP; however, the FMP needs to be amended to explicitly identify these methodologies as the SBRM. Amendment 51 to the Crab FMP would add language to Sections 8.1.2, 8.3.1, and 8.3.7 to identify the existing SBRM and to explain how it meets the purpose of collecting, recording, and reporting bycatch.
        Scallop FMP

        The combination of industry reports and the Scallop Observer Program provides a standard reporting methodology that is consistent with the SBRM final rule. Descriptions of these management measures currently exist in the Scallop FMP; however, the FMP needs to be amended to explicitly identify these methodologies as the SBRM. Amendment 17 to the Scallop FMP would add language to Section 3.2.12 to identify the SBRM and explain how it meets the purpose of collecting, recording, and reporting bycatch.
        Salmon FMP
        Fish tickets are the standardized reporting methodology in place for reporting catch of salmon species that are subject to maximum retainable amounts. The Statewide Harvest Survey and creel surveys, as well as the Saltwater Guide Logbooks, are the standardized reporting methodology in place for reporting in the salmon sport fishery and the guided sport fishery. However, the Salmon FMP needs to be amended in order to explicitly identify these methodologies as the SBRM. Amendment 15 to the Salmon FMP would add language to Section 8.1.8 (Bycatch Management) to identify the SBRM and explain how it meets the purpose of collecting, recording, and reporting bycatch in the directed commercial salmon fishery. In addition, Amendment 15 would add language to Section 8.1.9 (Sport Fisheries) to identify the SBRM for the salmon sport fishery.

        NMFS is soliciting public comments on the proposed Amendments through the end of the comment period (see DATES). All relevant written comments received by the end of the applicable comment period will be considered by NMFS in the approval/partial approval/disapproval decision for the Amendments and addressed in the response to comments in the final decision. Comments received after the end of the applicable comment period will not be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the Amendments. To be considered, comments must be received, not just postmarked or otherwise transmitted, by the last day of the comment period (see DATES).

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

          Dated: June 8, 2021.
          Jennifer M. Wallace,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2021-12373 Filed 6-11-21; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
        42 CFR Part 5
        Negotiated Rulemaking Committee on Designation of Medically Underserved Populations and Health Professional Shortage Areas; Notice of Meeting

          AGENCY:
          Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS.

          ACTION:
          Correction.

          SUMMARY:

          The Health Resources and Services Administration published a notice in the Federal Register, (76 FR 50442, Doc. 2011-20690), on August 15, 2011, announcing the meeting of the Negotiated Rulemaking Committee on Designation of Medically Underserved Populations and Health Professional Shortage Areas on September 20, 21, and 22, 2011. The dates of the meeting and contact information were incorrect.
          Correction
          In the Federal Register published Monday, August 15, 2011 (76 FR 50442, FR Doc. 2011-20690), please make the following corrections:
          In the DATES section, correct to read September 21, 2011, 9:30 a.m. to 6 p.m.; September 22, 2011, 9 a.m. to 6 p.m.; and September 23, 2011, 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. EST.
          In the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, correct to read: For more information, please contact LaCrystal McNair, National Center for Health Care Workforce Analysis, Bureau of Health Professions, Health Resources and Services Administration, Room 9-29, Parklawn Building, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857. Telephone (301) 443-3578, E-mail: lmcnair@hrsa.gov or visit http://www.hrsa.gov/advisorycommittees/shortage/.

          Dated: August 30, 2011.
          Reva Harris,
          Acting Director, Division of Policy and Information Coordination.

      [FR Doc. 2011-22586 Filed 9-2-11; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4165-15-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 622
        [I.D. 010302D]
        RIN  0648-AL86
        Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Comprehensive Sustainable Fishery Act Amendment to the Fishery Management Plans of the U.S. Caribbean

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of availability; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS announces that the Caribbean Fishery Management Council (Council) has submitted a Comprehensive Amendment Addressing Sustainable Fishery Act Definitions and Other Required Provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act in the Fishery Management Plans of the U.S. Caribbean (Comprehensive SFA Amendment) for review, approval, and implementation by NMFS.  The Comprehensive SFA Amendment would define status determination criteria and overfishing thresholds (e.g., maximum sustainable yield (MSY), optimum yield (OY), minimum stock size threshold (MSST), and maximum fishing mortality threshold (MFMT)) for the species or species complexes under the Council's authority, establish rebuilding plans for three overfished species: queen conch, Nassau grouper, and goliath grouper (formerly known as jewfish), and modify existing or add new framework adjustment procedures to all Caribbean FMPs.
          These new and modified framework procedures would allow timely modification/addition of required stock parameters and management measures relating to preventing overfishing and rebuilding overfished stocks.  The proposed measures should result in improved management of U.S. Caribbean marine fishery resources.

          In addition, the Comprehensive SFA Amendment also would provide descriptions of the U.S. Caribbean fisheries and fishing communities based on the best information available and recommend future establishment of a socio-economic data collection program and permanent expansion of NMFS' Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistical Survey to include Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands to enhance the available information.  The comprehensive SFA Amendment would also address bycatch in the fisheries managed under the Council's FMPs and recommend future development of a standardized bycatch reporting program.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received on or before March 26, 2002.

          ADDRESSES:
          Written comments on the Comprehensive SFA Amendment should be sent to Peter Eldridge, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 9721 Executive Center Drive N., St. Petersburg, FL  33702.  Comments may also be sent via fax to 727-570-5583.  Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or the Internet.
          Requests for copies of the Comprehensive SFA Amendment, which includes a regulatory impact review and an environmental assessment, should be sent to the Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 268 Munoz Rivera Ave., Suite 1108, San Juan, Puerto Rico  00918-1920; e-mail: Caribbean.council@noaa.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Peter Eldridge, telephone: 727-570-5305; fax: 727-570-5583; e-mail: Peter.Eldridge@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The Comprehensive SFA Amendment includes Amendment 2 to the FMP for Corals and Reef Associated Plants and Invertebrates, Amendment 1 to the FMP for Queen Conch Resources, Amendment 3 to the FMP for the Reef Fish Fishery, and Amendment 2 to the FMP for the Spiny Lobster Fishery.  These FMPs were prepared by the Council, approved by NMFS, and implemented under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.
        Section 303 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires, in part, that FMPs provide descriptions of the applicable fisheries and fishing communities; assess the amount and types of bycatch and include management measures that, to the extent practicable, minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality; specify objective and measurable criteria for identifying when a stock is overfished, i.e., status determination criteria; and rebuild stocks to achieve MSY.  The Council developed its Comprehensive SFA Amendment to address these requirements.
        The Comprehensive SFA Amendment would define status determination criteria and overfishing thresholds (e.g., maximum sustainable yield (MSY), optimum yield (OY), minimum stock size threshold (MSST), and maximum fishing mortality threshold (MFMT)) for the species or species complexes under the Council's authority, establish rebuilding plans for three overfished species: queen conch, Nassau grouper, and goliath grouper (formerly known as jewfish), and modify existing or add new framework adjustment procedures to all Caribbean FMPs.

        Because information on U.S. Caribbean fisheries is sparse and incomplete, the fisheries can be classified as data-poor (among other parameters, biomass and fishing mortality rates are not available for most Caribbean fishery resources).  Thus, managers must use biomass-based proxies for the MSY, OY, MFMT, and MSST parameters for the respective fishery resources.  Formulae for the derivation of these proxies are presented in the Comprehensive SFA Amendment.  In general, the MSY proxies are based on average landings of commercial fisheries for a specified time period.  OY must be less than or equal to the MSY proxy.  The proxies for MSST are defined either as the greater of (1—M) x Bmsy or 0.5 x Bmsy where M is the estimated instantaneous natural mortality rate and B is the estimated spawning biomass.  MFMT is considered equal to the estimated M for the respective species or species complex.  Values for each proxy, when available, are presented in the Comprehensive SFA Amendment.  Assessment information provided in the Comprehensive SFA Amendment reflects conditions in the commercial fisheries.  Due to lack of adequate catch and effort data, the status of recreational fisheries is currently unknown.
        The NMFS 2000 Report to Congress on the Status of U.S. Fisheries listed Nassau grouper, goliath grouper, and queen conch as overfished in the U.S. Caribbean.  The Comprehensive SFA Amendment would establish rebuilding timeframes for these species.
        In addition, the Comprehensive SFA Amendment also would provide descriptions of the U.S. Caribbean fisheries and fishing communities based on the best information available and recommend future establishment of a socio-economic data collection program and permanent expansion of NMFS' Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistical Survey to include Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands to enhance the available information.  The comprehensive SFA Amendment would also address bycatch in the fisheries managed under the Council's FMPs and recommend future development of standardized bycatch reporting program.
        NMFS is requesting comment on the proposed framework procedures, especially concerning any changes that would allow the public to comment more fully on proposed management measures.  Also, NMFS invites comment concerning the types of information that should be collected to more precisely describe Caribbean fisheries and fishing communities.
        Comments received by March 26, 2002, whether specifically directed to those management measures in the Comprehensive SFA Amendment that would amend the Caribbean FMPs or to the proposed rule that NMFS plans to publish that would implement the Comprehensive SFA Amendment, will be considered by NMFS in its decision to approve, disapprove, or partially approve those measures amending the FMPs.  Comments received after that date will not be considered by NMFS in this decision.  All comments received by NMFS on the Comprehensive SFA Amendment or the proposed rule during their respective comment periods will be addressed in the preamble of the final rule.

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

          Dated:  January 18, 2002.
          Jonathan Kurland,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 02-1872 Filed 1-24-02; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510s-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        [FWS-R6-ES-2009-0080; 92210-1111-0000-B2]

        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Notice of Intent to Conduct a Status Review of Gunnison sage-grouse (Centrocercus minimus)

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Notice of intent to conduct status review.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), give notice of our intent to conduct a status review of Gunnison sage-grouse (Centrocercus minimus). We conduct status reviews to determine whether the species should be listed as endangered or threatened under the Act. Through this notice, we encourage all interested parties to provide us information regarding Gunnison sage-grouse.

          DATES:

          To allow us adequate time to conduct this review, we request that we receive information on or before December 23, 2009. After this date, you must submit information directly to the Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section below). Please note that we may 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. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, Attn: Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203.
          We will not accept faxed comments.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Al Pfister, Western Colorado Field Office; telephone (970) 243-2778, ext. 29. Individuals who are hearing-impaired or speech-impaired may call the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Information Solicited
        To ensure that the status review is based on the best available scientific and commercial information and to provide an opportunity to any interested parties to provide information for consideration, we are requesting information concerning Gunnison sage-grouse. We request information from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, Native American tribes, the scientific community, industry, and any other interested party. We are seeking:
        (1) General information concerning the taxonomy, biology, ecology, genetics, and status of the Gunnison sage-grouse;
        (2) Specific information on the conservation status of Gunnison sage-grouse, including information on distribution, abundance, and population trends;
        (3) Specific information on threats to Gunnison sage-grouse, including: (i) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (ii) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (iii) disease or predation; (iv) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and (v) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence; and
        (4) Specific information on conservation actions designed to improve Gunnison sage-grouse habitat or reduce threats to Gunnison sage-grouse and their habitat.
        If you submit information, we request you support it with documentation such as data, maps, bibliographic references, methods used to gather and analyze the data, or copies of any pertinent publications, reports, or letters by knowledgeable sources.
        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 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.

        Information and supporting documentation that we received and used in preparing this finding will be available for you to review by appointment during normal business hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Colorado Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
        Background
        The sage-grouse (Centrocercus spp.) is the largest grouse in North America and was first described by Lewis and Clark in 1805 (Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 1). Sage-grouse are most easily identified by their large size; dark brown color; distinctive black bellies; long, pointed tails; and association with sagebrush habitats. They are dimorphic in size, with females being smaller. Both sexes have yellow-green eye combs, which are less prominent in females. Sage-grouse are known for their elaborate mating ritual where males congregate on strutting grounds called leks and “dance” to attract a mate. During the breeding season males have conspicuous filoplumes (specialized erectile feathers on the neck) and exhibit yellow-green apteria (fleshy bare patches of skin) on their breasts (Schroeder et al. 1999, pp. 2, 18).

        For many years sage-grouse were considered a single species. Young et al. (2000, pp. 447-451) identified Gunnison sage-grouse (Centrocercus minimus) as a distinct species based on morphological (Hupp and Braun 1991, pp. 257-259; Young et al. 2000, pp. 447-448), genetic (Kahn et al. 1999, pp. 820-821; Oyler-McCance et al. 1999, pp. 1460-1462), and behavioral (Barber 1991, pp. 6-9; Young 1994; Young et al. 2000, p. 449-451) differences and geographical isolation.
        Gunnison sage-grouse are smaller than greater sage-grouse (C. urophasianus), weighing approximately one-third less (Hupp and Braun 1991, p. 257; Young et al. 2000, p. 447). Their filoplumes are longer and give the appearance of a “ponytail” during the courtship display, unlike the filoplumes on greater sage-grouse. Gunnison sage-grouse retrices (tail feathers) have distinctive barring, unlike the mottled pattern on greater sage-grouse retrices (Young et al. 2000, p. 448). Gunnison sage-grouse mating displays are slower than those of greater sage-grouse (Young et al. 2000, p. 449). Mating calls also are distinct. Gunnison sage-grouse “pop” their apteria nine times instead of twice like greater sage-grouse (Young et al. 2000, p. 449). Female Gunnison sage-grouse do not respond favorably when they hear playback of recorded male greater sage-grouse mating calls, and differences in courtship vocalizations are likely a barrier to mating between Gunnison and greater sage-grouse (Young 1994, p. 71).

        DNA sequence information from mitochrondrial and nuclear genomes indicates there is no gene flow between Gunnison and greater sage-grouse (Oyler-McCance et al. 1999, pp. 1460-1462; Young et al. 2000, p. 451). Based on these morphologic, behavioral, and genetic differences, the American Ornithologist's Union (2000, pp. 849-850) accepted the Gunnison sage-grouse as a distinct species. The current ranges of the two species are not overlapping (Schroeder et al. 2004, p. 369). Additional species information can be found in the Final Listing Determination for the Gunnison sage-grouse (April 18, 2006; 71 FR 19954).
        Previous Federal Actions
        We have published a number of documents on Gunnison sage-grouse, and we describe our actions relevant to this notice below:

        On January 18, 2000, we designated the Gunnison sage-grouse as a candidate species under the Act, with a listing priority of 5. However, Candidate Notices of Review are only published annually, and, therefore, the Federal Register notice regarding this decision was not published until December 28, 2000 (65 FR 82310). Candidate species are plants and animals for which the Service has sufficient information on their biological status and threats to propose them as endangered or threatened under the Act, but for which the development of a proposed listing regulation is precluded by other higher priority listing activities. A listing priority of 5 indicates the species faces high magnitude, nonimminent threats.

        On January 26, 2000, American Lands Alliance, Biodiversity Legal Foundation, and others petitioned the Service to list the species (Webb 2000). In 2003, the U.S. District Court ruled that the species was designated as a candidate by the Service prior to receipt of the petition because the candidate form was signed on January 18, 2000, and that the determination that a species should be on the candidate list is equivalent to a 12-month finding (American Lands Alliance v. Gale A. Norton, C.A. No. 00-2339, D.D.C.).
        Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act requires that for species on the candidate list for listing as threatened or endangered we conduct annual status reviews and make a determination of whether listing the candidate species is: (a) Not warranted, (b) warranted, or (c) warranted but precluded by other higher priority listing determinations. In the 2003 Candidate Notice of Review, we elevated the listing priority number for Gunnison sage-grouse from 5 to 2 (69 FR 24876), as the imminence of the threats had increased. In the 2004 and 2005 Candidate Notice of Reviews (69 FR 24876 and 70 FR 24870, respectively) we maintained the listing priority number for Gunnison sage-grouse as a 2.
        Plaintiffs amended their complaint in May 2004 to allege that the Service's warranted-but-precluded finding and decision not to emergency-list the Gunnison sage-grouse were in violation of the Act. The parties filed a stipulated settlement agreement with the court on November 14, 2005, which included a provision that the Service would make a proposed listing determination by March 31, 2006. On March 28, 2006, the plaintiffs agreed to a 1-week extension (April 7, 2006) for this determination.

        In April 2005, the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) applied to the Service for an Enhancement of Survival Permit for the Gunnison sage-grouse pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act. The permit application included a proposed Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances (CCAA) between CDOW and the Service. The standard that a CCAA must meet is that the “benefits of the conservation measures implemented under a CCAA, when combined with those benefits that would be achieved if it is assumed that conservation measures were also to be implemented on other necessary properties, would preclude or remove any need to list the species.” The CCAA, the permit application, and the Environmental Assessment were made available for public comment on July 6, 2005 (70 FR 38977). Public comments and other internal comments from the Service and CDOW were incorporated into revisions of the CCAA and Environmental Assessment and finalized in October 2006. The permit for the CCAA was signed on October 23, 2006. Landowners with eligible property in southwestern Colorado who wish to participate can voluntarily sign up under the CCAA and associated permit through a Certificate of Inclusion. These participants provide certain Gunnison sage-grouse habitat protection or enhancement measures on their lands. If the Gunnison sage-grouse is listed under the Act, the permit authorizes incidental take of Gunnison sage-grouse due to otherwise lawful activities in accordance with the terms of the CCAA (e.g., crop cultivation, crop harvesting, livestock grazing, farm equipment operation, commercial/residential development, etc.), as long as the participating landowner is performing activities identified in the Certificate of Inclusion. Three Certificates of Inclusion have been issued by the CDOW and Service to private landowners to date.

        On April 11, 2006, the Service determined that listing the Gunnison sage-grouse as a threatened or endangered species was not warranted and published the final listing determination on April 18, 2006, in the Federal Register (71 FR 19954). Consequently, we removed Gunnison sage-grouse from the candidate species list at the time of the final listing determination. On November 14, 2006, Plaintiffs (the County of San Miguel, Colorado; Center for Biological Diversity; WildEarth Guardians; Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility; National Audubon Society; The Larch Company; Center for Native Ecosystems; Sinapu; Sagebrush Sea Campaign; Black Canyon Audubon Society; and Sheep Mountain Alliance) filed a Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive relief, pursuant to the Act, and on October 24, 2007, filed an Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive relief, alleging that the 12-month finding on the Gunnison sage-grouse violated the Act. On August 18, 2009, a Stipulated Settlement Agreement and Order was filed with the court, with a June 30, 2010 date by which the Service shall submit to the Federal Register a 12-month finding, pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(B), that listing the Gunnison sage-grouse under the Act is (a) warranted; (b) not warranted; or (c) warranted but precluded by higher priority listing actions. With this notice, we are initiating a new status review for the Gunnison sage-grouse.
        References Cited

        A complete list of all references is available upon request from the Field Supervisor (see ADDRESSES).
        Author
        The primary author of this document is Al Pfister, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Colorado Field Office.
        Authority

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

          Dated: November 13, 2009.
          Sam D. Hamilton,
          Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

      [FR Doc. E9-28047 Filed 11-20-09; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P