        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Sand Mountain Blue Butterfly as Threatened or Endangered with Critical Habitat

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Notice of 90-day petition finding and initiation of status review.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 90-day finding on a petition to list the Sand Mountain blue butterfly (Euphilotes pallescens arenamontana) as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We find that the petition presents substantial information indicating that listing the Sand Mountain blue butterfly may be warranted. Therefore, with the publication of this notice, we are initiating a status review of the species, and we will issue a 12-month finding to determine if the petitioned action is warranted. To ensure that the status review of the Sand Mountain blue butterfly is comprehensive, we are soliciting scientific and commercial data regarding this species. A determination on critical habitat will be made if and when a listing action is initiated for this species.

          DATES:
          The finding announced in this document was made August 8, 2006. To be considered in the 12-month finding for this petition, comments and information should be submitted to us by October 10, 2006.

          ADDRESSES:

          Data, information, comments, or questions concerning this petition and our finding should be submitted to the Field Supervisor, Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1340 Financial Boulevard, Suite 234, Reno, NV 89502 or via electronic mail at sandmtblue@fws.gov. The petition is available at http://www.fws.gov/nevada/nv_species/sand_blue.html. The petition, supporting data, and comments will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above address.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Robert D. Williams, Field Supervisor, Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES) (telephone 775/861-6300; facsimile 775/861-6301).

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Public Information Solicited
        When we make a finding that substantial information is presented to indicate that listing a species may be warranted, we are required to promptly commence a review of the status of the species. To ensure that the status review is complete and based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we are soliciting information on the Sand Mountain blue butterfly. We request any additional information, comments, and suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested parties concerning the status of the Sand Mountain blue butterfly. We are seeking information regarding the species' historical and current status and distribution, its biology and ecology, ongoing conservation measures for the species and its habitat, and threats to the species and its habitat.
        If we determine that listing the Sand Mountain blue butterfly is warranted, it is our intent to propose critical habitat to the maximum extent prudent and determinable at the time we would propose to list the species. Therefore, we also request data and information on what may constitute physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species, where these features are currently found, whether any of these areas are in need of special management, and whether there are areas not containing these features, which of themselves, might be essential to the conservation of the species. Please provide specific comments as to what, if any, critical habitat should be proposed for designation, if the species is proposed for listing, and why that proposed habitat meets the requirements of the Act.

        If you wish to comment or provide information, you may submit your comments and materials concerning this finding to the Field Supervisor (see ADDRESSES).

        Our practice is to make comments and materials provided, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. We will not consider anonymous comments and we will make all comments available for public inspection in their entirety. Comments and materials received will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section.
        Background

        Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that we make a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents substantial scientific or commercial information to indicate that the petitioned action may be warranted. We base this finding on information provided in the petition and information otherwise available in our files at the time of petition review. To the maximum extent practicable, we make this finding within 90 days of our receipt of the petition, and publish our notice of this finding promptly in the Federal Register.

        Substantial information, as defined by 50 CFR 424.14(b), 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 information was presented, we are required to promptly commence a review of the status of the species, if one has not already been initiated under our internal candidate assessment process.
        In making this finding, we relied on information provided by the petitioners and information otherwise available in our files at the time of petition review and evaluated that information in accordance with 50 CFR 424.14(b). Our process in making this 90-day finding under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act and section 424.14(b) of our regulations is limited to a determination of whether the information in the petition meets the “substantial information” threshold.
        Petition

        On April 23, 2004, we received a formal petition, dated April 23, 2004, from the Center for Biological Diversity, Xerces Society, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, and the Nevada Outdoor Recreation Association requesting that the Sand Mountain blue butterfly (Euphilotes pallescens arenamontana) known only from Sand Mountain, Nevada, be listed as threatened or endangered in accordance with section 4 of the Act, and that critical habitat be designated for the species concurrent with the listing. The petition is available at http://www.fws.gov/nevada/nv_species/sand_blue.html.

        Action on this petition was precluded by court orders and settlement agreements for other listing actions that required nearly all of our listing funds for fiscal years 2004 and 2005. On September 26, 2005, we received a 60-day notice of intent to sue, and on January 5, 2006, we received a complaint regarding our failure to carry out the 90-day finding on the petition to list the Sand Mountain blue butterfly. On April 20, 2006, we reached an agreement with the plaintiffs to submit to the Federal Register a completed 90-day finding by July 28, 2006, and to complete, if applicable, a 12-month finding by April 26, 2007 (Center for Biological Diversity et al. v. Norton, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, (CV-00023-LKK-GGH) (E.D. Cal)).
        Species Information
        The Sand Mountain blue butterfly was first described as Euphilotes pallescens subspecies arenamontana by Austin in 1998 (1998, pp. 556-557). Prior to the 1998 publication, it had been considered an undescribed subspecies of Euphilotes rita, the name under which it was previously assigned a Federal category 2 candidate status (see Previous Federal Action section).
        The Sand Mountain blue butterfly is a small, pale-blue butterfly in the family Lycaenidae. Males have a wingspan that ranges from 10.0 to 11.8 millimeters (mm) (0.39 to 0.46 inches (in)) and averages 11.1 mm (0.44 in). The dorsum is pale bluish-violet, often whitish distally, with a narrow (0.5 mm (0.002 in)) black outer margin. There is usually a series of dots on the hindwing, but sometimes no more than a terminal line on the forewing. There is usually an indistinct pinkish to pale orange aurora of moderate width on the posterior hindwing. At the vein tips on the posterior of both wings, there are fringes of white with indistinct grey checkering. The bottom surface of the male abdomen is chalky white. Macules (patches of different coloration) are small, often nearly obsolete on the hindwing. Females have a wingspan that ranges from 10.0 to 11.9 mm (0.39 to 0.46 in) with an average of 10.9 mm (0.43 in). The female dorsum is brown to tan, and usually pale bluish-gray basally on both wings. The forewing has a faint brown cell-end bar, while the hindwing has marginal dots. The forewing apex is usually whitish. The hindwing aurora is pale orange to pale pink usually grading to nearly white distally and not strongly contrasting. The female venter and fringes are similar to those of the male (Austin 1998, p. 556).
        The Sand Mountain blue butterfly is the palest of all Euphilotes. The ground color of both sexes is considerably paler than that of E. pallescens ssp. pallescens. The pinkish aurora is unlike any other Euphilotes. The pale bluish-gray wing bases of the female do not contrast with the distal area of the wing as they do on E. pallescens ssp. pallescens. The black macules of E. pallescens ssp. arenamontana tend to be smaller than those of E. pallescens ssp. pallescens (Austin 1998, p. 557).

        The Sand Mountain blue butterfly is known only from Sand Mountain, Churchill County, Nevada, where it is dependent on its host plant, Kearney buckwheat (Eriogonum nummulare) (Austin 1998, p. 557), a long-lived, perennial shrub with numerous branches (Reveal 2002, p. 1), that occurs in scattered locations in several western States (Welsh et al. 1987, p. 547). Kearney buckwheat typically occurs at Sand Mountain as a dominant or co-dominant with other shrubs on less active, smaller dunes around the periphery of the main dune (The Nature Conservancy 2002, p. 1). Because of the small size of the Sand Mountain blue butterfly and the frequent high winds typical of the Sand Mountain area, it is likely that adult butterflies spend most of their life sheltered within the canopy of Kearney buckwheat plants (Murphy 2006). Kearney buckwheat is the sole food source for the larvae and an important nectar source for adults during their flight period. The butterfly has one brood from mid-July to mid-September (Austin 1998, p. 557), a period that coincides with the peak flowering period of the Kearney buckwheat (Reveal 2002, p. 2).
        Previous Federal Action
        We added the Sand Mountain blue butterfly as Euphilotes rita ssp. to our list of candidate species as a category 2 candidate species on November 21, 1991 (56 FR 58829). A category 2 candidate species was a species for which we had information indicating that a proposal to list it as threatened or endangered under the Act may be appropriate, but for which additional information was needed to support the preparation of a proposed rule. It remained a category 2 candidate as Euphilotes rita ssp. in our 1994 Candidate Notice of Review (November 15, 1994; 59 FR 59020). In the 1996 Candidate Notice of Review (February 28, 1996; 61 FR 7596), we discontinued the use of category 2 candidates. The Sand Mountain blue butterfly has no Federal regulatory status under the Act.
        Threats Analysis
        Pursuant to section 4 of the Act, we may list a species, subspecies, or distinct population segment of invertebrate taxa on the basis of any of the following five factors: (A) Present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. In making this finding, we evaluated whether threats to the Sand Mountain blue butterfly presented in the petition may pose a concern with respect to its survival. The Act identifies the five factors to be considered, either singly or in combination, to determine whether a species may be threatened or endangered. Our evaluation of these threats, based on information provided in the petition, is presented below.
        A. Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of the Species' Habitat or Range

        The petition states that the Sand Mountain blue butterfly is known only from Sand Mountain in Churchill County, Nevada, where it is dependent on its larval host plant, Kearney buckwheat (Eriogonum nummulare) (Austin 1998). The petitioners note that while the Kearney buckwheat is widespread in Nevada and also occurs in Utah, Arizona, and California, several reconnaissance surveys have been conducted of sand dunes within 62.5 mile (mi) (100 kilometer (km)) radius of Sand Mountain in search of populations of Kearney buckwheat large enough to support a population of the butterfly. No Kearney buckwheat plants have been observed on any of these surveys, and the surveyors concluded that if the plant were present, its population is so small that it would not provide suitable habitat for the Sand Mountain blue butterfly. The petition relies on communication from a species expert, Claudia Funari of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to further state that no other habitat exists within the flight range of the butterfly. In our files we have an electronic message which corroborates this claim (Funari 2004). Furthermore, information from our files indicates that butterflies of the family Lycaenidae are known to have limited dispersal distances (Arnold 1983, Peterson 1994 as cited in Peterson 1996). While in some cases they may employ a stepping-stone method of hopping to habitat patches, increasing the likelihood of dispersing further and expanding their range, the petitioners have provided substantial survey information indicating no populations of the host plant or the Sand Mountain blue butterfly occur within a 62.5 mi (100 km) radius of Sand Mountain. Thus, it is unlikely given their life history, ecology, and dispersal capabilities that the Sand Mountain blue butterfly would be found beyond this distance.
        The petition claims that the Sand Mountain blue butterfly occurs only within the Sand Mountain Recreation Area (SMRA), a BLM designation that encompasses 4,795 acres (ac) (1,940 hectares (ha)), and, according to the petitioners, is about 1.0 mi (1.6 km) wide and 3.5 mi (5.6 km) long. It notes, however, that Kearney buckwheat, the larval host plant on which the butterfly depends, has a patchy distribution and much of the area is open sand. The petition includes a map as Figure 4 that shows dune shrub habitat extending onto BLM lands adjacent to the designated boundary of the SMRA (BLM 2003). The petitioners claim that the Sand Mountain blue butterfly is dependent on 1,000 ac (405 ha) of Kearney buckwheat habitat is supported by a report referenced in the petition that states that between 1,000 ac (405 ha) and 1,600 ac (647 ha) of dune shrub habitat occur inside and outside the SMRA (BLM 2004). This dune shrub habitat is comprised of 13 shrub species, one of which is the Kearney buckwheat (BLM 2004).
        The petitioners present data in Figure 9, provided to them by BLM, that documents an increase in annual visitor use at the SMRA from about 16,000 persons in 1981 to over 40,000 persons in 2003 (BLM 2003). The petition notes that as early as 1985, motorized recreation by motorcycles, four wheel drive vehicles, three wheelers, and dune buggies accounted for over 90 percent of the total visits to the SMRA (BLM 1985). The 2003 BLM data provided by the petitioners also show an increase in route proliferation from about 20 mi (32 km) of off-road vehicle trails in 1981 to about 200 mi (320 km) in 2003. The petition includes four figures (maps) that document the proliferation of the route system based on a BLM analysis of satellite imagery from 1978, 1994, 1999, and 2002 (BLM 2003). In addition to the overall proliferation of off-road vehicle routes documented by the imagery, the maps clearly show an increase in the amount of habitat fragmentation and an expansion of the off-road vehicle route system from the more accessible southern end of the main dune into shrub habitat toward the north and northeast that had been relatively undisturbed as recently as 1994. Thus, while about 1,000 ac (405 ha) of potential butterfly habitat may remain, an estimated reduction in habitat of about 50 percent based on our visual comparison of 1978 and 2002 satellite imagery, much of this remaining habitat is highly fragmented by the extensive trail system that has been created. Furthermore, the off-road vehicle use that has led to this reduction in and fragmentation of habitat continues to this day and poses an ongoing threat to the viability of the Sand Mountain blue butterfly.
        The petition also cites observations over the past 25 years noting the effects of off-road vehicles on the Sand Mountain dune shrub habitat and, in particular, on the Kearney buckwheat. These include: (1) A letter documenting the extirpation of all plant life from an area 150 ft (46 m) wide along the edge of the main dune over a period of several years (Giuliani 1977); (2) a memorandum reporting that up to half of 58 individual Kearney buckwheat plants inspected on the south side of the mountain had been crushed and broken off at the ground surface and were either dead or in the process of resprouting from the rootstocks (USFWS 1994); (3) a report to the Service from a research scientist at the University of Nevada, Reno (Brussard 1995 (cited incorrectly as Brussard 1996 in the petition)) stating that a continued decline of the Kearney buckwheat in the overall area could call into question the continued existence of the butterfly; and (4) an assessment by The Nature Conservancy (2002) that determined the condition of the dunes to be heavily impaired due to loss of vegetative cover from recreational use and abuse. The petition notes that in this assessment, The Nature Conservancy found that running vehicles at high speeds over large perennial plants, in particular, was a significant source of stress to the Sand Mountain dune system. The petitioners note that Kearney buckwheat plants are intentionally targeted because they accumulate sand at their base, thereby forming natural jumps. We have determined that the report to the Service cited as Brussard (1995) actually states “as long as the foodplant remains as abundant as it is now in the overall dune area, we saw no particular threat to the continued existence of the butterfly.” However, despite the inaccurate characterization of this letter in the petition, the statement does imply that should the abundance of Kearney buckwheat decline, a circumstance for which the petitioners have provided significant evidence, the loss of this critical foodplant would be a threat to the continued existence of the butterfly.
        The petition also provides numerous citations from scientific literature that document the effects of off-road vehicles on terrestrial habitats in arid environments, including sand dunes. The effects include the elimination of a tiger beetle that was once widespread and abundant along beaches (Black and Vaughn 2003); significant reductions in the number, density, and cover of plants, including shrubby perennials (Bury and Luckenbach 1983); and direct impacts on desert vegetation (Stebbins 1995; Lathrop 1983; Lathrop and Rowlands 1983). Documentation also indicates that natural recovery rates of perennial vegetative cover damaged by off-road vehicles in arid environments can take decades and, in some cases, may require centuries (Lathrop and Rowlands 1983; Kockelman 1983; Webb and Wilshire 1983).

        None of these citations provides specific evidence of a direct significant threat to the Sand Mountain blue butterfly. The papers by Bury and Luckenbach (1983, pp. 211-213), Lathrop (1983, pp. 157-164), Lathrop and Rowlands (1983, pp. 138-141, 144-146), and Stebbins (1995, pp. 471-472), however, do provide documentation that off-road vehicles can damage and destroy plants, and result in significant decreases in plant numbers, density, and cover of plants, including shrubby perennials at various sites in the western North American deserts.
        The papers by Lathrop and Rowlands (1983, p. 143) and Kockelman (1983, p. 3) also provide a timeframe for understanding natural recovery rates of habitats damaged by off-road vehicle use in arid environments. Recovery of damaged vegetation is a process of critical importance to the Sand Mountain blue butterfly because it depends on the presence of its host plant, the Kearney buckwheat, on an annual basis in order to reproduce. Based on the data provided by the petitioners (BLM 2003, 2004), we estimate that the habitat on which the Sand Mountain blue butterfly depends has been reduced by as much as 50 percent over the past 25 years and that, at most, 1,000 ac (405 ha) of potential, but highly fragmented, habitat remains. These studies provide reliable documentation that even if off-road vehicle use were to be eliminated from Sand Mountain, natural recovery of the Kearney buckwheat habitat may take decades, a time frame that poses an indirect threat to the long-term viability of a species that must reproduce annually.

        The petition also claims that off-road vehicles alter the hydrology of dune systems by exposing clay layers that create an impermeable barrier to the percolation of precipitation into the soil. Further vehicle impacts break the clay layer and precipitation percolates to depths where it is beyond the reach of seedlings attempting to establish (Tonenna no date). No data are provided to support this claim; therefore, we consider it speculative. The petition also claims that constant disruption of the soil surface makes it difficult or impossible for seeds to germinate. We agree the germination process would be made difficult or impossible under frequent disturbance by vehicles. The petition claims that this could be the primary reason for a reported skew in Kearney buckwheat populations at Sand Mountain toward older shrubs. The petition provides no documentation to support this claim. The persistence of some plant species may depend on episodic years of strong recruitment (Brigham and Thomson 2003, p. 154). Episodic regeneration was not found to be characteristic of several plants studied in the cold deserts of the Great Basin in which Sand Mountain is located (West et al. 1979, pp. 384-385). The same researchers, however, also found no correlation between plant size and plant age, and that plants that appear even-aged because of their similar size are often uneven-aged (West et al. 1979, pp. 386). The petitioners do not indicate whether this critical aspect of population structure was considered.
        We conclude that the petition provides substantial information to support the claim that off-road vehicle use at Sand Mountain presents direct and indirect threats to the dune shrub habitat with Kearney buckwheat on which the Sand Mountain blue butterfly depends. In particular, data provided to the petitioners by the BLM (2003) reliably documents that within the past 25 years a progressive loss of dune shrub habitat, continuing fragmentation of dune shrub habitat, and an ongoing expansion of the route system into dune shrub habitat previously considered secure for the butterfly has occurred. The data presented in the petition document that annual visitor use has more than doubled and the route system has expanded from 20 miles (32 km) to over 200 miles (320 km) over this time period. The petition presents an estimate, based on a personal communication from the BLM (Tonenna, no date), that a maximum of about 1,000 ac (405 ha) of dune shrub habitat remain, and notes that the Kearney buckwheat, on which the Sand Mountain blue butterfly depends, has a patchy distribution within the remaining, highly fragmented habitat. The petitioners also reference a report that provides reliable information indicating that at the time of the petition, an estimated 1,000 to 1,600 ac (405 to 647 ha) of dune shrub habitat remained in which Kearney buckwheat is a component (BLM 2004, p. 4). We estimate, based on the data presented in the petition (BLM 2003, 2004), about 50 percent of the dune shrub habitat may have been destroyed or altered over this 25-year time span. The off-road vehicle use that has led to this reduction in and fragmentation of habitat continues to this day and poses a significant and ongoing threat to the continued viability of the Sand Mountain blue butterfly.
        B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes
        The petition claims collection by overzealous lepidopterists is a potential threat because of the rarity of the Sand Mountain blue butterfly. While we have accepted the claim that the Sand Mountain blue butterfly occurs only at Sand Mountain, the petition does not provide any data to substantiate the claim that the species is threatened by collection.
        C. Disease or Predation
        The petitioners claim that diseases affecting larval host plants and butterflies, and predation by native and introduced wildlife have affected other butterfly species with small population sizes, but provide no data to support these claims, and note that no information on the potential impacts of disease or predation to the Sand Mountain blue butterfly is available.
        D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
        The petition claims that the BLM has failed to protect habitat for the Sand Mountain blue butterfly from excessive off-road vehicle use over the past 25 years, and cites a public comment letter on the 1978 draft SMRA which states concern over the potential impacts to the invertebrate fauna of the dune system and notes that the management plan fails to adequately take into account biological considerations (Hardy 1978).
        The petition also cites a mid-1990s effort by the BLM, the Service, and others to assess the status of the Sand Mountain blue butterfly in response to a complaint that off-road vehicles were posing a threat to its existence by impacting its host plant (Austin 1990). The initial outcome of this effort was a determination that no emergency action was necessary because, during the course of the assessment, the Kearney buckwheat was found to be much more common than previously believed, particularly in the northeastern portion of the dune system. Instead, the BLM and Service decided to institute a monitoring plan in order to avoid an emergency situation in the future (BLM 1995, p. 1). The monitoring plan consisted only of establishing permanent photographic points. Due to personnel changes in both agencies, monitoring was discontinued after a few years. In recent years, the photographic points have been revisited and found to reliably document the ongoing alteration and destruction of shrub habitat (Tonenna 2006).
        The petition notes that in the Spring of 2002, BLM staff recommended that some areas of Sand Mountain be closed to protect the Sand Mountain blue butterfly. As a result, a group comprised of BLM and Service staff, representatives from conservation and off-road vehicles groups, and representatives of the Fallon-Paiute Shoshone Tribe, who consider Sand Mountain sacred, proposed that 1,000 ac (405 ha) be closed to off-road vehicles while keeping the more popular off-road riding areas open. No action was taken on this proposal.

        The petitioners claim that in 2003, the BLM implemented an emergency action to protect and restore the sand dune ecosystem that included the following six main actions: (1) Continue to manage the SMRA under the existing off-road vehicle designation; (2) develop programs and practices that encourage off-road vehicle users to prevent disturbance of Kearney buckwheat habitat within and outside of the SMRA; (3) begin efforts to restore and rehabilitate disturbed Kearney buckwheat habitat within and outside of the SMRA; (4) identify existing disturbed travel routes through the Kearney buckwheat habitat to connect off-road vehicle use areas within and outside the SMRA and discontinue off-road vehicle use in habitat outside these travel routes; (5) continue scientific investigations into the Sand Mountain ecosystem, including studies of the natural history of the plants and animals, restoration techniques, and monitoring technology; and (6) initiate a revised management plan for the Sand Mountain landscape to update the current Recreation Area Management Plan, reflecting the increasing amount and variety of uses and demands of the area.
        The primary claim that the petitioners make regarding this strategy is that compliance with the encouraged off-road vehicle route system is voluntary and unenforceable, and therefore ineffective in preventing further habitat decline. They cite data from a 2004 BLM report that documents noncompliance occurring throughout the area with all routes continuing to be used based on 15 weeks of compliance monitoring. Impacts to shrub vegetation continued with multiple vehicles riding through vegetation despite alternative existing routes nearby that avoid vegetation. The petitioners note that Kearney buckwheat plants are intentionally targeted because sand accumulates around the base forming natural jumps. The report states that educational efforts and increased signage are routinely ignored, and, although there does seem to have been some level of compliance as a result of the management changes, “there is still significant noncompliance that will likely continue the trend of vegetation loss and prevent the rehabilitation of the area” (BLM 2004).
        We have reviewed all of the sources cited in the petition and have concluded that they provide substantial information that existing regulatory mechanisms may be inadequate to prevent the progressive decline of the habitat on which the Sand Mountain blue butterfly depends.
        E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Species' Continued Existence

        The petition claims that invasive plants, and particularly Russian thistle (Salsola kali), pose a threat to the Sand Mountain blue butterfly because the fuel load it produces when dry increases the potential for wildfire. The petitioners also claim that Kearney buckwheat is not adapted to resist fire, and fire could kill or seriously damage plants since wildfires have not occurred historically at Sand Mountain. An increase in Russian thistle, therefore, would increase the risk that a fire may occur and habitat for the Sand Mountain blue butterfly would be destroyed (Tonnena no date).
        Russian thistle is known to occur at Sand Mountain and, when dried, is highly combustible. However, the petition provides no data to support the claim that it is so widespread as to constitute a significant threat to either the Kearney buckwheat or the Sand Mountain blue butterfly. Nor does the petition provide documentation for the claim that Kearney buckwheat is not adapted to resist fire. Elsewhere in the petition, the petitioners note that Kearney buckwheat has an extensive branching caudex from a deep, woody taproot (Reveal 2002). It is at least possible that this taproot, buried beneath sand, would survive and resprout after fire, as it has been observed to do after damage to the above-ground shoots (USFWS 1994). We do not, therefore, find the petition to provide substantial information to support the claim that invasive plants and/or fire currently pose a significant threat to the Sand Mountain blue butterfly.

        In addition, the petition notes that most insect populations normally experience large fluctuations in size (Ehrlich 1992; Schultz 1998), and that weather, predation, and disease may cause annual changes of an order of magnitude or more. The petition claims that these normal population fluctuations, in combination with habitat alteration or loss, can result in population extirpations (Hanski et al. 1995) and that, because of its extremely limited geographic area, the butterfly is extremely vulnerable to extinction.
        We acknowledge that insect populations may experience normal large population fluctuation, although the petition provides no data specific to the Sand Mountain blue butterfly. We have previously, under Factor C, noted that there is no evidence to support the claim that disease or predation are threats to the butterfly. Nor is there any evidence presented that the Sand Mountain blue butterfly population fluctuates in response to weather. We acknowledge that habitat alteration may exacerbate normal population fluctuations, and that this may make the Sand Mountain blue butterfly, a species likely to experience large population fluctuations (Murphy 2006), more susceptible to extinction. There is no evidence provided, however, that this has occurred, or is occurring, and therefore we do not find this threat to be substantial.
        Finding
        We have reviewed the petition and literature cited in the petition, and evaluated that information. On the basis of this review and evaluation, we find that the petition does present substantial information to indicate that listing the Sand Mountain blue butterfly may be warranted. The Sand Mountain butterfly is known only from Sand Mountain, Nevada, where it is closely associated with its host shrub, the Kearney buckwheat. Adult butterflies, which survive only a few weeks, deposit their eggs on the Kearney buckwheat, which is the only food for the larvae (caterpillars) that hatch the following spring. Larvae likely pass through several stages of molting, emerging larger each time, with each stage dependent on the availability of the food resource. The final molt results in a pupa which attaches to a twig or other surface and from which the adult emerges resource (Scott 1986, p. 21). The annual continuance of the butterfly population larvae, therefore, depends entirely upon this food.

        An estimated 1,000 ac (405 ha) of dune shrub habitat remained in 2003, an estimated reduction of about 50 percent over the past 25 years. Moreover, much of this remaining habitat has been highly fragmented by over 200 miles (320 km) of off-road vehicle routes. This reduction and fragmentation of habitat correlates with a significant increase in off-road vehicle recreational use of the area over the same time period. Recreational use continues to increase, and all areas of the Kearney buckwheat habitat upon which the Sand Mountain blue butterfly depends remain open to off-road vehicle use as a result of inadequate regulatory mechanisms. The reduction and fragmentation of Kearney buckwheat habitat, therefore, represents a direct reduction in the food critical to the survival of the larvae and their subsequent emergence as reproductive adults. As the food supply diminishes, fewer larvae survive and fewer adults are produced, which in turn is likely to result in fewer eggs being deposited. Over time this will result in smaller and smaller population levels as habitat destruction continues. Thus, there is substantial information presented in the petition that the reduction in available habitat is leading to a decrease in population that will continue over time, thus increasing the risk of extinction. Therefore we conclude that the petition has presented substantial information that listing may be warranted for this species. We will initiate a status review to determine whether listing is warranted.
        The petitioners also requested that critical habitat be designated for this species. We always consider the need for critical habitat designation when listing species. If we determine in our 12-month finding that listing the Sand Mountain blue butterfly is warranted, we will address the designation of critical habitat at the time of the proposed rulemaking.
        References Cited

        A complete list of all references cited herein is available, upon request, from the Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES).
        Author

        The primary author of this notice is the Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES).
        Authority

        The authority for this action is section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

          Dated: July 28, 2006.
          Kenneth Stansell,
          Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

       [FR Doc. E6-12577 Filed 8-7-06; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 300
        [Docket No. 160801681-6857-01]
        RIN 0648-BG22
        International Fisheries; Tuna and Tuna-Like Species in the Eastern Pacific Ocean; Silky Shark Fishing Restrictions and Fish Aggregating Device Data Collection and Identification

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:

          NMFS proposes regulations under the Tuna Conventions Act to implement provisions of two Resolutions adopted by the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) in 2016: Resolution C-16-01 (Collection and Analyses of Data On Fish-Aggregating Devices) and Resolution C-16-06 (Conservation Measures for Shark Species, with Special Emphasis on the Silky Shark (Carcharhinus Falciformis) for the Years 2017, 2018, and 2019). Per Resolution C-16-01, these regulations would require the owner or operator of a U.S. purse seine vessel to ensure characters of a unique code be marked indelibly on each fish aggregating device (FAD) deployed or modified on or after January 1, 2017, in the IATTC Convention Area. The vessel owner or operator would also be required to record and submit information about the FAD, as described in Annex I of the Resolution C-16-01. Per Resolution C-16-06, these regulations would prohibit the owner or operator of a U.S. purse seine vessel from retaining on board, transshipping, landing, or storing, in part or whole, carcasses of silky sharks caught by purse-seine vessels in the IATTC Convention Area. These regulations would also provide limits on the retained catch of silky sharks caught in the IATTC Convention Area. This proposed rule is necessary for the United States to satisfy its obligations as a member of the IATTC.

          DATES:
          Comments on the proposed rule and supporting documents must be submitted in writing by November 10, 2016.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2016-0106, by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2016-0106, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to Rachael Wadsworth, NMFS West Coast Region Long Beach Office, 501 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802. Include the identifier “NOAA-NMFS-2016-0106” in the comments.

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

          Copies of the draft Regulatory Impact Review and other supporting documents are available via the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov, docket NOAA-NMFS-2016-0106 or by contacting the Regional Administrator, William W. Stelle, Jr., NMFS West Coast Region, 7600 Sand Point Way, NE., Bldg 1, Seattle, WA 98115-0070, or RegionalAdministrator.WCRHMS@noaa.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Rachael Wadsworth, NMFS, West Coast Region, 562-980-4036.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background on the IATTC

        The United States is a member of the IATTC, which was established under the 1949 Convention for the Establishment of an Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission. In 2003, the IATTC adopted the Convention for the Strengthening of the IATTC Established by the 1949 Convention between the United States of America and the Republic of Costa Rica (Antigua Convention). The Antigua Convention entered into force in 2010. The United States acceded to the Antigua Convention on February 24, 2016. The full text of the Antigua Convention is available at: https://www.iattc.org/PDFFiles2/Antigua_Convention_Jun_2003.pdf.

        The IATTC consists of 21 member nations and four cooperating non-member nations and facilitates scientific research into, as well as the conservation and management of, tuna and tuna-like species in the IATTC Convention Area. The IATTC Convention Area is defined as waters of the eastern Pacific Ocean (EPO) within the area bounded by the west coast of the Americas and by 50° N. latitude, 150° W. longitude, and 50° S. latitude. The IATTC maintains a scientific research and fishery monitoring program and regularly assesses the status of tuna, sharks, and billfish stocks in the EPO to determine appropriate catch limits and other measures deemed necessary to promote sustainable fisheries and prevent the overexploitation of these stocks.
        International Obligations of the United States Under the Antigua Convention

        As a Party to the Antigua Convention and a member of the IATTC, the United States is legally bound to implement decisions of the IATTC. The Tuna Conventions Act (16 U.S.C. 951 et seq.) directs the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the Secretary of State and, with respect to enforcement measures, the U.S. Coast Guard, to promulgate such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the United States' obligations under the Antigua Convention, including recommendations and decisions adopted by the IATTC. The authority of the Secretary of Commerce to promulgate such regulations has been delegated to NMFS.
        IATTC Resolution on FADs
        In 2013, the IATTC adopted Resolution C-13-04 (Collection and Analyses of Data on Fish-Aggregating Devices) in response to concerns that incomplete data was being collected on FADs and that the IATTC was unable to track the activities on a FAD through time in the Convention Area. The Commission recognized that additional information needed to be collected before Commission-wide FAD management measures could be developed. In order to fully implement Resolution C-13-04, the Commission also needed to adopt a FAD identification scheme. In 2014 and 2015, the IATTC scientific staff provided options and recommendations for a FAD identification scheme. In 2015, the Commission agreed on a method to identify FADs and adopted Resolution C-15-03, which amended Resolution C-13-04, and included this information. In 2016, the Commission further agreed on modifications to clarify the data collection requirements and revisions to some of the dates for implementing specific provisions in the Resolution. The IATTC adopted Resolution C-16-01 by consensus in July 2016. The main objective of Resolution C-16-01 is to collect data on FADs in the EPO and to identify FADs through a marking system.
        IATTC Resolution on Silky Sharks
        In 2016, the IATTC adopted Resolution C-16-06 in response to concerns for the stock status of the silky shark in the EPO. The IATTC scientific staff has provided conservation recommendations for the silky shark since 2012, and Resolution C-16-06 is consistent with the advice that the IATTC scientific staff provided in 2016. The main objective of Resolution C-16-06 is to restrict retention of silky sharks on purse seine vessels and to restrict incidental catch of silky sharks on longline vessels in the IATTC Convention Area. U.S. commercial fishing vessels in the EPO do not target silky shark; they are caught incidentally and primarily discarded.
        Proposed Regulations
        This proposed rule would implement provisions of Resolutions C-16-01 and C-16-06, described above, for U.S. commercial fishing vessels that fish for tuna or tuna-like species in the IATTC Convention Area. This proposed rule includes four elements: Two elements regarding FADs and two elements regarding silky shark.

        The first element would require the owner or operator of a U.S. purse seine vessel to ensure characters of a unique code be marked indelibly on each fish aggregating device (FAD) deployed or modified on or after January 1, 2017. The vessel owner or operator would be required to select one of the following two options for the unique code for each FAD: (1) Obtain a unique code from NMFS West Coast Region that NMFS has obtained from the IATTC Secretariat, as specified in Annex I of Resolution C-16-01 or (2) use an existing unique identifier associated with the FAD (e.g., the manufacturer identification code for the attached buoy).

        The vessel owner or operator would be required to ensure the characters for the unique code be at least 5 centimeters in height on the upper portion of the attached radio or satellite buoy in a location that does not cover the solar cells used to power the equipment. For FADs without attached radio or satellite buoys, the characters would be required to be marked indelibly on the uppermost or emergent top portion of the FAD. In other words, the vessel owner or operator would be required to ensure the marking is durable and will not fade or be erased (e.g., marked using an epoxy-based paint or an equivalent in terms of lasting ability) and visible at all times during daylight. In circumstances where the observer is unable to view the unique code, the captain or crew would be required to assist the observer (e.g., by providing the unique code of the FAD to the observer).

        The second element would require the vessel owner or operator of a FAD that is deployed on or after January 1, 2017, to record and submit information about the FAD to the address specified by the Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Branch. The HMS Branch is defined as NMFS West Coast Region, Suite 4200, 501 W. Ocean Blvd., Long Beach, CA 90802. In accordance with Annex I of Resolution C-16-01, nine data fields would be required to be recorded and submitted: (1) Position; (2) date; (3) hour; (4) FAD unique identifier; (5) FAD type (e.g., drifting natural FAD, drifting artificial FAD); (6) FAD design characteristics (dimension and material of the floating part and of the underwater hanging structure); (7) the type of activity (set, deployment, hauling, retrieving, loss, intervention on electronic equipment, other (if so, specify)); (8) if the activity is a set, the results of the set in terms of catch and bycatch; and (9) characteristics of any attached buoy or positioning equipment (positioning system, whether equipped with sonar, etc.). The IATTC Secretariat is currently working on further describing and defining each of these data fields through the development of a standard form. Owners and operators of a FAD would be required to record this information on the standard form developed by the Secretariat and provided to the owners and operators by the HMS Branch.
        The third element would prohibit the crew, operator, and owner of a commercial purse seine fishing vessel of the United States used to fish for tuna or tuna-like species from retaining on board, transshipping, storing, or landing any part or whole carcass of a silky shark that is caught in the Convention Area. U.S. purse seiners do not target silky sharks; they are caught incidentally and are primarily discarded. The impacts of these proposed regulations to purse seine vessels are described in the Classification section below.
        The fourth element would require the crew, operator, and owner of a commercial longline fishing vessel of the United States to limit the retention of silky sharks caught in the IATTC Convention Area to a maximum of 20% by weight of the total catch of fish during any fishing trip that occurred in whole or in part in the IATTC Convention Area. Although Resolution C-16-06 provides that the “bycatch” of silky shark be restricted, NMFS proposes to use the term “retained catch” in these proposed regulations.

        U.S. longline vessels fishing in the IATTC Convention Area do not target, and infrequently catch, silky shark. Data from 2008 to 2015 show that any incidentally caught silky shark are released, and almost all are released alive. Silky shark are commonly released by cutting the line or dehooking the shark before it is brought onboard the vessel. Weights for silky shark are not recorded and weight estimates for sharks released while still in the water would likely not be reliable. An evaluation of total catch per longline trip where silky shark have been caught and released shows that, if the average weights of silky sharks are approximated, the amount of silky shark caught by U.S. longline vessels fishing in the EPO would not come close to 20% by weight of the total catch of fish during a fishing trip. NMFS is proposing to use the term “retained catch” in the proposed regulations to assist in enforcement of these regulations. The impacts of these proposed regulations to longline vessels are described in the Classification section below.
        Classification
        The NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Tuna Conventions 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.

        NMFS is amending the supporting statement for the Pacific Tuna Fisheries Logbook Office of Management and Business (OMB) Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) requirements (OMB Control No. 0648-0148) to include the data collection requirements for FADs as described in the preamble. NMFS estimates the public reporting burden for this collection of information to average 10 minutes per form, time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. NMFS requests any comments on the addition of the FAD data collection form to the PRA package, including whether the paperwork would unnecessarily burden any vessel owners and operators. Public comment is sought regarding: Whether this proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Send comments on these or any other aspects of the collection of information to the ADDRESSES above, and by email to OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov, or fax to (202) 395-5806.

        Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. All currently approved NOAA collections of information may be viewed at: http://www.cio.noaa.gov/services_programs/prasubs.html.

        Regarding the elements of the proposed rule pertaining to silky shark; there are no new collection-of-information requirements associated with this action that are subject to the PRA, and existing collection-of-information requirements still apply under the following Control Numbers: 0648-0593 and 0648-0214. Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection-of-information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection-of-information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget control number.
        An Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was prepared as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act to analyze whether the proposed rule to implement provisions of Resolutions C-16-01 and C-16-06 adopted by the IATTC in 2016 would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The IRFA is being published to aid the public in commenting upon NMFS conclusion that the proposed actions will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
        As described previously in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section, the proposed regulations would require FAD identification and data reporting as well as fishing restrictions on silky sharks. Alternatively, the failure to promulgate the proposed action would result in the provisions of these Resolutions not being implemented and would not allow the United States to satisfy its obligations as a member of the IATTC.

        On December 29, 2015, NMFS issued a final rule establishing a small business size standard of $11 million in annual gross receipts for all businesses primarily engaged in the commercial fishing industry (NAICS 11411) for Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) compliance purposes only (80 FR 81194, December 29, 2015). The $11 million standard became effective on July 1, 2016, and is to be used in place of the U.S. Small Business Administration's (SBA) current standards of $20.5 million, $5.5 million, and $7.5 million for the finfish (NAICS 114111), shellfish (NAICS 114112), and other marine fishing (NAICS 114119) sectors of the U.S. commercial fishing industry for all NMFS rules, subject to the RFA, published after July 1, 2016. Id. at 81194.
        NMFS has reviewed the analyses prepared for this regulatory action in light of the new size standard. All of the entities directly regulated by this regulatory action are commercial finfish fishing businesses. The new standard results in fewer commercial finfish businesses being considered small.
        The entities that would be affected by the proposed action are (1) U.S. purse seine vessels that use FADs to fish for tuna or tuna-like species in the IATTC Convention Area, and (2) U.S. purse seine and longline vessels that catch silky shark.
        As of July 2016, there are 15 large purse seine vessels (with at least 363 metric tons of fish hold volume) listed on the IATTC Regional Vessel Register. The number of U.S. large purse seine vessels on the IATTC Regional Vessel Register has increased substantially in the past two years due to negotiations regarding the South Pacific Tuna Treaty (SPTT) and the interest expressed by vessel owners that typically fish in the WCPO in relocating to the EPO. However, parties reached agreement in principle on changes to the SPTT in June 2016. U.S. large purse seine vessels fishing in the EPO primarily land yellowfin, skipjack, and bigeye tuna. Estimates of ex-vessel revenues for large U.S. purse seine vessels fishing in the IATTC Convention Area from 2005 to 2014 have been confidential and may not be publicly disclosed because of the small number of vessels in the fishery. However, in 2015, thirteen large purse seine vessels fished either exclusively in the EPO or fished in both the EPO and WCPO, and so information for 2015 is not confidential.

        For large purse seine vessels that fished exclusively in the EPO in 2015, ex-vessel price information specific to the individual vessels are not available to NMFS because these vessels did not land on the U.S. West Coast and the cannery receipts are not available through the IATTC. However, estimates for large purse seine vessels based in the WCPO that fish in both the EPO and WCPO may be used as a proxy for U.S. large purse seine vessels. The number of these U.S. purse seine vessels is approximated by the number with WCPFC Area Endorsements, which are the NMFS-issued authorizations required to use a vessel to fish commercially for HMS on the high seas in the Convention Area. As of August 2016 the number of purse seine vessels with WCPFC Area Endorsements was 42. Neither gross receipts nor ex-vessel price information specific to individual fishing vessels are available to NMFS, so NMFS applied indicative regional cannery prices—as approximations of ex-vessel prices—to annual catches of individual vessels to estimate their annual receipts. Indicative regional cannery prices are available through 2014 (developed by the Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency; available at https://www.ffa.int/node/425), so NMFS estimated vessels' annual receipts during 2012-2014. Using this approach, NMFS estimates that among the affected vessels, the range in annual average receipts in 2012-2014 was $3 million to $20 million and the median was about $13 million. Thus, NMFS estimates that slightly more than half of the affected large purse seine vessels are small entities. Purse seine vessels that use FADs to fish for tuna or tuna-like species and that catch silky shark in the IATTC Convention Area are all large vessels and are both large and small entities.
        There are two components to the U.S. tuna purse seine fishery in the EPO: (1) Large purse seine vessels with at least 363 metric tons of fish hold volume (size class 6 vessels) that typically have been based in the western and central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), and (2) coastal purse seine vessels with smaller fish hold volume that are based on the U.S. West Coast. Because only the large purse seine vessels fish with FADs and incidentally catch silky shark in the EPO, the proposed action is not expected to impact the coastal purse seine vessels. U.S. purse seiners do not target silky sharks in the EPO. Since 2005, the best available data from observers show that the incidental catches of silky shark are primarily discarded; however, a small percentage has been landed in the past ten years. For example, in 2015, a year in which more than three large purse seine vessels fished in the EPO, about 3% of the total catches of silky shark were landed and the rest were discarded either dead or alive. Since at least 2005, the observer coverage rate on class size 6 vessels in the EPO has been 100 percent.
        As of August 2016, the IATTC Regional Vessel Register lists 158 U.S. longline vessels that have the option to fish in the IATTC Convention Area. The majority of these longline vessels possess Hawaii Longline Limited Access Permits (issued under 50 CFR 665.13). Under the Hawaii longline limited access program, no more than 164 permits may be issued. In addition, there are U.S. longline vessels based on the U.S. West Coast, some of which operate solely under the Pacific HMS permit. U.S. West Coast-based longline vessels operating under the Pacific HMS permit fish primarily in the EPO and are currently restricted to fishing with deep-set longline gear outside of the U.S. West Coast EEZ. These vessels primarily target tuna species with a small percentage of swordfish and other highly migratory species taken incidentally.
        There have been less than three West Coast-based vessels operating under the HMS permit since 2005; therefore, landings and ex-vessel revenue are confidential. However, the number of Hawaii-permitted longline vessels that have landed in West Coast ports has increased from one vessel in 2006 to 14 vessels in 2014. In 2014, 621 mt of highly migratory species were landed by Hawaii permitted longline vessels with an average ex-vessel revenue of approximately $247,857 per vessel. For the longline fishery, the ex-vessel value of catches by the Hawaii longline fleet in 2012 was about $87 million. With 129 active vessels in that year, per-vessel average revenues were about $0.7 million, well below the $11 million threshold for finfish harvesting businesses. NMFS considers all longline vessels, for which data is non-confidential, that catch silky sharks in the IATTC Convention Area to be small entities for the purposes of the RFA.

        U.S. longline vessels fishing in the IATTC Convention Area, whether under the Hawaii Longline Limited Access Permit or the Pacific HMS permit, do not target silky shark and all those caught incidentally are released. From 2008 to 2015, logbook records recorded by vessel owners and operators of U.S. longline vessels fishing in the IATTC Convention Area showed a total of four silky sharks caught and released on four separate trips. During this same time period, observers did not record any catch of silky shark on longline vessels using shallow-set gear. The observer data for the Hawaii deep-set longline fishery showed a de minimis amount was occasionally caught and nearly all were released alive. Since at least 2008, the observer coverage rates on shallow-set and deep-set longline vessels in the EPO have been a minimum of 100 and 20 percent, respectfully. An evaluation of total catch per longline trip where silky shark have been caught and released shows that, if the average weights of silky sharks are approximated, the amount of silky shark caught by U.S. longline vessels fishing in the EPO do not come close to 20% by weight of the total catch of fish during a fishing trip.
        NMFS considered a “No Action” alternative to the proposed action. Under the “No Action” alternative, the vessel owners and operators of large purse seine vessels would not mark FADs or collect data on FAD activities. In addition, large purse seine vessels would not need to release silky sharks caught in the EPO and there would be no restrictions on catch on longline vessels. Under this alternative, the United States would not implement Resolutions C-16-01 and C-16-06 and would not satisfy international obligations as a Party to the Antigua Convention.
        Because the proposed action implements Resolutions C-16-01 and C-16-06 as agreed to by the United States, there are also not any possible additional alternatives that would be consistent with U.S obligations as a party to the Antigua Convention.

        This IRFA was developed for this action using NMFS' small business size standard of $11 million in annual gross receipts for all businesses primarily engaged in the commercial fishing industry (NAICS 11411) for Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) compliance purposes (80 FR 81194, December 29, 2015). The $11 million standard is used in place of the U.S. SBA current standards of $20.5 million, $5.5 million, and $7.5 million for the finfish (NAICS 114111), shellfish (NAICS 114112), and other marine fishing (NAICS 114119) sectors of the U.S. commercial fishing industry. NMFS has reviewed the analyses prepared for this action in light of the $11 million standard. Under this size standard, the entities for which the proposed action on FADs applies are considered large and small business. However, disproportional economic effect between small and large businesses is not expected; there will be only minimal additional time burden for owners and operators of large purse seine vessels to ensure characters of a unique code be marked indelibly on their FADs and to record data for FAD activities. And while the large purse seine vessels impacted by the proposed actions with respect to treatment of silky sharks would be required to release all silky sharks, U.S. purse seine vessels do not target silky sharks, and primarily release those caught incidentally. However, there may be some modifications to the fishing practices of these large and small entities to release all catch of silky sharks.

        NMFS considers the longline vessels for which the proposed action on silky shark applies to be small entities and the large purse seine vessels to also be large and small entities. U.S. longline vessels fishing in the EPO do not target silky shark and release all those incidentally caught. U.S. longline vessels only occasionally catch a small amount of silky sharks on fishing trips in the EPO; therefore, this proposed action is not expected to impact the fishing practices of these longline vessels.
        Thus, these proposed actions are not expected to substantially change the typical fishing practices of affected vessels. In addition, any impact to the income of U.S. vessels would be minor. Therefore, NMFS has determined that the proposed action is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
        Management of commercial fisheries must comply with a number of international agreements, domestic laws, and Fisheries Management Plans. These include, but are not limited to, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the High Seas Fishing Compliance Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act, and the Coastal Zone Management Act. NMFS strives to ensure consistency among the regulations with relevant agencies. The proposed rule would not conflict with any other statutes or regulations, Federal or otherwise.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 300
          Fish, Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels, International organizations, Marine resources, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Treaties.

          Dated: September 27, 2016.
          Samuel D. Rauch, III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 300 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 300—INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES REGULATIONS

            Subpart C—Eastern Pacific Tuna Fisheries

        1. The authority citation for part 300, subpart C, continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
           16 U.S.C. 951 et seq.

        2. In § 300.21, add the definition for “Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Branch” in alphabetical order to read as follows:

          § 300.21
          Definitions.

            Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Branch means: National Marine Fisheries Service West Coast Region, Suite 4200, 501 W. Ocean Blvd., Long Beach CA 90802.

        3. In § 300.24, add paragraphs (ee) through (hh) to read as follows:

          § 300.24
          Prohibitions.

          (ee) Fail to ensure characters of a unique code are marked indelibly on a FAD deployed or modified on or after January 1, 2017 in accordance with § 300.25 (h).
          (ff) Fail to record and report data on interactions or activities on FADs as required in § 300.25 (i).

          (gg) Use a commercial purse seine fishing vessel of the United States to retain on board, transship, store, or land any part or whole carcass of a silky shark (Carcharhinus falciformis) in contravention of § 300.27 (e).
          (hh) Use a U.S. longline vessel to catch silky shark in contravention of § 300.27 (f).

        4. In § 300.25, add paragraphs (h) and (i) to read as follows:

          § 300.25
          Eastern Pacific fisheries management.

          (h) FAD identification requirements for purse seine vessels.

          (1) For each FAD deployed or modified on or after January 1, 2017, in the IATTC Convention Area, the vessel owner or operator must either: obtain a unique code from HMS Branch; or use an existing unique identifier associated with the FAD (e.g., the manufacturer identification code for the attached buoy).

          (2) U.S. purse seine vessel owners and operators shall ensure the characters of the unique code or unique identifier be marked indelibly at least 5 centimeters in height on the upper portion of the attached radio or satellite buoy in a location that does not cover the solar cells used to power the equipment. For FADs without attached radio or satellite buoys, the characters shall be on the uppermost or emergent top portion of the FAD. The vessel owner or operator shall ensure the marking is visible at all times during daylight. In circumstances where the on-board observer is unable to view the code, the captain or crew shall assist the observer (e.g. by providing the FAD identification code to the observer).
          (i) FAD data reporting for purse seine vessels. U.S. vessel owners and operators must ensure that any interaction or activity with a FAD is reported using a standard format provided by the HMS Branch. The owner and operator shall ensure that the form is submitted to the address specified by the HMS Branch.

        5. In § 300.27 paragraphs (e) through (h) are redesignated as paragraph (g) through (j) and new paragraphs (e) and (f) are added to read as follows:

          § 300.27
          Incidental catch and tuna retention requirements.

          (e) Silky shark restrictions for purse seine vessels. The crew, operator, and owner of a commercial purse seine fishing vessel of the United States used to fish for tuna or tuna-like species is prohibited from retaining on board, transshipping, storing, or landing any part or whole carcass of a silky shark (Carcharhinus falciformis) that is caught in the Convention Area.
          (f) Silky shark restrictions for longline vessels. The crew, operator, and owner of a longline vessel of the United States used to fish for tuna or tuna-like species must limit the retained catch of silky sharks caught in the IATTC Convention Area to a maximum of 20 percent in weight of the total catch during each fishing trip that occurs in whole or in part in the IATTC Convention Area.

      [FR Doc. 2016-24444 Filed 10-7-16; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Parts 122, 123, 124 and 125
        [EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145; FRL-9948-35-OW]
        RIN 2040-AF25
        Notice of Extension to Comment Period on the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System: Applications and Program Updates Proposed Rule

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Extension of Comment Period.

          SUMMARY:
          EPA is extending the comment period for the notice, “National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Applications and Program Updates.” In response to stakeholder requests, EPA is extending the comment period for an additional 15 days, from July 18, 2016 to August 2, 2016.

          DATES:
          The comment period for the notice that was published on May 18, 2016 (81 FR 31344), is extended. Comments must be received on or before August 2, 2016.

          ADDRESSES:

          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Erin Flannery-Keith, Water Permits Division, Office of Wastewater Management, Mail Code 4203M, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; (202) 566-0689; flannery-keith.erin@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        On May 18, 2016 EPA published in the Federal Register (81 FR 31344) a proposed rule that would make targeted revisions to the NPDES regulations. These revisions would make the regulations consistent with the 1987 CWA Amendments and with applicable judicial decisions. These revisions would delete certain regulatory provisions that are no longer in effect and clarify the level of documentation that permit writers must provide for permitting decisions. EPA is also asking for public comments on potential ways to enhance public notice and participation in the permitting process. CWA section 402 established the NPDES permitting program and gives EPA authority to write regulations to implement the NPDES program. 33 U.S.C. 1342(a)(1), (2). The proposed rule, as initially published in the Federal Register, provided for written comments to be submitted to EPA on or before July 18, 2016 (a 60-day public comment period). Since publication, EPA has received a request for additional time to submit comments. EPA is extending the public comment period for 15 days until August 2, 2016.

          Dated: June 17, 2016.
          Joel Beauvais,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Water.

      [FR Doc. 2016-15134 Filed 6-24-16; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
        49 CFR Parts 192 and 195
        [Docket ID PHMSA-2007-27954]
        RIN 2137-AE64
        Pipeline Safety: Control Room Management/Human Factors

          AGENCY:
          Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, DOT.

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking; Extension of comment period.

          SUMMARY:
          On September 17, 2010, PHMSA published a Control Room Management/Human Factors notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposing to expedite the program implementation deadlines to August 1, 2011, for most of the requirements, except for certain provisions regarding adequate information and alarm management, which would have a program implementation deadline of August 1, 2012. PHMSA has received a request to extend the comment period in order to have more time to evaluate the NPRM. PHMSA has concurred in part with this request and has extended the comment period from November 16, 2010, to December 3, 2010.

          DATES:
          The closing date for filing comments is extended from November 16, 2010, until December 3, 2010.

          ADDRESSES:
          Comments should reference Docket No. PHMSA-2007-27954 and may be submitted in the following ways:
          • E-Gov Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. This Web site allows the public to enter comments on any Federal Register notice issued by any agency. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
          • Mail: DOT Docket Management System: U.S. DOT, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
          • Hand Delivery: DOT Docket Management System; West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

            Instructions: You should identify the Docket No. PHMSA-2007-27954 at the beginning of your comments. If you submit your comments by mail, submit two copies. To receive confirmation that PHMSA received your comments, include a self-addressed stamped postcard. Internet users may submit comments at http://www.regulations.gov.

          Note:
          Comments are posted without changes or edits to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. There is a privacy statement published on http://www.regulations.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          For further information contact Byron Coy at 609-989-2180 or by e-mail at Byron.Coy@dot.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        On September 17, 2010 (75 FR 56972), PHMSA published a NPRM proposing to expedite the program implementation deadlines of the Control Room Management/Human Factors rule at 49 CFR 192.631 and 195.446. The NPRM proposes to expedite the program implementation deadline from February 1, 2013, to August 1, 2011, for most of the requirements, except for certain provisions regarding adequate information and alarm management, which would have a program implementation deadline of August 1, 2012.
        On November 4, 2010, the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) requested PHMSA to extend the NPRM comment period deadline from November 16, 2010, to December 20, 2010, to give INGAA's members the opportunity to ask questions about the rule and to engage in open discussions with the agency at PHMSA's Control Room Management Implementation workshop to be held on November 17, 2010, in Houston, Texas (75 FR 67450, November 2, 2010) prior to submitting comments. PHMSA planned this workshop to review several technical elements of the new regulations and to provide opportunities for attendees to ask questions about the rule and to engage in open discussions with PHMSA and each other.
        PHMSA has concurred in part with INGAA's request and has extended the comment period from November 16, 2010, to December 3, 2010. This extension will provide sufficient time for commenters to submit comments after the workshop.

          Issued in Washington, DC, on November 8, 2010.
          Jeffrey D. Wiese,
          Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.

      [FR Doc. 2010-28714 Filed 11-15-10; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 21
        RIN 1018-AI05
        Release of Captive-Reared Mallards

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Notice of intent.

          SUMMARY:
          This document announces the intent of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (hereinafter Service or we) to resume review of all aspects of regulations pertaining to the release and harvest of captive-reared mallards. Recently, all four Flyway Councils and the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (IAFWA) urged the Service to resume its review of the potential effects of releasing free-flighted mallards on State-licensed shooting preserves, also known as regulated shooting areas (RSA). The Service has agreed to this request and intends to complete its review of the Federal regulations (50 CFR 21.13) as published in the June 1993 Notice of Intent (58 FR 31247).

          DATES:
          You must submit comments pertaining to regulations governing the release of captive-reared mallards by September 27, 2001.

          ADDRESSES:
          Send your comments to the Chief, Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, room 634-Arlington Square, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington, DC 20240. All comments received, including names and addresses, will become part of the public record. You may inspect comments during normal business hours in room 634, Arlington Square Building, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Jerome R. Serie, Atlantic Flyway Representative, Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, at 301/497-5851.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        On June 1, 1993, we published in the Federal Register (58 FR 31247) a notice of intent to review all aspects of regulations pertaining to the release and harvest of captive-reared mallards and provided the public with background information. These regulations, stated in § 21.13 of title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), allow captive-reared mallards, provided they are properly marked prior to 6 weeks of age by removal of the right hind toe, banding with a seamless metal band, pinioning, or tattooing, to be possessed and disposed of in any number, at any time, by any person, without a permit. Further, this regulation stipulates that such birds may be killed by shooting only in accordance with all applicable hunting regulations governing the take of mallard ducks from the wild, with the exception provided; that such birds may be killed by shooting, in any number, at any time, within the confines of any premises operated as a shooting preserve under State license, permit, or authorization.
        In the past, we have not opposed the shooting of captive-reared mallards on shooting preserves to supplement hunting opportunities for the public when precautions were taken to control the distribution of these birds. However, since 1985, this regulation has become more broadly interpreted and some shooting preserves actively release captive-reared mallards in large numbers in free-ranging situations on their premises. Often these properties are in areas frequented by wild ducks. Because both classes of mallards (captive-reared and wild) are indistinguishable until in the hand, regulatory conflicts arise from allowing free-ranging, captive-reared birds to be taken without bag limits during closed seasons for wild ducks. Similarly, regulations involving live decoys and baiting (50 CFR 20.21) become relevant, which necessitates a discretionary interpretation by enforcement personnel in the field.
        Uncontrolled releases of thousands of free-flighted captive-reared mallards into areas inhabited by wild ducks pose a potential threat of disease transmission between captive-reared and wild birds. Highly infectious diseases, such as duck plague and avian cholera, are capable of causing large-scale losses in wild waterfowl. The influx of large numbers of captive-reared mallards into habitats managed for wild birds renders data-gathering activities by Federal, State, and Flyway waterfowl management programs less effective. There are no reliable methods of distinguishing between these classes in population and harvest surveys. These biases not only influence survey estimates but compromise Flyway harvest management strategies and the promulgation of hunting regulations for wild ducks.

        Although the Service initiated its review and solicited input from State wildlife agencies in 1993, this effort was suspended because of provisions attached to the 1994 Congressional Appropriations Bill requesting the Service to withhold promulgation of any new regulations until further studies were completed. Since then, studies conducted by Louisiana State University and the National Wildlife Health Center have been completed, and results are available for consideration in this review (copies are available from the address indicated under the caption ADDRESSES). A primary focus of our review will be to assess the potential effects of these captive-reared mallard releases and harvest on the status and management of wild migratory waterfowl.
        Public Comment Invited
        Existing regulations, contained in § 21.13, lack specific criteria governing the release and control of captive-reared mallards on licensed shooting preserves and are thus subject to broad interpretation. As a result, numerous conflicts with established regulations governing the take of wild mallards and prohibiting the use of live decoys and baiting have occurred. In addition, aspects involving ownership and control are unclear when flighted, captive-reared birds are allowed to range freely over a wide area. Risks of disease transmission among wild ducks and confounding of data-gathering efforts by wildlife agencies for management of wild ducks are of concern.

        The Service believes several options are available to alleviate potential conflicts and resolve management problems associated with captive-reared mallard release programs without adversely affecting the opportunities and operations on shooting preserves. Many of these options would require some modification of Federal regulations (50 CFR parts 20 and 21). The Service intends to explore these options and invites public comment on any options that may alleviate this problem. Comments may be sent to the address indicated under the caption ADDRESSES.

        Authority
        Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712), the Secretary of the Interior has responsibility for setting appropriate regulations for the hunting of migratory birds, with due regard for maintaining such populations in a healthy state and at satisfactory levels. The Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742 a-j) more specifically authorizes collection of such information as is necessary and to take steps as may be required to protect wildlife resources.

          Dated: August 8, 2001.
          Joseph E. Doddridge,
          Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

      [FR Doc. 01-21655 Filed 8-27-01; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 660
        [RTID 0648-XA797]
        Fisheries Off West Coast States; Coastal Pelagic Species Fisheries; Amendment 18 to the Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan

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

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

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS announces that the Pacific Fishery Management Council has submitted Amendment 18 to the Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan for review by the Secretary of Commerce. Amendment 18 would implement a rebuilding plan for the northern subpopulation of Pacific sardine, which NMFS declared overfished in June 2019. NMFS will consider public comments in deciding whether to approve, disapprove, or partially approve Amendment 18.

          DATES:
          Comments on Amendment 18 must be received by May 17, 2021. Comments on the associated Environmental Assessment must be received by April 15, 2021.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-0008-2021, by the following electronic methods:

          • The Pacific Fishery Management Council and NMFS prepared a draft excerpt of the Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan as amended through Amendment 18, with notations showing how Amendment 18 would change the Fishery Management Plan, if approved. This draft can be viewed via the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov, docket NOAA-NMFS-0008-2021 or by contacting the Pacific Fisheries Management Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, OR 97220-1384. In order to comment on this document and the draft Amendment 18 language, submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov and enter NOAA-NMFS-0008-2021 in the Search box. Click the “Comment” icon and complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

          • The Pacific Fishery Management Council and NMFS prepared a draft Environmental Assessment for this action pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act. This draft can be viewed on NMFS' website at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/west-coast/laws-and-policies/west-coast-region-national-environmental-policy-act-documents. In order to comment on the Environmental Assessment, submit all public comments to Lynn Massey at lynn.massey@noaa.gov, or Kerry Griffin at Kerry.griffin@noaa.gov.

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

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Lynn Massey, Sustainable Fisheries Division, NMFS, (562) 436-2462, lynn.massey@noaa.gov; or Kerry Griffin, Pacific Fishery Management Council, (503) 820-2409, kerry.griffin@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The coastal pelagic species (CPS) fishery in the U.S. exclusive economic zone off the West Coast is managed under the CPS Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) developed the CPS FMP pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. The Secretary of Commerce approved the CPS FMP and implemented the provisions of the plan through regulations at 50 CFR part 660, subpart I. Species managed under the CPS FMP include Pacific sardine, Pacific mackerel, jack mackerel, northern anchovy, market squid, and krill.

        The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires each regional fishery management council to submit any amendment to an FMP to NMFS for review and approval, disapproval, or partial approval. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving an amendment to an FMP, publish notification in the Federal Register that the amendment is available for public review and comment. NMFS will consider the public comments received during the comment period described above in determining whether to approve, disapprove, or partially approve Amendment 18.

        NMFS declared the northern subpopulation of Pacific sardine (hereafter, Pacific sardine) overfished in June 2019. This determination was based on the results of an April 2019 stock assessment, which indicated that the biomass of Pacific sardine had dropped below the overfished threshold of 50,000 metric tons (mt) defined in the CPS FMP. NMFS notified the Council about the overfished declaration on July 9, 2019. The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that NMFS and the Council prepare a rebuilding plan within 2 years of NMFS' overfished notification to the Council that specifies a rebuilding timeframe (i.e., Ttarget) within 10 years, except where the biology of the stock or other environmental conditions dictate otherwise (see Magnuson-Stevens Act section 304(e)(4)(A)(2)).
        In September 2020, the Council recommended a rebuilding plan strategy to NMFS that would maintain the existing management framework for the Pacific sardine fishery. Under the rebuilding plan, the harvest control rules and other FMP provisions currently in place for Pacific sardine would be maintained. This includes the harvest guideline control rule, which requires that the primary directed fishery for Pacific sardine be closed when the biomass is at or below 150,000 mt and restrictions on incidental landings of Pacific sardine in other CPS fisheries, including an automatic reduction in allowable incidental landings when the biomass is below 50,000 mt. The rebuilding plan would also maintain the Council's annual harvest specifications process for Pacific sardine, such that an overfishing limit and acceptable biological catch are calculated annually based on an estimate of that year's biomass from annual stock assessments and their respective control rules in the FMP (that have been approved by the Scientific and Statistical Committee to prevent overfishing). In addition to the harvest control rules prescribed by the CPS FMP, the rebuilding plan would allow the Council to maintain their ability to annually adjust the incidental harvest percentages or other accountability measures for the various sectors based on new information from the previous year or changes in fishery dynamics, if necessary. Although this framework would maintain the current management strategy, this management strategy already severely restricts fishing and will continue to do so until the stock is rebuilt.
        Current fishing mortality is not considered to be the primary constraining factor or rebuilding Pacific sardine. The primary directed fishery for Pacific sardine has been closed since 2015 when the stock's biomass dropped below the 150,000 mt threshold in the CPS FMP for allowing a primary directed fishery. This closure of the primary directed fishery, which took place 4 years prior to the stock dropping, drastically reduced catch of Pacific sardine and has kept harvest at very low levels since that time. As such, the contribution of this rebuilding plan to stock recovery would be additional to measures already in place via the CPS FMP and Council process that limit fishing mortality of Pacific sardine.

        As described above, the Magnuson-Stevens Act specifies that the time period for rebuilding a fishery generally should not exceed 10 years unless the biology of the stock or environmental conditions dictate otherwise, as is the case for Pacific sardine. Pacific sardines are known for wide swings in population abundance, and studies show the species has long experienced boom-bust cycles even in the absence of fishing. Periods of low recruitment success driven by prevailing oceanographic conditions can lead to low population abundance over extended periods of time. Because environmental conditions represent the primary constraint on rebuilding Pacific sardine, the projected time for rebuilding, is 14 years (i.e., Ttarget). This Ttarget was determined to be the shortest time possible to rebuild the stock, taking into account the biology of the species, current environmental conditions, and the needs of fishing communities. For more information about how this rebuilding target was determined, see the Environmental Assessment at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/west-coast/laws-and-policies/west-coast-region-national-environmental-policy-act-documents.

        Amendment 18 would expand Section 4.5 of the CPS FMP to include the proposed rebuilding plan for Pacific sardine. There are no implementing regulations associated with Amendment 18, therefore NMFS will not promulgate proposed and final rules to implement this amendment.

        Public comments on Amendment 18 must be received by May 17, 2021. Public comments on the associated EA for Amendment 18 must be received by May 17, 2021. All comments received by the end of the comment period on Amendment 18 will be considered in the Secretary's decision to approve, disapprove, or partially approve this amendment. To be considered in this decision, comments must be received by close of business on the last day of the comment period; that does not mean postmarked or otherwise transmitted by that date. NMFS will respond to any substantive comments received by the end of the comment period on Amendment 18 in a subsequent Federal Register document.

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

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

      [FR Doc. 2021-05101 Filed 3-15-21; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P