        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No. 061020273-7054-04; I.D. 030107B]
        RIN 0648-AT60
        Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Recreational Management Measures for the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fisheries; Fishing Year 2007

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes recreational management measures for the 2007 summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries. The implementing regulations for these fisheries require NMFS to publish recreational measures for the upcoming fishing year and to provide an opportunity for public comment. The intent of these measures is to prevent overfishing of the summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass resources.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received by 5 p.m. local time, on March 30, 2007.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
          • E-mail: FSBrecreational2007@noaa.gov. Include in the subject line the following identifier: “Comments on 2007 Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Recreational Measures.”
          • Federal e-rulemaking portal: http://www.regulations.gov

          • Mail: Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope: “Comments on 2007 Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Recreational Measures.
          • Fax: (978) 281-9135

          Copies of supporting documents used by the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Monitoring Committees and of the Environmental Assessment, Regulatory Impact Review, and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) are available from Daniel T. Furlong, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Room 2115, Federal Building, 300 South New Street, Dover, DE 19901-6790. The EA/RIR/IRFA is also accessible via the Internet at http://www.nero.noaa.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Michael P. Ruccio, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281-9104.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        The summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries are managed cooperatively by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission) and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council), in consultation with the New England and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils.

        The management units specified in the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fisheries include summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus) in U.S. waters of the Atlantic Ocean from the southern border of North Carolina northward to the U.S./Canada border, and scup (Stenotomus chrysops) and black sea bass (Centropristis striata) in U.S. waters of the Atlantic Ocean from 35°15.3′ N. lat. (the latitude of Cape Hatteras Lighthouse, Buxton, NC) northward to the U.S./Canada border.
        The FMP and its implementing regulations, which are found at 50 CFR part 648, subparts A (General Provisions), G (summer flounder), H (scup), and I (black sea bass), describe the process for specifying annual recreational measures that apply in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). The states manage these fisheries within 3 miles of their coasts, under the Commission's plan for summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass. The Federal regulations govern vessels fishing in the EEZ, as well as vessels possessing a Federal fisheries permit, regardless of where they fish.
        The FMP established Monitoring Committees (Committees) for the three fisheries, consisting of representatives from the Commission; the Mid-Atlantic, New England, and South Atlantic Councils; and NMFS. The FMP and its implementing regulations require the Committees to review scientific and other relevant information annually and to recommend management measures necessary to achieve the recreational harvest limits established for the summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries for the upcoming fishing year. The FMP limits these measures to minimum fish size, possession limit, and fishing season.
        The Council's Demersal Species Committee and the Commission's Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Management Board (Board) then consider the Committees' recommendations and any public comment in making their recommendations to the Council and the Commission, respectively. The Council then reviews the recommendations of the Demersal Species Committee, makes its own recommendations, and forwards them to NMFS for review. The Commission similarly adopts recommendations for the states. NMFS is required to review the Council's recommendations to ensure that they are consistent with the targets specified for each species in the FMP.

        Quota specifications for the 2007 summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries were published on December 14, 2006 (71 FR 75134). The summer flounder quota specification was later increased by emergency rule on January 19, 2007 (72 FR 2458), consistent with the provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Reauthorization of 2006. The summer flounder emergency rule will expire after 180 days, on July 18, 2007, unless extended by NMFS. NMFS intends to undertake notice and comment rulemaking in the Federal Register before the current emergency rule expires to extend the initial rule's measures through the fishing year ending December 31, 2007. However, should the emergency rule not be extended for any reason, the original summer flounder quota specification would become effective again and NMFS would revise the summer flounder recreational measures to be consistent with the lower recreational harvest limit. The quota specification contained in the emergency rule has been determined to be consistent with the 2007 target fishing mortality rate (F) for summer flounder. The specifications contained in the December 14, 2006, rule were determined to be consistent with the 2007 target exploitation rates for scup and black sea bass.
        Based on the specifications currently in place, the 2007 coastwide recreational harvest limits are 6,844,800 lb (3,105 mt) for summer flounder, 2,744,200 lb (1,245 mt) for scup, and 2,473,500 lb (1,122 mt) for black sea bass. The specification rules did not establish recreational measures, since final recreational catch data for 2006 were not available when the Council made its recreational harvest limit recommendation to NMFS.
        All minimum fish sizes discussed hereafter are total length measurements of the fish, i.e., the straight-line distance from the tip of the snout to the end of the tail while the fish is lying on its side. For black sea bass, total length measurement does not include the caudal fin tendril. All possession limits discussed below are per person.
        Summer Flounder
        Overall, recreational landings for 2006 were estimated to have been 11.74 million lb (5,325 mt). This exceeded, by approximately 26 percent, the 2006 recreational harvest limit of 9.29 million lb (4,214 mt). Five individual states are projected to have exceeded their 2006 state harvest limits when their allocations are converted to number of fish using the average weight of summer flounder harvested during 2005 and 2006. These states are, with their respective percent overage, as follows: MA (2 percent); RI (25 percent); NY (29 percent); NJ (9 percent); and VA (41 percent).
        The 2007 coastwide harvest limit is 6,844,800 lb (3,105 mt), a 26.4-percent decrease from the 2006 harvest limit. Assuming the same level of fishing effort in 2007, a 41.7-percent reduction in landings coastwide would be required for summer flounder. The Council is recommending conservation equivalency, described as follows, that would require individual states to reduce summer flounder landings (in number of fish) to achieve the necessary recreational harvest reductions for 2007.

        NMFS implemented Framework Adjustment 2 to the FMP (Framework Adjustment 2) on July 29, 2001 (66 FR 36208), which established a process that makes conservation equivalency an option for the summer flounder recreational fishery. Conservation equivalency allows each state to establish its own recreational management measures (possession limits, minimum fish size, and fishing seasons) to achieve its state harvest limit, as long as the combined effect of all of the states' management measures achieves the same level of conservation as would Federal coastwide measures developed to achieve the overall recreational harvest limit, if implemented by all of the states.
        The Council and Board recommend annually that either state-specific recreational measures be developed (conservation equivalency) or coastwide management measures be implemented by all states to ensure that the recreational harvest limit will not be exceeded. Even when the Council and Board recommend conservation equivalency, the Council must specify a set of coastwide measures that would apply if conservation equivalency is not approved. If conservation equivalency is recommended, and following confirmation that the proposed state measures would achieve conservation equivalency, NMFS may waive the permit condition found at § 648.4(b), which requires federally permitted vessels to comply with the more restrictive management measures when state and Federal measures differ. Federally permitted charter/party permit holders and recreational vessels fishing for summer flounder in the EEZ then would be subject to the recreational fishing measures implemented by the state in which they land summer flounder, rather than the coastwide measures.
        In addition, the Council and the Board must recommend precautionary default measures. The Commission would require adoption of the precautionary default measures by any state that either does not submit a summer flounder management proposal to the Commission's Summer Flounder Technical Committee, or that submits measures that are determined not to achieve the required reduction. The precautionary default measures are defined as the set of measures that would achieve the greatest reduction in landings required for any state.
        In December 2006, the Council and Board voted to recommend conservation equivalency to achieve the 2007 recreational harvest limit. The Commission's conservation equivalency guidelines require the states to determine and implement appropriate state-specific management measures (i.e., possession limits, fish size limits, and fishing seasons) to achieve state-specific harvest limits. Under this approach, each state may implement unique management measures appropriate to that state, so long as these measures are determined by the Commission to provide equivalent conservation as would Federal coastwide measures developed to achieve the overall recreational harvest limit. According to the conservation equivalency procedures established in Framework Adjustment 2, each state from MA to NC, excluding MD, would be required to reduce 2007 landings by the percentages shown in Table 1. MD may submit more liberal management measures, provided that they are sufficient to meet the 2007 state harvest limit. ME and NH have no recreational summer flounder harvest limit and are not required to submit management measures to the Commission.

          Table 1. Required state by state reductions in summer flounder recreational harvest limits for 2007.

            State
            ME
            NH
            MA
            RI
            CT
            NY
            NJ
            DE
            MD
            VA
            NC

            Percent change from 2006 to 2007
            —
            —
            -35.3
            -47.2
            -13.7
            -48.6
            -39.5
            -29.3
            0.0
            -53.0
            -8.1

        The Board required that each state submit its conservation equivalency proposal to the Commission by January 15, 2007. The Commission's Summer Flounder Technical Committee then evaluated the proposals and advised the Board of each proposal's consistency with respect to achieving the coastwide recreational harvest limit. The Commission invited public participation in its review process by allowing public comment on the state proposals at the Technical Committee meeting held on January 22, 2007. The Board met on January 31, 2007, and approved a range of management proposals for each state, as well as regional and coastwide management options designed to attain conservation equivalency. Once the states select and submit their final summer flounder management measures to the Commission, the Commission will notify NMFS as to which individual state, regional, or coastwide proposals have been approved or disapproved. NMFS retains the final authority either to approve or to disapprove using conservation equivalency in place of the coastwide measures and will publish its determination as a final rule in the Federal Register to establish the 2007 recreational measures for these fisheries.

        States that do not submit conservation equivalency proposals, or for which proposals were disapproved by the Commission, will be required by the Commission to adopt the precautionary default measures. In the case of states that are initially assigned precautionary default measures, but subsequently receive Commission approval of revised state measures, NMFS will publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing a waiver of the permit condition at § 648.4(b).
        As described above, for each fishing year, NMFS implements either coastwide measures or conservation equivalent measures at the final rule stage. The coastwide measures recommended by the Council and Board for 2007 are a 19-inch (48.26-cm) minimum fish size, a possession limit of one fish, and an open season from January 1 through December 31. In this action, NMFS proposes these coastwide measures in the EEZ, as they are expected to constrain landings to the overall recreational harvest. These measures would be waived if conservation equivalency is approved.
        The precautionary default measures specified by the Council and Board are an 18.5-inch (46.99-cm) minimum fish size, a possession limit of one fish, and an open season of January 1 through December 31. These measures are also estimated to achieve the 2007 target if applied coastwide.
        Scup
        The 2007 scup recreational harvest limit is approximately 2.74 million lb (1,245 mt), a 34-percent decrease from the 2006 recreational harvest limit of 4.15 million lb (1,882 mt). Recreational landings in 2006 were estimated to have been 2.8 million lb (1,270 mt). The 2.1-percent difference in the estimated 2006 landings and 2007 target is well within the percent standard error for scup landings estimated from the Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey (MRFSS). As such, no reduction from the 2006 measures would be necessary for 2007, as the status quo measures are unlikely to result in exceeding the 2007 target.

        The 2007 scup recreational fishery will be managed under separate regulations for state and Federal waters; the Federal measures would apply to party/charter vessels with Federal permits and other vessels subject to the possession limit that fish in the EEZ. In Federal waters, to achieve the 2007 target, NMFS proposes to maintain the status quo coastwide management measures of a 10-inch (25.40-cm) minimum fish size, a 50-fish possession limit, and open seasons of January 1 through February 28, and September 18 through November 30, as recommended by the Council.
        As has occurred in the past 5 years, the scup fishery in state waters will be managed under a regional conservation equivalency system developed through the Commission. Addendum XI to the Interstate FMP (Addendum XI), approved by the Board at the January 2004 Council/Commission meeting, requires that the states of Massachusetts through New York each develop state-specific management measures to constrain their landings to an annual harvest level for this region in number of fish (approximately 3.1 million fish for 2007), through a combination of minimum fish size, possession limits, and seasonal closures. Because the Federal FMP does not contain provisions for conservation equivalency, and states may adopt their own unique measures under Addendum XI, the Federal and state recreational scup management measures will differ for 2007.
        At the January 31, 2007, meeting, the Board approved a regional management proposal for MA through NY that would allow a season of at least 150 days. The Board retained a minimum fish size of 10.5 inches (26.7 cm) and a common possession limit (25 fish for private vessels and shore-based anglers; and 60 fish for party/charter vessels, dropping to 25 fish after a 2-month period) for the states of MA through NY. These northern states are expected to submit their final management measures to the Commission by March 1, 2007. New Jersey will maintain status quo scup recreational management measures of a 9-inch (22.9-cm) minimum size, a 50-fish possession limit, and open seasons of January 1 through February 28, and July 1 through December 31. Due to low scup landings in Delaware through North Carolina, the Board approved the retention of status quo management measures for those states as well, i.e., an 8-inch (20.3-cm) minimum fish size, a 50-fish possession limit, and no closed season.
        Black Sea Bass
        Recreational landings in 2007 were estimated to have been 1.91 million lb (866 mt)-- 52 percent below the 2006 target of 3.99 million lb (1,809 mt) and 23 percent below the 2007 target of 2.47 million lb (1,122 mt). The 2007 recreational harvest limit of 2.47 million lb (1,122 mt) is a 38-percent decrease from the 2006 target. Based on 2006 landings, no reduction in landings is necessary to achieve the 2007 target.
        For Federal waters, the Council and Board have approved measures that would maintain the 25-fish possession limit, the 12-inch (30.48-cm) minimum size, and open season of January 1 through December 31. NMFS proposes to maintain these measures, which are expected to constrain recreational black sea bass landings to the 2007 target.
        Classification
        NMFS has determined that the proposed rule is consistent with the FMP and preliminarily determined that the rule is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and other applicable laws.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

        An IRFA was prepared, as required by section 603 of the RFA. The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of this section of the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble. A summary of the analysis follows. A copy of the complete IRFA is available from the Council (see ADDRESSES).
        This proposed rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with other Federal rules.
        The proposed action could affect any recreational angler who fishes for summer flounder, scup, or black sea bass in the EEZ or on a party/charter vessel issued a Federal permit for summer flounder, scup, and/or black sea bass. However, the IRFA focuses upon the impacts on party/charter vessels issued a Federal permit for summer flounder, scup, and/or black sea bass because these vessels are considered small business entities for the purposes of the RFA, i.e., businesses with gross revenues of up to $3.5 million. These small entities can be specifically identified in the Federal vessel permit database and would be impacted by the recreational measures, regardless of whether they fish in Federal or state waters. Although individual recreational anglers are likely to be impacted, they are not considered small entities under the RFA. Also, there is no permit requirement to participate in these fisheries; thus, it would be difficult to quantify any impacts on recreational anglers in general.
        The Council estimated that the proposed measures could affect any of the 920 vessels possessing a Federal charter/party permit for summer flounder, scup, and/or black sea bass in 2005, the most recent year for which complete permit data are available. However, only 331 of these vessels reported active participation in the recreational summer flounder, scup, and/or black sea bass fisheries in 2005.
        In the IRFA, the no-action alternative (i.e., maintenance of the regulations as codified) is defined as implementation of the following: (1) for summer flounder, coastwide measures of a 17-inch (43.18-cm) minimum fish size, a 4-fish possession limit, and no closed season, i.e., the current Federal regulatory measure that would be implemented if conservation equivalency is not implemented in the final rule; (2) for scup, a 10-inch (25.40-cm) minimum fish size, a 50-fish possession limit, and open seasons of January 1 through February 28, and September 18 through November 30; and (3) for black sea bass, a 12-inch (30.48-cm) minimum size, a 25-fish possession limit, and an open season of January 1 through December 31.
        The no-action alternatives for scup and black sea bass are the same (status quo) measures being proposed for 2007. Landings of these species in 2006 were either less than their respective target (black sea bass) or within the within the average observed percent standard error for the estimated landings (scup), and the status quo measures are expected to constrain landings to the 2007 targets. As such, since there is no regulatory change being proposed for these two species, there is no need of further discussion of the economic impacts within this section.
        For summer flounder, state-specific implications of adopting the no-action (coastwide) alternative would result in more restrictive measures than conservation equivalent regulations in place for all Northeast (NE) states in 2006. In consideration of the recreational harvest limits established for the 2007 fishing year, taking no action in the summer flounder fishery would be inconsistent with the goals and objectives of the FMP and its implementing regulations because the no-action alternative would not be expected to prevent the 2007 summer flounder recreational harvest limits from being exceeded.

        Effects of the various management measures were analyzed by employing quantitative approaches, to the extent possible. Where quantitative data were not available, the Council conducted qualitative analyses. Although NMFS's RFA guidance recommends assessing changes in profitability as a result of proposed measures, the quantitative impacts were instead evaluated using changes in party/charter vessel revenues as a proxy for profitability. This is because reliable cost data are not available for these fisheries. Without reliable cost data, profits cannot be discriminated from gross revenues. As reliable cost data become available, impacts to profitability can be more accurately forecast. Similarly, changes to long-term solvency were not assessed due both to the absence of cost data and because the recreational management measures change annually according to the specification-setting process.
        Assessments of potential changes in gross revenues for all 18 combinations of alternatives proposed in this action were conducted for federally permitted party/charter vessels in each state in the NE region. Management measures proposed under the summer flounder conservation equivalency alternative have yet to be adopted; therefore, potential losses under this alternative could not be analyzed in conjunction with alternatives proposed for scup and black sea bass. Since conservation equivalency allows each state to tailor specific recreational fishing measures to the needs of that state, while still achieving conservation goals, it is likely that the measures developed under this alternative, when considered in combination with the measures proposed for scup and black sea bass, would have fewer overall adverse effects than any of the other combinations that were analyzed.
        Impacts were examined by first estimating the number of angler trips aboard party/charter vessels in each state in 2006 that would have been affected by the proposed 2007 management measures. All 2006 party/charter fishing trips that would have been constrained by the proposed 2007 measures in each state were considered to be affected trips.
        There is very little information available to estimate empirically how sensitive the affected party/charter vessel anglers might be to the proposed fishing regulations. If the proposed measures discourage trip-taking behavior among some of the affected anglers, economic losses may accrue to the party/charter vessel industry in the form of reduced access fees. On the other hand, if the proposed measures do not have a negative impact on the value or satisfaction the affected anglers derive from their fishing trips, party/charter revenues would remain unaffected by this action. In an attempt to estimate the potential changes in gross revenues to the party/charter vessel industry in each state, two hypothetical scenarios were considered: A 25-percent reduction, and a 50-percent reduction, in the number of fishing trips that are predicted to be affected by implementation of the management measures in the NE (ME through NC) in 2007.
        Total economic losses to party/charter vessels were then estimated by multiplying the number of potentially affected trips in each state in 2007, under the two hypothetical scenarios, by the estimated average access fee paid by party/charter anglers in the NE in 2006. Finally, total economic losses were divided by the number of federally permitted party/charter vessels that participated in the summer flounder fisheries in 2005 in each state (according to homeport state in the NE database) to obtain an estimate of the average projected gross revenue loss per party/charter vessel in 2007.
        MRFSS data indicate that anglers took 36.98 million fishing trips in 2006 in the Northeastern U.S., and that party/charter anglers accounted for 5.1 percent of the angler fishing trips. The number of party/charter trips in each state ranged from approximately 29,700 in NH to approximately 510,000 in DE. The number of trips that targeted summer flounder was identified, as appropriate, for each measure, and the number of trips that would be impacted by the proposed measures was estimated. Finally, the revenue impacts were estimated by calculating the average fee paid by anglers on party/charter vessels in the NE in 2006 ($41.07 per angler), and the revenue impacts on individual vessels were estimated. The analysis assumed that angler effort and catch rates in 2007 will be similar to 2006.
        The Council noted that this method is likely to result in overestimation of the potential revenue losses that would result from implementation of the proposed coastwide measures in these three fisheries for several reasons. First, the analysis likely overestimates the potential revenue impacts of these measures because some anglers would continue to take party/charter vessel trips, even if the restrictions limit their landings. Also, some anglers may engage in catch and release fishing and/or target other species. It was not possible to estimate the sensitivity of anglers to specific management measures. Second, the universe of party/charter vessels that participate in the fisheries is likely to be even larger than presented in these analyses, as party/charter vessels that do not possess a Federal summer flounder, scup, or black sea bass permit because they fish only in state waters are not represented in the analyses. Considering the large proportion of landings from state waters (e.g., more than 81 percent of summer flounder landings in 2005), it is probable that some party/charter vessels fish only in state waters and, thus, do not hold Federal permits for these fisheries. Third, vessels that hold only state permits likely will be fishing under different, potentially less restrictive, recreational measures for summer flounder in state waters, if such program is implemented in the final rule.
        Impacts of Summer Flounder Alternatives
        The proposed action for the summer flounder recreational fishery would limit coastwide catch to approximately 6.84 million lb (3,105 mt) by imposing coastwide Federal measures throughout the EEZ. As described earlier, upon confirmation that the proposed state measures would achieve conservation equivalency, NMFS may waive the permit condition found at § 648.4(b), which requires federally permitted vessels to comply with the more restrictive management measures when state and Federal measures differ. Federally permitted charter/party permit holders and recreational vessels fishing for summer flounder in the EEZ then would be subject to the recreational fishing measures implemented by the state in which they land summer flounder, rather than the coastwide measures.

        The impact of the proposed summer flounder conservation equivalency alternative (in Summer Flounder Alternative 1) among states is likely to be similar to the level of landings reductions that are required of each state. As indicated above, each state except MD would be required to reduce summer flounder landings in 2007, relative to state 2006 landings, by the percentages shown in Table 1 of the preamble of this proposed rule. If the preferred conservation equivalency alternative is effective at achieving the recreational harvest limit, then it is likely to be the only alternative that minimizes adverse economic impacts, to the extent practicable, yet achieves the biological objectives of the FMP. Because states have a choice, it is expected that the states would adopt conservation equivalent measures that result in fewer adverse economic impacts than the much more restrictive precautionary default measures (i.e., only one fish measuring at least 18.5 inches (46.99 cm)). Under the precautionary default measures, impacted trips are defined as trips taken in 2006 that landed at least one summer flounder smaller than 18.5 inches (46.99 cm) or landed more than one summer flounder. The analysis concluded that implementation of precautionary default measures could affect 4.06 percent of the party/charter vessel trips in the NE, including those trips were no summer flounder were caught.
        The impacts of the proposed summer flounder coastwide alternative (Summer Flounder Alternative 2), i.e., a 19-inch (48.26-cm) minimum fish size, a one-fish possession limit, and no closed season, were evaluated using the quantitative method described above. Impacted trips were defined as individual angler trips taken aboard party/charter vessels in 2006 that landed at least one summer flounder smaller than 19 inches (48.26 cm), or that landed more than one summer flounder. The analysis concluded that the measures would affect 4.13 percent of the party/charter vessel trips in the NE, including those trips where no summer flounder were caught.
        Combined Impacts of Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Alternatives
        Since the management measures under Summer Flounder Alternative 1 (i.e., conservation equivalency) have yet to be adopted, the effort effects of this alternative could not be analyzed in conjunction with the alternatives proposed for scup and black sea bass. The percent of total party/charter boat trips in the NE that are estimated to be affected by the proposed actions ranges from a low of 6.24 percent for the combination of measures proposed under the summer flounder precautionary default, scup alternative 1, and black sea bass alternative 2, to 7.30 percent for the measures proposed under summer flounder alternative 2 combined with scup alternative 2 and black sea bass alternative 3.
        Regionally, party/charter revenue losses in 2007 from $4.392 million to $3.753 million in sales, $1.370 million to $1.588 million in income, and between 37 and 43 jobs if a 25-percent reduction in the number of affected trips occurs. The estimated losses are approximately twice as high if a 50-percent reduction in affected trips is assumed to occur.
        Potential revenue losses in 2007 could differ for party/charter vessels that land more than one of the regulated species. The cumulative maximum gross revenue loss per vessel varies by the combination of permits held and by state. All 18 potential combinations of management alternatives for summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass are predicted to affect party/charter vessel revenues to some extent in all of the Northeastern coastal states. Although potential losses were estimated for party/charter vessels operating out of Maine and New Hampshire, these results are suppressed for confidentiality purposes. Average party/charter losses for federally permitted vessels operating in the remaining states are estimated to vary across the 18 combinations of alternatives. For example, in New York, average losses are predicted to range from $4,834 per vessel under the combined effects of summer flounder precautionary default measures (considered under alternative 1), scup alternative 1, and black sea bass alternative 2 management measures, to $6,122 per vessel under the combined effects of summer flounder alternative 2, scup alternative 2, and black sea bass alternative 3 management measures, assuming a 25-percent reduction in effort, as described above.
        There are no new reporting or recordkeeping requirements contained in any of the alternatives considered for this action.

          Dated: March 9, 2007.
          William T. Hogarth,
          Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES

        1. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as follows:

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

        2. In § 648.103, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:

          § 648.103
          Minimum fish sizes.

          (b) Unless otherwise specified pursuant to § 648.107, the minimum size for summer flounder is 19 inches (48.26 cm) TL for all vessels that do not qualify for a moratorium permit, and charter boats holding a moratorium permit if fishing with more than three crew members, or party boats holding a moratorium permit if fishing with passengers for hire or carrying more than five crew members.

        3. In § 648.105, the first sentence of paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:

          § 648.105
          Possession restrictions.

          (a) Unless otherwise specified pursuant to § 648.107, no person shall possess more than one summer flounder in, or harvested from, the EEZ, unless that person is the owner or operator of a fishing vessel issued a summer flounder moratorium permit, or is issued a summer flounder dealer permit. * * *

        4. In § 648.107, paragraph introductory text (a) and paragraph (b) are revised to read as follows:

          § 648.107
          Conservation equivalent measures for the summer flounder fishery.
          (a) The Regional Administrator has determined that the recreational fishing measures proposed to be implemented by Massachusetts through North Carolina for 2007 are the conservation equivalent of the season, minimum fish size, and possession limit prescribed in §§ 648.102, 648.103, and 648.105(a), respectively. This determination is based on a recommendation from the Summer Flounder Board of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission.

          (b) Federally permitted vessels subject to the recreational fishing measures of this part, and other recreational fishing vessels subject to the recreational fishing measures of this part and registered in states whose fishery management measures are not determined by the Regional Administrator to be the conservation equivalent of the season, minimum size, and possession limit prescribed in §§ 648.102, 648.103(b) and 648.105(a), respectively, due to the lack of, or the reversal of, a conservation equivalent recommendation from the Summer Flounder Board of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, shall be subject to the following precautionary default measures: Season - January 1 through December 31; minimum size - 18.5 inches (46.99 cm); and possession limit - one fish.

      [FR Doc. E7-4780 Filed 3-14-07; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 224
        [040506143-4143-01; I.D. 052504C]
        RIN 0648-AS36
        Endangered Fish and Wildlife; Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) for Right Whale Ship Strike Reduction

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

          ACTION:
          Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR); request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS is considering regulations to implement a strategy to reduce mortalities to North Atlantic right whales as a result of vessel collisions.  The strategy addresses the lack of recovery of the endangered North Atlantic right whale by reducing the likelihood and threat of ship strike mortalities to the species.  NMFS is soliciting comments on the strategy through this advance notice of proposed rulemaking.

          DATES:
          Written and electronic comments must be received (see ADDRESSES) no later than 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on August 2, 2004.

          ADDRESSES:

          Comments should be sent to: Chief, Marine Mammal Conservation Division, Attn: Right Whale Ship Strike Strategy, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD  20910.  Comments may be sent via fax to (301)427-2522, Attn: Right Whale Ship Strike Strategy.  Comments may also be sent via email to shipstrike.comments@noaa.gov or to the Federal eRulemaking portal: http://www.regulations.gov (follow instructions for submitting comments).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Aleria Jensen, Fishery Biologist, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, at (301) 713-2322 x169; Pat Gerrior, Fishery Biologist, Northeast Regional Office, NMFS, at (508) 495-2264; or Barb Zoodsma, Fishery Biologist, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, at (904) 321-2806.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        NMFS has been working with state and other Federal agencies, concerned citizens and citizen groups, environmental organizations, and the shipping industry to address the ongoing threat of ship strikes to North Atlantic right whales as part of its responsibilities related to right whale recovery.  The North Atlantic right whale was severely depleted by commercial whaling and, despite protection from commercial harvest, has not recovered.  The current population is believed to number about 300 animals and is considered one of the most critically endangered large whales in the world.  Recent modeling exercises suggest that if current trends continue, the population could go extinct in less than 200 years (Caswell et. al., 1999).  These models indicate that the loss of even a single individual may contribute to the extinction of the species; likewise, according to the models, preventing the mortality of one adult female a year alters the projected outcome.
        Mortality due to entanglements in fishing gear and collisions with ships are the two significant human-caused threats to right whales (Knowlton and Kraus, 2001; Jensen and Silber, 2003).  Collisions with ships account for more confirmed right whale mortalities than any other human-related activity.  Ship strikes are responsible for over 50 percent of known human-related right whale mortalities and are believed to be one of the principal causes for the lack of recovery in this population.  Right whales are located in, or are adjacent to, several major shipping corridors on the eastern U.S. and southeastern Canadian coasts.
        NMFS has established a right whale ship strike reduction program.  Conservation activities in this program include the use of aerial surveys to notify mariners of right whale sighting locations; the operation of Mandatory Ship Reporting systems to provide information to mariners entering right whale habitat; interagency collaboration with the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), which issues periodic notices to mariners regarding ship strikes; the support of regional Recovery Plan Implementation Teams that provide recommendations to NFMS on recovery activities; the support of shipping industry liaisons; and consultations under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
        Strategy To Reduce Ship Strikes of Right Whales (Strategy)
        Despite these efforts, right whales continue to be killed as a result of collisions with vessels.  NMFS has recognized that this complex problem requires additional, more pro-active measures to reduce or eliminate the threat of ship strikes to right whales.  Therefore, NMFS contracted a report on recommended ship strike reduction management measures, and used this 2001 report as a baseline to develop a proposed Strategy to Reduce Ship Strikes of Right Whales (Strategy).   Measures contained within the Strategy attempt to reduce the overlap between ships and whales in order to reduce the likelihood of ship strikes to the extent practicable, while minimizing the adverse impact on ship operations.  The Strategy allows for regional implementation and accommodates differences in oceanography, commercial ship traffic patterns, navigational concerns, and right whale use.  Implementation of the Strategy requires research, proposed and final rulemaking and international actions to be taken.
        The draft Strategy consists of the following five elements: (1) The establishment of  new operational measures for the shipping industry, including consideration of routing and speed restrictions; (2) the negotiation of a Right Whale Conservation Agreement with the Government of Canada; (3) the development and implementation of education and outreach programs; (4) a review of the need for ESA section 7 consultations with all Federal agencies who operate or authorize the use of vessels in waters inhabited by right whales, or whose actions directly or indirectly affect vessel traffic; and (5) the continuation of ongoing research, conservation, and education/outreach activities. Neither the draft Strategy nor any other conservation measures identified through public comment are intended to replace any conservation and management measures currently in place.  NMFS has developed a framework of proposed operational measures for the shipping industry as an element of this Strategy, based on the proposed suite of operational measures in the contracted 2001 report.
        Based on information summarized above regarding mortalities attributable to ship strikes and the population size of North Atlantic right whales, NMFS proposes to implement these measures through its broad rulemaking authority pursuant to the MMPA and ESA.  Under MMPA section 112(a) (16 U.S.C. 1382(a)), NMFS has authority, in consultation with other Federal agencies to the extent other agencies may be affected, to “prescribe such regulations as are necessary and appropriate to carry out the purposes of [the MMPA].”  In addition, NMFS proposes to implement these measures as appropriate to promote conservation, implement recovery measures, and enhance enforcement under the ESA.  However, NMFS has not made any final decision on these measures or alternatives and is seeking comments through this ANPR on these proposed measures as well as any alternatives.
        Regional Implementation of the Proposed Strategy
        NMFS is proposing to implement the operational measures in the Strategy within each of three broad regions: (a) The southeastern Atlantic coast of the U.S., (b) the Mid-Atlantic region, and (c) the northeastern U.S.  The implementation of operational measures, and the specific times and areas (with boundaries) in which the measures would be in effect may vary within each region but all would contain specific elements to reduce the threat of ship strikes to right whales.  The operational measures proposed in the Strategy would generally apply to non-sovereign vessels 65 ft (19.8 m) and greater based on information regarding confirmed ship strikes and known vessel size.

          Southeastern United States (SEUS): The proposed measures in the SEUS focus on the area where and time when the vast majority of right whales have occurred.  This area correlates to where survey effort has been concentrated, in recent years.

          Area: The area influenced by the proposed rulemaking is bounded to the north by the latitudinal line 31° 27′N (coincides with the northernmost boundary of the mandatory ship reporting system) and to the south by latitudinal line 29° 45′N.  The eastern offshore boundary is formed by a longitudinal line at 81° 00′W. and the western boundary is formed by the shoreline. (See Figure 1).

          Time: December 1st through March 31st

          Proposed Regulatory Measures: First, if warranted and so indicated by the analysis in the Port Access Route Study called for under Non-regulatory Measures, designated routes would be established with the greatest possibility of reducing the risk of collisions between vessels and whales.
        Second, seasonal speed restrictions would be implemented in those lanes during the time period indicated above, unless it is determined that there are no whales present in the area (the criteria for determining ‘no whales present’ have yet to be developed).  Uniform speed restrictions will be determined through public comment and further analyses; however, proposed speed restrictions would likely be in the range of 10-14 knots. The proposed speed measure is expected to protect right whales by potentially allowing the animals time to avoid an oncoming ship.  Reduced speeds may also lessen the hydrodynamic forces that cause a whale to be pushed away but then driven back toward a moving ship or propeller. Depending on the circumstances, routing measures alone may not provide sufficient risk reduction; therefore, a proposed speed measure would provide an additional degree of risk reduction.
        Third, NMFS would develop an understanding with operators of vessels (e.g., large recreational vessels, tugs and barges, etc.) which primarily transit along the coast locally and between ports.  The understanding would be that vessels use the designated traffic lanes or avoid transiting the area to the maximum extent practicable and, for those that do not use the lanes or avoid the area, impose a uniform speed restriction.

          Non-regulatory measures: First, NMFS would work in partnership with the United States Coast Guard (USCG) to conduct a Port Access Route Study (PARS) for the Ports of Jacksonville, Fernandina, and Brunswick.  A PARS is a USCG process whereby a study is performed to determine safe access routes for vessels proceeding to and from U.S. ports, and it would ensure that a full hearing takes place for any routing measure considered and would allow for the integration of views relating to maritime safety, and right whale protection from all entities.  The intent of the PARS would be to reduce the confluence of right whales and ships in this area and allow measures to consider navigational safety while taking into account the necessity of protecting right whales.

          Mid-Atlantic Region of the United States (MAUS): The MAUS is a principal migratory corridor for right whales that travel between the calving/nursery areas in the SEUS, and feeding grounds in the northeast U.S. and Canada.  Two right whale calves were found dead in the mid-Atlantic region in 2001 and there is a high probability that these deaths were caused by ship strikes.  A dead mature female right whale was observed floating off Virginia (subsequently stranded on the coast of North Carolina in 2004) and, although final histopathology results are still pending, preliminary analysis indicated the whale likely died as a result of a vessel collision.
        Ship traffic entering ports in this area, or transiting through it, continually crosses the whales' north-south migratory corridor.  Satellite tagging data, opportunistic sighting data, and historical records of right whale takes, indicate that right whales often occur within 30 nautical miles (48 kilometers) of the coast and in waters less than 25 fathoms.  The following proposed measures reflect this information.

          Area and Time: The locations and time periods included for the mid-Atlantic measures are closely tied to sighting data as well as available information on vessel traffic in and out of the following ports (See Figure 2).  Times for the seasonal management areas are being proposed as “rolling” in order to best account for the whales' migratory presence around particular ports while minimizing unnecessary impact to industry.  The precise start and stop dates for this region will be further refined based on comments on this ANPR, and during a series of public meetings.  However, the area for proposed operational measures and rolling dates are based on the historical data regarding the occurrence of right whales in this region (possible distances from shore are in brackets) and may include the following:
        (a) South and east of Block Island Sound (approximate reference points: Montauk Point and the western end of Martha's Vineyard), (20-30nm): March-April; September-October.
        (b) Ports of New York/New Jersey (30nm): February-April; September-October.
        (c) Delaware Bay (Ports of Philadelphia and Baltimore)(20-30nm): February-April; October-December.
        (d) Entrance to the Chesapeake Bay (Ports of Hampton Roads and Baltimore)(30nm): February-April; November-December.
        (e) Ports of Morehead City and Beaufort, NC (20-25nm): December-April.
        (f) Port of Wilmington, NC (20nm): December-April.
        (g) Port of Georgetown, SC (20-30nm): October-April.
        (h) Port of Charleston (20-25nm): October-April.
        (i) Port of Savannah (25nm): November-April.

          Proposed Regulatory Measures: NMFS, in conjunction with appropriate agencies and through public comment and further analyses, would establish uniform speed restrictions within 20-30 miles in the approaches of the above-named ports and areas.  Based on information from confirmed ship strikes and known speeds of ships involved in the strikes, proposed speed restrictions may be in the range of 10-14 knots.

          Northeastern United States (NEUS): Right whales occupy and forage in four distinct areas in the NEUS: Cape Cod Bay; the area off Race Point at the northern end of Cape Cod (Race Point); the Great South Channel; and the northern Gulf of Maine.  Ship strike reduction measures are concentrated in these areas.

          Cape Cod Bay: Right whales frequent Cape Cod Bay in winter and spring to feed.  The following reflects the peak period(s) when right whales are present in this area.  The area encompasses the complete Bay and it includes all routes traveled by tug, tow and ship traffic (for descriptions of PARS and speed restriction considerations, see SEUS section above.)

          Area: The entire Cape Cod Bay including the Cape Cod Bay critical habitat and the area south of a straight line formed from the northeast corner of critical habitat, through the northwest corner of the critical habitat, and continuing to the shoreline (See Figure 3).

          Time: January 1st - April 30th

          Proposed Regulatory Measures: First, if warranted and indicated by a PARS, routing measures with the greatest possibility of reducing the risk of collisions between vessels and whales would be established in Cape Cod Bay.  Elements to be considered in this PARS are as follows: (1) all efforts would be made to reduce the confluence between right whales and ships in the Bay; (2) routing measures would be considered in right whale critical habitat, as well as the western side of the Bay and areas outside critical habitat from Cape Cod Canal, (3) designated lanes may be established to minimize the travel distance for those ships entering and leaving the Port of Provincetown from Cape Cod Canal or from the north, and (4) such designated lanes would need to be broad enough to allow ships to route around any whales found in the lanes.
        Second, NMFS, with appropriate agencies, would establish speed restrictions (determined through public comment and further analyses) within designated ship traffic lanes into Provincetown, Massachusetts (if indicated through a PARS) to reduce the risk of collisions between vessels and whales.  Such restrictions would be lifted in those rare years when it is determined that there are no whales present in the area (the criteria for determining ‘no whales present’ have yet to be developed).

          Non-regulatory Measures: First, NMFS would work in partnership with the USCG to conduct a PARS for Cape Cod Bay.
        Second, NMFS would also work with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to provide notices to mariners when they enter Cape Cod Bay from either the south (through Cape Cod Canal) or from the north, and to traffic southbound out of the canal when whales are sighted south of the NEUS area, e.g., off Block Island and Long Island. This would include notices to tug and barge traffic, which comprises the majority of traffic using the Cape Cod Canal.
        Duties of the Traffic Controllers would include alerting ships' masters of right whale locations as provided by NMFS when right whales are spotted in areas where Canal traffic may transit.  Such alerts to include right whale sightings in Cape Cod Bay and the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary should be given to all east bound Canal traffic.  Such alerts to include right whale sightings in Rhode Island and Block Island Sounds and off Long Island should be given to west bound Canal traffic.  West bound traffic reporting into the Traffic Controllers at the east approach channel (CC Buoy) should also be given alerts for right whale sightings in the southwest quadrant of Cape Cod Bay.  In addition, Traffic Controllers would provide alerts to all vessels of 65 ft (19.8 m) and greater, and provide reasonable protection for right whales and separation of vessel traffic from right whales within the Canal and within the east or west approach channels.

          Off Race Point: Food resources in Cape Cod Bay are significantly reduced in availability by the end of April, causing right whales to leave the area in search of resources elsewhere.  At this time, many of these animals travel to the Great South Channel, where they are found in large aggregations during spring and early summer.  To reach the Great South Channel, right whales commonly transit or reside in other nearby areas prior to aggregating in the Great South Channel.  These include Stellwagen Bank, areas to the east of Stellwagen Bank, and also the northern end of the Provincetown Slope (the area on the ocean side of Cape Cod which runs down to the Great South Channel).  The Boston shipping lanes concentrate ship traffic through this region.  Therefore, right whales are potentially vulnerable to ship strikes in this area.  As a result, limits on speed in this area would provide a means of reducing collision risk by allowing whales more time to react to oncoming ships.  The time and duration of these proposed measures, and their geographic extent, have been tightly defined to take into account the biological data and to minimize potential burden to industry.  The time period proposed reflects when whales have historically migrated from Cape Cod Bay through this area.

          Area: The area proposed has been developed based on right whale sighting data and vessel traffic patterns. This area is a box described (See Figure 3) by latitudes and longitudes (degrees and minutes format) as follows:
        42° 30′ N. 70° 30′ W.
        42° 30′ N. 69° 54′ W.
        42° 00′ N. 69° 54′ W.
        42° 00′ N. 70° 01.8′ W.
        follow Massachusetts Coast to
        42° 04.8′ N. 70° 10.2′ W.
        42° 12′ N. 70° 15′ W.
        42° 12′ N. 70° 30′ W.

          Time: April 1st - May 15th

          Proposed Regulatory Measures: The proposed rule would establish a uniform speed restriction in the described zone, or as an alternative, mariners may route around this area.

          Great South Channel: The Great South Channel is one of the most important habitats for right whales within the species' range.  Right whales aggregate there during spring and early summer to feed on dense patches of prey.  In some years more than one third of the remaining population of North Atlantic right whales can be found in this area at any one time, and it is likely that more than half the population feeds in or at least passes through this area during the course of the year.  Some individually identified right whales observed in the Great South Channel are seen rarely or not at all in other areas such as the Bay of Fundy, emphasizing the importance of this area to the population.  For much of the time in the Great South Channel, the  distribution and movements of the whales coincide with those of commercial ship traffic in the region, leading to a serious risk of collision.  The proposed measure seeks to reduce the confluence of ships and whales by minimizing the area and time in which whales would be exposed to ship traffic.

          Area: The area proposed reflects historical sighting data and recent survey data.  This area is delineated by latitudes and longitudes (degrees and minutes format) as follows (See Figure 3):
        41° 00′ N. 69° 03′ W.(southern corner)
        42° 08.4′ N. 67° 08.4′ W. (southern intersection with Hague Line)
        42° 30′ N. 67° 27′ W. (Northern intersection with Hague Line)
        42° 30′ N. 69° 00′ W.
        42° 00′ N. 69° 00′ W.
        42° 00′ N. 69° 43.8′ W. (return to first point)

          Time: April 1st - July 31st.  The time period for the proposed measure reflects the peak period when whales are present.

          Proposed Regulatory Measures: This area would be subject to several measures.  First, an Area to be Avoided (ATBA) would be proposed to the International Maritime Organization (IMO) for adoption adjacent to, and east of, the Boston traffic separation scheme (TSS).  This ATBA would be applicable to ships 300 gross tons and above.  This measure would require the U.S. to propose an ATBA to, and receive endorsement by, the IMO.  Second, all vessels under 300 gross tons and greater than or equal to 65 ft (19.8 m) (including fishing vessels) would be subject to uniform speed restrictions within the ATBA and the critical habitat which lies to the southwest of the TSS.
        Gulf of Maine

          Area: The Gulf of Maine is considered all waters under U.S. jurisdiction to the north of the other management areas for Cape Cod Bay, Off Race Point, and the Great South Channel.

          Time: Year-round

          Proposed Regulatory Measures: All areas in the Gulf of Maine would be subject to dynamic area management (until such time that ongoing broad scale aerial surveys in the Northeast provide additional right whale distributional data to inform seasonal management or other measures).  This would require that a mechanism be implemented whereby a precautionary area may be established around the whales, and ships would be directed either to divert around the whales or reduce their speed and proceed through a designated area with caution (keeping in mind navigation safety considerations).  If certain concentrations (yet to be completely specified) of right whales are sighted, then these precautionary area measures would be required for a limited period.
        All Areas

          Proposed Additional Regulatory Measures: All areas along the Atlantic seaboard within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone would be subject to dynamic area management if certain concentrations (yet to be completely specified) of right whales were sighted outside of the time for, or beyond the area of, the operation of the above-described regional measures.  As in the Gulf of Maine measure, this would require that a mechanism be developed whereby a precautionary area would be established for a limited period around a certain concentration of right whales, and ships would be directed either to divert around these right whales or reduce their speed and proceed through a designated area with caution (keeping in mind navigation safety considerations).
        Request for Comments
        NMFS is requesting comments on the proposed measures in the Strategy and information discussed in this ANPR.  In particular, NMFS is soliciting information from the public on the effectiveness of the proposed regulatory measures, or other options that need to be considered in a proposed Federal rulemaking.
        Public Involvement
        NMFS invites the public to submit data, new information, and comments identifying relevant environmental and socioeconomic issues pertinent to the Strategy and proposed regulatory measures contained therein.  In addition, NMFS expects to conduct public scoping meetings during or following the comment period on the ANPR, and will continue to work with other agencies, the shipping industry, researchers, environmental groups, and the public throughout this process.  The public, as well as Federal, state, and local agencies are encouraged to participate in the meetings.

        NMFS intends to convene these scoping meetings at several locations along the U.S. Atlantic coast in each of the three major regions proposed for operational measures: the northeastern U.S.; the mid-Atlantic U.S.; and the southeastern United States.  The dates and locations of these meetings will be announced in a future Federal Register Notice.
        References
        Caswell, H., M. Fujiwara, and S. Brault. 1999. Declining survival probability threatens the North Atlantic right whale. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 96:3308-3313.

        Hamilton, P.K., and C.A Mayo. 1990. Population characteristics of right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) observed in Cape Cod and Massachusetts bays, 1978-1986. Rep. int. Whal. Commn Special issue 12:203-208.
        Jensen, A.S., and G.K. Silber. 2003.  Large whale ship strike database.  U.S. Dep. Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/OPR-25, 37 p.
        Kenney, R.D., C.A. Mayo, and H.E. Winn. 2001. Migration and foraging strategies at varying spatial scales in western North Atlantic right whales: a review of hypotheses. J. Cetacean Res. Manage. (Special Issue) 2:251-260.

        Kenney, R.D, H.E. Winn, and M.C. MacAulay. 1995. Cetaceans in the Great South Channel,1979-1989: right whale (Eubalaena glacialis). Continental Shelf Research, Vol. 15(4-5):385-414.

        Knowlton, A.R., and S.D. Kraus. 2001. Mortality and serious injury of northern right whales(Eubalaena glacialis) in the western North Atlantic Ocean. Jour. Cetacean Res. and Manag. (Special Issue) 2:193-208.

        Russell, B.A. 2001. Recommended Measures to Reduce Ship Strikes of North Atlantic Right Whales.  Submitted to the National Marine Fisheries Service in partial fulfillment of NMFS contract 40EMF9000223.  31 pp. http://www.nero.noaa.gov/whaletrp/.
        Related Links

        For February 2004 press release on right whale ship strikes, see: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/press_release/advisory04.02.html.

        For information on the Mandatory Ship Reporting system, the Right Whale Sighting Advisory System, Northeast Right Whale Early Warning System, the Northeast Implementation Team, and an economic analysis of proposed ship strike management measures, see: http://www.nero.noaa.gov/whaletrp/.
        BILLING CODE 3510-22-S

          EP01JN04.000

          EP01JN04.001

          EP01JN04.002

          Dated: May 25, 2004.
          Rebecca Lent,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 04-12356 Filed 5-28-04; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-C


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        RIN 1018-AH55
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Reclassification From Endangered to Threatened Status for the Mariana Fruit Bat from Guam, and Proposed Threatened Status for the Mariana Fruit Bat from the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; reopening of comment period.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), provide notice of the reopening of the comment period on the proposed threatened status for the Mariana fruit bat (Pteropus mariannus mariannus) throughout its range, to allow peer reviewers and all interested parties to submit comments on the proposal. Comments already submitted on the March 26, 1998, proposed rule need not be resubmitted as they will be fully considered in the final determination.

          DATES:
          Comments from all interested parties must be received by June 28, 2004.

          ADDRESSES:
          Comments and materials concerning the proposal should be sent to the Assistant Field Supervisor, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 3-122, P.O. Box 50088, Honolulu, HI 96850. For further instructions on commenting, refer to the Public Comments Solicited section of this notice.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Gina Shultz, Assistant Field Supervisor, at the above address (telephone 808/792-9400; facsimile 808/792-9580).

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        On March 26, 1998, we published a proposed rule to reclassify the Mariana fruit bat from endangered to threatened on Guam and list the Mariana fruit bat as threatened in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) (63 FR 14641).

        This subspecies of the Mariana fruit bat is found throughout the Mariana Archipelago, which includes both the United States Territory of Guam and the CNMI. In the CNMI, the Mariana fruit bat occurs primarily on private and Commonwealth lands, including inhabited and uninhabited islands. On Guam, it is known to roost primarily on Federal lands and to forage widely throughout the island. Currently, fewer than 100 individual Mariana fruit bats remain on Guam and several thousand individuals are distributed among the islands of the CNMI. The Mariana fruit bat and its habitats have been impacted or are now threatened by one or more of the following: illegal hunting, predation by introduced predators such as brown treesnakes (Boiga irregularis), rats, and feral cats; habitat loss to agriculture and development; habitat degradation or destruction by feral ungulates; disturbance from human activities; natural disasters or random environmental events such as hurricanes; fire; vandalism; and inconsistent enforcement of territorial and Federal laws and international conventions to protect this species. The best available scientific and commercial information indicates that the Mariana fruit bats in the CNMI and Guam represent one population, but also recognizes that the survival of these bats on Guam continues to be threatened by a variety of factors. However, when viewed in the context of representing a portion of the entire Mariana fruit bat population in the Mariana Islands, rather than as a distinct population as previously thought, reclassification from endangered to threatened is appropriate and biologically justified. Therefore, proposing to list the entire population of Pteropus mariannus mariannus as threatened throughout its range, including bats in both the CNMI and Guam, retains an appropriate level of protection for this bat on Guam while increasing the overall protection to the Mariana fruit bat throughout the Mariana Islands.

        In our March 26, 1998, proposed rule and associated notifications, we requested that all interested parties submit comments, data, or other information that might contribute to the development of a final rule. A 60-day comment period closed on May 26, 1998. On May 29, 1998, we reopened the public comment period until July 10, 1998. A legal notice containing this information also was published in the Marianas Variety on June 8, 1998. We held public hearings on June 24, 1998, at the Pacific Garden Hotel on Saipan, and on June 25, 1998, at the Rota Resort on Rota. Pursuant to a settlement agreement approved by the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii on August 21, 2002, the Service must make a final decision on this proposal by December 31, 2004 (Center for Biological Diversity v. Norton, Civil No. 99-00603 (D. Haw.)).
        Public Comments Solicited

        We are reopening the comment period until the date specified in DATES section above. The reopening of the comment period gives additional time for all interested parties to consider the proposed rule's information and submit comments on the proposal. Comments from the public regarding the proposed rule are sought, especially concerning:
        (1) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning any threat (or lack thereof) to the Mariana fruit bat;
        (2) The location of any additional populations of the Mariana fruit bat;
        (3) Additional information on the range, distribution, and population size of this species; and
        (4) Current or planned activities in the areas inhabited by the Mariana fruit bat and the possible impacts of these activities on this species.

        You may hand deliver, send by mail, or transmit by facsimile written comments and information to the Assistant Field Supervisor (see
          ADDRESSES section above), facsimile 808/792-9580.
        Comments and materials received, as well as supporting documentation used in preparation of the March 26, 1998, proposal to reclassify the Mariana fruit bat from endangered to threatened on Guam and to list this species as threatened in the CNMI, will be available for inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at our Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office at the Honolulu address given above.
        Author
        The primary author of this notice is Holly Freifeld (see
          ADDRESSES section above).
        Authority

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

          Dated: May 19, 2004.
          Marshall Jones,
          Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

      [FR Doc. 04-12043 Filed 5-26-04; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
        Defense Acquisition Regulations System
        48 CFR Part 219
        [Docket DARS-2019-0034]
        RIN 0750-AK43
        Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Review of Defense Solicitations by Procurement Center Representatives (DFARS Case 2019-D008)

          AGENCY:
          Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          DoD is proposing to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to implement a section of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 that provides limits on the scope of review by the Small Business Administration's procurement center representatives for certain solicitations awarded by or for DoD.

          DATES:
          Comments on the proposed rule should be submitted in writing to the address shown below on or before October 8, 2019, to be considered in the formation of a final rule.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit comments identified by DFARS Case 2019-D008, using any of the following methods:
          ○ Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Search for “DFARS Case 2019-D008.” Select “Comment Now” and follow the instructions provided to submit a comment. Please include “DFARS Case 2019-D008” on any attached documents.
          ○ Email: osd.dfars@mail.mil. Include DFARS Case 2019-D008 in the subject line of the message.
          ○ Fax: 571-372-6094.
          ○ Mail: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Attn: Ms. Jennifer D. Johnson, OUSD(A-S)DPC/DARS, Room 3B941, 3060 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3060.

          Comments received generally will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. To confirm receipt of your comment(s), please check www.regulations.gov, approximately two to three days after submission to verify posting (except allow 30 days for posting of comments submitted by mail).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Ms. Jennifer D. Johnson, telephone 571-372-6100.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        I. Background

        This rule proposes to revise the DFARS to implement section 1811 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 (Pub. L. 114-328) and the Small Business Administration (SBA) proposed rule published in the Federal Register on December 4, 2018, at 83 FR 62516. Section 1811 provides limits on the scope of review by SBA's procurement center representatives for certain solicitations awarded by or for DoD.
        Specifically, section 1811 limits the scope of review by procurement center representatives, unless DoD requests a review, if the solicitation is awarded by or for DoD and—
        • Is conducted pursuant to section 22 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2762);
        • Is a humanitarian operation as defined in 10 U.S.C. 401(e);
        • Is a contingency operation as defined in 10 U.S.C. 101(a)(13);
        • Is to be awarded pursuant to an agreement with the government of a foreign country in which U.S. Armed Forces are deployed; or
        • Both the place of award and place of performance outside the United States and its territories.
        SBA's proposed rule states that, unless the contracting agency requests a review, procurement center representatives will not review such procurements. Additionally, section 1811 excludes these procurements from DoD's small business goals.
        II. Discussion and Analysis
        This rule proposes to amend DFARS part 219 to implement section 1811 of the NDAA for FY 2017 and SBA's proposed rule. Specifically, the rule proposes to add text at DFARS 219.402 to inform contracting officers that procurement center representatives will not review acquisitions conducted by or for DoD, unless the contracting activity requests a review, if the acquisition is—
        • For foreign military sales (see DFARS 225.7300);
        • In support of humanitarian and civic assistance;
        • In support of a contingency operation;
        • Awarded pursuant to a Status of Forces Agreement or other agreement with the government of a foreign country in which U.S. Armed Forces are deployed; or
        • Both awarded and performed outside the United States and its outlying areas.
        The proposed text includes a definition of “humanitarian and civic assistance” that applies only to the implementation of section 1811. Both section 1811 and SBA's proposed rule refer to “a humanitarian operation as defined in section 401(e) of title 10, United States Code.” Although the term “humanitarian operation” is used, the type of activities it covers are quite different from the “humanitarian or peacekeeping operation” defined in Federal Acquisition Regulation 2.101 and currently used in the DFARS. In 10 U.S.C. 401(e), the term “humanitarian and civic assistance” is used to refer to specific activities carried out in conjunction with authorized military operations in a foreign country. Examples of such assistance include construction of rudimentary surface transportation systems, well drilling, and construction of basic sanitation facilities. Therefore, this proposed rule includes a definition to avoid confusion among the contracting workforce.

        This rule also proposes to add a reference in DFARS subpart 219.5, Set-Asides for Small Business, to the exclusions in DFARS 219.402.

        III. Applicability to Contracts at or Below the Simplified Acquisition Threshold and for Commercial Items, Including Commercially Available Off-the-Shelf Items
        This rule does not propose to create any new provisions or clauses or impact any existing provisions or clauses.
        IV. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
        Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
        V. Executive Order 13771
        This rule is not expected to be subject to E.O. 13771, because this rule is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866.
        VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act

        DoD does not expect this proposed rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., because it is expected to impact primarily Government operations. However, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis has been performed and is summarized as follows:

        This rule proposes to revise the DFARS to implement section 1811 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 (Pub. L. 114-328) and the SBA proposed rule published in the Federal Register on December 4, 2018, at 83 FR 62516. Specifically, the rule informs contracting officers that procurement center representatives will not review acquisitions conducted by or for DoD, unless the contracting activity requests a review, if the acquisition is—
        • For foreign military sales (see DFARS 225.7300);
        • In support of humanitarian and civic assistance;
        • In support of a contingency operation;
        • Awarded pursuant to a Status of Forces Agreement or other agreement with the government of a foreign country in which U.S. Armed Forces are deployed; or
        • Both awarded and performed outside the United States and its outlying areas.
        Additionally, section 1811 of the NDAA for FY 2017 excludes these procurements from DoD's small business goals.
        The objective of this rule is to implement, in the DFARS, the limits on the scope of review by procurement center representatives. The legal basis for the rule is section 1811 of the NDAA for FY 2017.
        This rule may impact small entities that are interested in performing the types of DoD contracts listed in section 1811 of the NDAA for FY 2017. According to the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS), DoD awarded an average of 12,658 contracts and orders for performance outside the United States to approximately 1,292 unique small entities per year in FY 2016, 2017, and 2018. Approximately 4 percent of those small entities received awards for foreign military sales. About 8 percent received awards in support of a contingency operation. Approximately 81 percent received awards made pursuant to an agreement such as a Status of Forces Agreement.
        FPDS does not currently collect data on the type of humanitarian operation identified in section 1811, which is very different from the “humanitarian or peacekeeping” operation defined in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 2.101 and used in the DFARS. FPDS does collect data on humanitarian or peacekeeping operations, as defined in FAR 2.101, showing that about 1% of the small entities, performing contracts or orders outside the United States, received awards for humanitarian or peacekeeping operations. The data collected may provide some indication of the number of small entities that could perform contracts or orders for the type of humanitarian operation identified in section 1811.
        This rule does not impose any new reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.
        This rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules.
        There are no known alternatives which would accomplish the stated objectives of the applicable statute.
        DoD invites comments from small business concerns and other interested parties on the expected impact of this rule on small entities.
        DoD will also consider comments from small entities concerning the existing regulations in subparts affected by this rule in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C 610 (DFARS Case 2019-D008), in correspondence.
        VII. Paperwork Reduction Act
        The rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

          List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 219
          Government procurement.

          Jennifer Lee Hawes,
          Regulatory Control Officer, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.

        Therefore, 48 CFR part 219 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 219—SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAMS

        1. The authority citation for 48 CFR part 219 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
           41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 1.

        2. Add section 219.402 to subpart 219.4 to read as follows:

          219.402
           Small Business Administration procurement center representatives.
          (c)(i) Authority. This section implements section 1811 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Pub. L. 114-328).
          (ii) Definition. As used in this section, “humanitarian and civic assistance” (10 U.S.C. 401(e)) means any of the following activities carried out in conjunction with authorized military operations in a foreign country:
          (A) Medical, surgical, dental, and veterinary care provided in areas of a country that are rural or underserved by professionals in those fields, including education, training, and technical assistance related to the care provided.
          (B) Construction of rudimentary surface transportation systems.
          (C) Well drilling and construction of basic sanitation facilities.
          (D) Rudimentary construction and repair of public facilities.
          (iii) Exclusions. Unless the contracting activity requests a review, SBA procurement center representatives will not review acquisitions conducted by or for DoD if the acquisition is—
          (A) For foreign military sales (see 225.7300);
          (B) In support of humanitarian and civic assistance;
          (C) In support of a contingency operation;

          (D) Awarded pursuant to a Status of Forces Agreement or other agreement with the government of a foreign country in which U.S. Armed Forces are deployed; or
          (E) Both awarded and performed outside the United States and its outlying areas.

        3. Revise section 219.502-1 to read as follows:

          219.502-1
           Requirements for setting aside acquisitions.
          Do not set aside acquisitions—
          (a) For supplies that were developed and financed, in whole or in part, by Canadian sources under the U.S.-Canadian Defense Development Sharing Program; or
          (b) Excluded from procurement center representative review (see 219.402(c)(iii)).

      [FR Doc. 2019-16764 Filed 8-8-19; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 5001-06-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        RIN 1018-AH06
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Reopening of Public Comment Period and Notice of Availability of Draft Economic Analysis for Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat for the Kootenai River Population of White Sturgeon

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

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

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce the availability of the draft economic analysis for the proposed designation of critical habitat for the Kootenai River white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus). We also provide notice that the public comment period for the proposal is reopened to allow all interested parties to submit written comments on the proposal and draft economic analysis. Comments previously submitted during the original comment period need not be resubmitted as they will be incorporated into the public record and will be fully considered in the final determination on the proposal.

          DATES:

          The original comment period ended on February 20, 2001. The comment period is hereby reopened until May 29, 2001. We must receive comments from all interested parties by the closing date. Any comments that we receive after the closing date will not be considered in the final decision on this proposal.

          ADDRESSES:
          Copies of the economic analysis are available on the Internet at www.r1.fws.gov or by writing to or calling the Field Supervisor, Upper Columbia Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 11103 East Montgomery Drive, Spokane, Washington 99206; telephone 509-891-6839, facsimile 509-891-6748. Refer to the “Public Comments Solicited” section of this notice for instructions about submitting any written comments, information, and electronic mail (e-mail).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Bob Hallock, Upper Columbia Fish and Wildlife Office, at the above address; telephone 509-891-6839, facsimile 509-891-6748.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        The Kootenai River population of the white sturgeon is one of 18 landlocked populations of white sturgeon known to occur in western North America. This population is restricted to approximately 270 river kilometers (km) (168 river miles (mi)) of the Kootenai River, which originates in Kootenay National Park in British Columbia, Canada. The river flows south into Montana, northwest into Idaho, then north through the Kootenai Valley into British Columbia, where it flows through Kootenay Lake and joins the Columbia River at Castlegar, British Columbia. The Kootenai River population of white sturgeon extends from Kootenai Falls, Montana, located 50 river km (31 river mi) below Libby Dam, Montana, downstream through Kootenay Lake to Corra Lynn Dam at the outflow from Kootenay Lake, British Columbia, Canada. A natural barrier, Bonnington Falls, downstream of Kootenay Lake, has isolated the Kootenai River white sturgeon since the last glacial advance roughly 10,000 years ago (Apperson and Anders 1991). Kootenai River white sturgeon occur in Idaho, Montana, and British Columbia. Approximately 45 percent of the species' range, based on river kilometers, is located within British Columbia. Apperson and Anders (1991) found that at least 36 percent of the sturgeon tracked during 1998 overwintered in Kootenay Lake, British, Columbia. They further believe that sturgeon do not commonly occur upstream of Bonners Ferry, Idaho.

        The Kootenai River white sturgeon population is threatened by factors including hydropower operations, flood control operations, poor recruitment, loss of habitat, and possible contaminants (water quality impacts). For a more detailed discussion of the ecology of the Kootenai River population white sturgeon see the September 6, 1994, Federal Register notice (59 FR 45989) listing this population as endangered, and the September 30, 1999, Recovery Plan for the White Sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus): Kootenai River Population (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1999). The final rule and the recovery plan incorporate the best available biological information on Kootenai River white sturgeon.
        In the September 6, 1994, final rule listing the Kootenai River population of white sturgeon as endangered (59 FR 45989), we deferred designation of critical habitat as not then determinable. We believed there was insufficient biological information to accurately delineate that habitat essential to the species, and, in the absence of this delineation, the required analysis of impacts could not be completed accurately.
        On December 21, 2000, we published in the Federal Register a proposal to designate critical habitat for this species (65 FR 80698). We are proposing an 18 river kilometer (11.2 miles) reach of the Kootenai River bed (below ordinary high water lines) near Bonners Ferry, Idaho, as critical habitat.

        Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that the Secretary shall designate or revise critical habitat based upon the best available scientific and commercial data available and after taking into consideration the economic impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. We have prepared a draft economic analysis of the proposed critical habitat designation, and it is available at the Internet and mailing addresses listed above in the ADDRESSES section.
        Public Comments Solicited
        We have reopened the comment period at this time in order to accept the best and most current scientific and commercial data available regarding the proposed critical habitat and the draft economic analysis. We will accept comments during the reopened comment period. All previous comments and information submitted during the original comment period need not be resubmitted. If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments by any one of several methods:
        1. You may submit written comments and information by mail to the Field Supervisor, Upper Columbia Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 11103 East Montgomery Drive, Spokane, Washington 99206. You may also submit written comments and information to us by facsimile at 509-891-6748.
        2. You may send comments and information by electronic mail (e-mail) to: FW1SPOK-crithab-stur@r1.fws.gov.
        Please submit e-mail comments as an ASCII file format and avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Please also include “Attn: RIN 1018-AH06” and your name and return address in your e-mail message. If you do not receive a confirmation from the system that we have received your e-mail message, contact us directly by calling our Upper Columbia Fish and Wildlife Office at 509-891-6839.
        3. You may hand-deliver written comments and information to our Upper Columbia Fish and Wildlife Office, 11103 East Montgomery Drive, Spokane, Washington.
        Comments and materials received, as well as supporting documentation used in preparation of the proposed rule to designate critical habitat, will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above address.

        Our practice is to make all comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home address from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. If you wish for us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comments. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.
        References Cited

        A complete list of all references cited in this document is available upon request from the Upper Columbia Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).
        Author
        The primary author of this document is Bob Hallock (see ADDRESSES section).

          Authority:

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

          Dated: March 14, 2001.
          Rowan W. Gould,
          Acting Regional Director, Region 1, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

      [FR Doc. 01-10379 Filed 4-25-01; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-U