Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; Notice of 90-Day Finding on a Petition to Revise Critical Habitat for the Endangered Leatherback Sea Turtle Under the Endangered Species Act, 25660-25662 [2011-10956]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
25660
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
(v) Claims for Damage resulting from a
failure of the contractor to extend the crosswaiver of liability to its subcontractors and
related entities, pursuant to paragraph (c)(2)
of this clause;
(vi) Claims by the Government arising out
of or relating to the contractor’s failure to
perform its obligations under this contract.
(5) Nothing in this clause shall be
construed to create the basis for a claim or
suit where none would otherwise exist.
(6) This cross-waiver shall not be
applicable when 49 U.S.C. Subtitle IX,
Chapter. 701 is applicable.
(End of clause)
6. Section 1852.228–78 is revised to
read as follows:
1852.228–78 Cross-Waiver of Liability for
Science or Space Exploration Activities
Unrelated to the International Space
Station.
As prescribed in 1828.371(b) and (d),
insert the following clause:
CROSS-WAIVER OF LIABILITY FOR
SCIENCE OR SPACE EXPLORATION
ACTIVITIES UNRELATED TO THE
INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
[XX/XX]
(a) The purpose of this clause is to extend
a cross-waiver of liability to NASA contracts
for work done in support of Agreements
between Parties involving Science or Space
Exploration activities that are not related to
the International Space Station (ISS) but
involve a launch. This cross-waiver of
liability shall be broadly construed to achieve
the objective of furthering participation in
space exploration, use, and investment.
(b) As used in this clause, the term:
(1) ‘‘Agreement’’ refers to any NASA Space
Act agreement that contains the cross-waiver
of liability provision authorized in 14 CFR
1266.104.
(2) ‘‘Damage’’ means:
(i) Bodily injury to, or other impairment of
health of, or death of, any person;
(ii) Damage to, loss of, or loss of use of any
property;
(iii) Loss of revenue or profits; or
(iv) Other direct, indirect, or consequential
Damage;
(3) ‘‘Launch Vehicle’’ means an object, or
any part thereof, intended for launch,
launched from Earth, or returning to Earth
which carries Payloads or persons, or both.
(4) ‘‘Party’’ means a party to a NASA Space
Act agreement for Science or Space
Exploration activities unrelated to the ISS
that involve a launch and a party that is
neither the prime contractor under this
contract nor a subcontractor at any tier
hereof.
(5) ‘‘Payload’’ means all property to be
flown or used on or in a Launch Vehicle.
(6) ‘‘Protected Space Operations’’ means all
Launch or Transfer Vehicle activities and
Payload activities on Earth, in outer space, or
in transit between Earth and outer space in
implementation of an Agreement for Science
or Space Exploration activities unrelated to
the ISS that involve a launch. Protected
Space Operations begins at the signature of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:33 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
the Agreement and ends when all activities
done in implementation of the Agreement are
completed. It includes, but is not limited to:
(i) Research, design, development, test,
manufacture, assembly, integration,
operation, or use of Launch or Transfer
Vehicles, Payloads, or instruments, as well as
related support equipment and facilities and
services; and
(ii) All activities related to ground support,
test, training, simulation, or guidance and
control equipment, and related facilities or
services.
Protected Space Operations excludes
activities on Earth which are conducted on
return from space to develop further a
payload’s product or process other than for
the activities within the scope of an
Agreement.
(7) ‘‘Related entity’’ means:
(i) A contractor or subcontractor of a Party
at any tier;
(ii) A user or customer of a Party at any
tier; or
(iii) A contractor or subcontractor of a user
or customer of a Party at any tier.
The terms ‘‘contractors’’ and
‘‘subcontractors’’ include suppliers of any
kind.
(8) ‘‘Transfer Vehicle’’ means any vehicle
that operates in space and transfers Payloads
or persons or both between two different
space objects, between two different
locations on the same space object, or
between a space object and the surface of a
celestial body. A Transfer Vehicle also
includes a vehicle that departs from and
returns to the same location on a space
object.
(c) Cross-waiver of liability:
(1) The Contractor agrees to a waiver of
liability pursuant to which it waives all
claims against any of the entities or persons
listed in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (iv) of
this clause based on Damage arising out of
Protected Space Operations. This crosswaiver shall apply only if the person, entity,
or property causing the Damage is involved
in Protected Space Operations and the
person, entity, or property damaged is
damaged by virtue of its involvement in
Protected Space Operations. The waiver shall
apply to any claims for Damage, whatever the
legal basis for such claims, against:
(i) A Party;
(ii) A Party to another NASA Agreement or
contract that includes flight on the same
Launch Vehicle;
(iii) A Related Entity of any entity
identified in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) or (ii) of this
clause; or
(iv) The employees of any of the entities
identified in (c)(1)(i) through (iii) of this
clause.
(2) The Contractor agrees to extend the
cross-waiver of liability as set forth in
paragraph (c)(1) of this clause to its own
subcontractors at all tiers by requiring them,
by contract or otherwise, to:
(i) Waive all claims against the entities or
persons identified in paragraphs (c)(1)(i)
through (iv) of this clause; and
(ii) Require that their Related Entities
waive all claims against the entities or
persons identified in paragraphs (c)(1)(i)
through (iv) of this clause.
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(3) For avoidance of doubt, this crosswaiver of liability includes a cross-waiver of
claims arising from the Convention on
International Liability for Damage Caused by
Space Objects, entered into force on 1
September 1972, in which the person, entity,
or property causing the Damage is involved
in Protected Space Operations and the
person, entity, or property damaged is
damaged by virtue of its involvement in
Protected Space Operations.
(4) Notwithstanding the other provisions of
this clause, this cross-waiver of liability shall
not be applicable to:
(i) Claims between the Government and its
own contractors or between its own
contractors and subcontractors;
(ii) Claims made by a natural person, his/
her estate, survivors, or subrogees (except
when a subrogee is a Party to an Agreement
or is otherwise bound by the terms of this
cross-waiver) for bodily injury to, or other
impairment of health, or death of such
person;
(iii) Claims for Damage caused by willful
misconduct;
(iv) Intellectual property claims;
(v) Claims for damages resulting from a
failure of the contractor to extend the crosswaiver of liability to its subcontractors and
related entities, pursuant to paragraph (c)(2)
of this clause; or
(vi) Claims by the Government arising out
of or relating to a contractor’s failure to
perform its obligations under this contract.
(5) Nothing in this clause shall be
construed to create the basis for a claim or
suit where none would otherwise exist.
(6) This cross-waiver shall not be
applicable when 49 U.S.C. Subtitle IX,
Chapter 701 is applicable.
(End of clause)
[FR Doc. 2011–10903 Filed 5–4–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 226
[Docket No. 110407235–1242–01]
RIN 0648–XA349
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife;
Notice of 90-Day Finding on a Petition
to Revise Critical Habitat for the
Endangered Leatherback Sea Turtle
Under the Endangered Species Act
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition
finding.
AGENCY:
We, NMFS, announce a 90day finding on a petition to revise
critical habitat for the endangered
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\05MYP1.SGM
05MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
leatherback sea turtle under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA). We find
that the petition presents substantial
scientific information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted for
leatherback sea turtles and their habitat
under our jurisdiction.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dennis Klemm, NMFS, Southeast
Regional Office, Protected Resources
Division, dennis.klemm@noaa.gov,
(727) 824–5312; or Lisa Manning,
NMFS, Office of Protected Resources,
marta.nammack@noaa.gov, (301) 713–
1401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On November 3, 2010, we received a
petition, dated November 2, 2010, from
the Sierra Club asking NMFS and the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) to revise, pursuant to the ESA,
critical habitat for the endangered
leatherback sea turtle. The November 3,
2010, petition is the second petition
submitted by the Sierra Club; the first
petition submitted by the Sierra Club,
dated February 22, 2010, was found not
to present substantial scientific
information indicating the petitioned
revision may be warranted (75 FR
41436, July 16, 2010).
Under the ESA, NMFS, and USFWS
each have respective areas of
jurisdiction over sea turtles, as clarified
by the 1977 ‘‘Memorandum of
Understanding Defining the Roles of the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the
National Marine Fisheries Service in
Joint Administration of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 as to Marine
Turtles.’’ NMFS has jurisdiction over sea
turtles and their associated habitats in
the marine environment, while USFWS
has jurisdiction when sea turtles are on
land. Thus, if Federal agencies are
involved in activities that may affect sea
turtles involved in nesting behavior, or
their nests or their nesting habitats,
those Federal agencies are required to
consult with the USFWS under section
7 of the ESA to ensure that their
activities are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of the sea turtles. If
a Federal action may affect sea turtles
while they are in the marine
environment, feeding and migrating for
example, the Federal agency involved
must engage in section 7 consultation
with NMFS, to ensure that the action is
not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of the sea turtles. Similarly, if
critical habitat has been designated, and
Federal actions may affect such habitat,
an ESA section 7 consultation would be
required to ensure that the Federal
action is not likely to destroy or
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:33 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
adversely modify the critical habitat. If
the habitat has been designated on land
the consultation would be with USFWS,
and if the habitat has been designated in
the marine environment, the
consultation would be with NMFS.
The petitioner requests that we
designate critical habitat for leatherback
turtles in the waters off the coastline of
the Northeast Ecological Corridor of
Puerto Rico,1 sufficient to protect
leatherback turtles using the Northeast
Ecological Corridor, and extending at
least to the hundred fathom contour, or
9 nautical miles offshore, whichever is
further, and including the existing
marine extensions of the Espiritu Santo,
Cabezas de San Juan, and Arreceifes de
la Cordillera Nature Reserves. This
portion of the petitioned critical habitat,
which falls under NMFS’ jurisdiction, is
described by the petitioner as having
three primary constituent elements: (1)
‘‘Migratory pathway conditions to allow
for safe and timely passage and access
to/from/within nesting sites at San
Miguel, Paulinas, and Convento Beaches
in the Northeast Ecological Corridor of
Puerto Rico;’’ (2) ‘‘Migratory pathway
conditions and open ocean conditions
to allow for safe and timely passage and
access to/from/within breeding sites
offshore of the nesting sites at San
Miguel, Paulinas, and Convento Beaches
in the Northeast Ecological Corridor of
Puerto Rico;’’ and (3) ‘‘Water quality to
support normal growth, reproduction,
development, viability, and health.’’ The
petitioner defined the minimum
requested boundaries of the critical
habitat by the following coordinates:
65.807° W, 18.425° N;
65.697° W, 18.601° N;
65.489° W, 18.581° N;
65.435° W, 18.400° N;
65.631° W, 18.276° N.
As argued in Sierra Club’s first
petition dated February 22, 2010, this
petition asserts, that the beaches of the
Northeast Ecological Corridor of Puerto
Rico, which fall under USFWS’
jurisdiction, are ‘‘centrally important to
the U.S. Caribbean leatherback
population, and should be designated as
critical habitat,’’ and that the near-shore
coastal waters off those beaches, which
fall under NMFS’ jurisdiction, ‘‘provide
room for turtles to mate and access the
beaches, and for hatchlings and adults
to leave the beaches.’’ The petition also
asserts that the coastal zone within the
Northeast Ecological Corridor is
1 The Northeast Ecological Corridor is an over
3,000 acre coastal area along Puerto Rico’s
northeastern shoreline that encompasses nearshore
marine habitats as well as forests, wetlands, and
one of the most important nesting beaches for
leatherback turtles within the United States.
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
25661
particularly vulnerable to pressure from
development and to the growing
impacts of climate change, and so
warrants protection as critical habitat.
Additional information and details were
provided in the Petition to Supplement
associated with the Sierra Club’s
February 22, 2010, petition, which was
incorporated by reference.
ESA Statutory Provisions and Policy
Considerations
Section 4(b)(3)(D) of the ESA of 1973,
as amended (16 U.S.C. 1533 et seq.),
requires, to the maximum extent
practicable, that within 90 days of
receiving a petition to revise a critical
habitat designation, the Secretary of
Commerce (Secretary) make a finding as
to whether the petition presents
substantial scientific information
indicating that the revision may be
warranted. The finding is to be
published promptly in the Federal
Register. The Secretary must then
determine how he intends to proceed
with the requested revision within 12
months after receiving the petition and
promptly publish notice of such
intention in the Federal Register. Joint
ESA-implementing regulations issued
by NMFS and the USFWS (50 CFR
424.14(b)) define ‘‘substantial
information’’ as the amount of
information that would lead a
reasonable person to believe that the
measure proposed in the petition may
be warranted. In making this finding on
a petition to revise critical habitat to
include additional areas, the Secretary
must consider whether the petition
contains information indicating that
areas petitioned to be added to critical
habitat contain physical and biological
features essential to, and that may
require special management to provide
for, the conservation of the species
involved (50 CFR 424.14(c)(2)(i)). Thus,
in reviewing a petition to revise critical
habitat we consider the information
presented on the following three aspects
of critical habitat as defined in the ESA:
The physical or biological features
identified, the explanation of how such
features may be essential to a species’
conservation, and how those features
may require special management
considerations.
Analysis of Petition
The petition asserts that the revision
of leatherback critical habitat to include
the waters off the Northeast Ecological
Corridor of Puerto Rico is necessary to
protect leatherback sea turtles. In
contrast to the February 22, 2010,
petition, the Sierra Club’s second
petition proposes three primary
constituent elements and specific
E:\FR\FM\05MYP1.SGM
05MYP1
25662
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
boundaries of the critical habitat, as
detailed above. The petition also
supports the proposed critical habitat
revision by reporting what is known
from existing accounts of leatherback
mating behavior: Mating seems to occur,
at least in part, in areas adjacent to
nesting beaches. The information from
satellite tagging studies of six
leatherback turtles indicates heavy use
by those turtles of the area described in
the petition. The petitioner also cited
the proposed Pacific leatherback critical
habitat (75 FR 319; January 5, 2010),
which has some similarities to the ‘‘open
space’’ feature petitioned for designation
off Puerto Rico. The petitioner states
that the second primary constituent
element cited in the proposed Pacific
leatherback critical habitat rule (i.e.,
migratory pathway conditions to allow
for safe and timely passage and access
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:33 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
to/from/within high use foraging areas)
is ‘‘for all intents and purposes, identical
to the area ‘sufficient to protect
leatherbacks using the Northeast
Ecological Corridor’ which the Sierra
Club identified.’’ The petition also states
that the marine environment in which
the proposed critical habitat would be
designated is subject to ‘‘substantial
development and degradation threats.’’
Thus, the additional information
presented in this petition supports the
required determination that the ‘‘areas
petitioned to be added to critical habitat
contain physical and biological features
essential to, and that may require
special management to provide for, the
conservation of the species involved.’’
50 CFR 424.14(c)(2)(i).
Petition Finding
After considering the petition, the
information cited by the petitioner, and
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
relevant information readily available in
our files, we conclude that, with respect
to areas under NMFS’ jurisdiction, the
petition presents substantial scientific
information indicating that the
petitioned revision of designated critical
habitat for leatherback sea turtles may
be warranted.
Authority
The authority for this action is the
ESA, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1533 et
seq.).
Dated: April 28, 2011.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2011–10956 Filed 5–4–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
E:\FR\FM\05MYP1.SGM
05MYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 87 (Thursday, May 5, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25660-25662]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-10956]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 226
[Docket No. 110407235-1242-01]
RIN 0648-XA349
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; Notice of 90-Day Finding on a
Petition to Revise Critical Habitat for the Endangered Leatherback Sea
Turtle Under the Endangered Species Act
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, NMFS, announce a 90-day finding on a petition to revise
critical habitat for the endangered
[[Page 25661]]
leatherback sea turtle under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). We find
that the petition presents substantial scientific information
indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for leatherback
sea turtles and their habitat under our jurisdiction.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis Klemm, NMFS, Southeast Regional
Office, Protected Resources Division, dennis.klemm@noaa.gov, (727) 824-
5312; or Lisa Manning, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources,
marta.nammack@noaa.gov, (301) 713-1401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On November 3, 2010, we received a petition, dated November 2,
2010, from the Sierra Club asking NMFS and the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) to revise, pursuant to the ESA, critical
habitat for the endangered leatherback sea turtle. The November 3,
2010, petition is the second petition submitted by the Sierra Club; the
first petition submitted by the Sierra Club, dated February 22, 2010,
was found not to present substantial scientific information indicating
the petitioned revision may be warranted (75 FR 41436, July 16, 2010).
Under the ESA, NMFS, and USFWS each have respective areas of
jurisdiction over sea turtles, as clarified by the 1977 ``Memorandum of
Understanding Defining the Roles of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
and the National Marine Fisheries Service in Joint Administration of
the Endangered Species Act of 1973 as to Marine Turtles.'' NMFS has
jurisdiction over sea turtles and their associated habitats in the
marine environment, while USFWS has jurisdiction when sea turtles are
on land. Thus, if Federal agencies are involved in activities that may
affect sea turtles involved in nesting behavior, or their nests or
their nesting habitats, those Federal agencies are required to consult
with the USFWS under section 7 of the ESA to ensure that their
activities are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the
sea turtles. If a Federal action may affect sea turtles while they are
in the marine environment, feeding and migrating for example, the
Federal agency involved must engage in section 7 consultation with
NMFS, to ensure that the action is not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of the sea turtles. Similarly, if critical habitat
has been designated, and Federal actions may affect such habitat, an
ESA section 7 consultation would be required to ensure that the Federal
action is not likely to destroy or adversely modify the critical
habitat. If the habitat has been designated on land the consultation
would be with USFWS, and if the habitat has been designated in the
marine environment, the consultation would be with NMFS.
The petitioner requests that we designate critical habitat for
leatherback turtles in the waters off the coastline of the Northeast
Ecological Corridor of Puerto Rico,\1\ sufficient to protect
leatherback turtles using the Northeast Ecological Corridor, and
extending at least to the hundred fathom contour, or 9 nautical miles
offshore, whichever is further, and including the existing marine
extensions of the Espiritu Santo, Cabezas de San Juan, and Arreceifes
de la Cordillera Nature Reserves. This portion of the petitioned
critical habitat, which falls under NMFS' jurisdiction, is described by
the petitioner as having three primary constituent elements: (1)
``Migratory pathway conditions to allow for safe and timely passage and
access to/from/within nesting sites at San Miguel, Paulinas, and
Convento Beaches in the Northeast Ecological Corridor of Puerto Rico;''
(2) ``Migratory pathway conditions and open ocean conditions to allow
for safe and timely passage and access to/from/within breeding sites
offshore of the nesting sites at San Miguel, Paulinas, and Convento
Beaches in the Northeast Ecological Corridor of Puerto Rico;'' and (3)
``Water quality to support normal growth, reproduction, development,
viability, and health.'' The petitioner defined the minimum requested
boundaries of the critical habitat by the following coordinates:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Northeast Ecological Corridor is an over 3,000 acre
coastal area along Puerto Rico's northeastern shoreline that
encompasses nearshore marine habitats as well as forests, wetlands,
and one of the most important nesting beaches for leatherback
turtles within the United States.
65.807[deg] W, 18.425[deg] N;
65.697[deg] W, 18.601[deg] N;
65.489[deg] W, 18.581[deg] N;
65.435[deg] W, 18.400[deg] N;
65.631[deg] W, 18.276[deg] N.
As argued in Sierra Club's first petition dated February 22, 2010,
this petition asserts, that the beaches of the Northeast Ecological
Corridor of Puerto Rico, which fall under USFWS' jurisdiction, are
``centrally important to the U.S. Caribbean leatherback population, and
should be designated as critical habitat,'' and that the near-shore
coastal waters off those beaches, which fall under NMFS' jurisdiction,
``provide room for turtles to mate and access the beaches, and for
hatchlings and adults to leave the beaches.'' The petition also asserts
that the coastal zone within the Northeast Ecological Corridor is
particularly vulnerable to pressure from development and to the growing
impacts of climate change, and so warrants protection as critical
habitat. Additional information and details were provided in the
Petition to Supplement associated with the Sierra Club's February 22,
2010, petition, which was incorporated by reference.
ESA Statutory Provisions and Policy Considerations
Section 4(b)(3)(D) of the ESA of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1533
et seq.), requires, to the maximum extent practicable, that within 90
days of receiving a petition to revise a critical habitat designation,
the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) make a finding as to whether the
petition presents substantial scientific information indicating that
the revision may be warranted. The finding is to be published promptly
in the Federal Register. The Secretary must then determine how he
intends to proceed with the requested revision within 12 months after
receiving the petition and promptly publish notice of such intention in
the Federal Register. Joint ESA-implementing regulations issued by NMFS
and the USFWS (50 CFR 424.14(b)) define ``substantial information'' as
the amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to
believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted. In
making this finding on a petition to revise critical habitat to include
additional areas, the Secretary must consider whether the petition
contains information indicating that areas petitioned to be added to
critical habitat contain physical and biological features essential to,
and that may require special management to provide for, the
conservation of the species involved (50 CFR 424.14(c)(2)(i)). Thus, in
reviewing a petition to revise critical habitat we consider the
information presented on the following three aspects of critical
habitat as defined in the ESA: The physical or biological features
identified, the explanation of how such features may be essential to a
species' conservation, and how those features may require special
management considerations.
Analysis of Petition
The petition asserts that the revision of leatherback critical
habitat to include the waters off the Northeast Ecological Corridor of
Puerto Rico is necessary to protect leatherback sea turtles. In
contrast to the February 22, 2010, petition, the Sierra Club's second
petition proposes three primary constituent elements and specific
[[Page 25662]]
boundaries of the critical habitat, as detailed above. The petition
also supports the proposed critical habitat revision by reporting what
is known from existing accounts of leatherback mating behavior: Mating
seems to occur, at least in part, in areas adjacent to nesting beaches.
The information from satellite tagging studies of six leatherback
turtles indicates heavy use by those turtles of the area described in
the petition. The petitioner also cited the proposed Pacific
leatherback critical habitat (75 FR 319; January 5, 2010), which has
some similarities to the ``open space'' feature petitioned for
designation off Puerto Rico. The petitioner states that the second
primary constituent element cited in the proposed Pacific leatherback
critical habitat rule (i.e., migratory pathway conditions to allow for
safe and timely passage and access to/from/within high use foraging
areas) is ``for all intents and purposes, identical to the area
`sufficient to protect leatherbacks using the Northeast Ecological
Corridor' which the Sierra Club identified.'' The petition also states
that the marine environment in which the proposed critical habitat
would be designated is subject to ``substantial development and
degradation threats.'' Thus, the additional information presented in
this petition supports the required determination that the ``areas
petitioned to be added to critical habitat contain physical and
biological features essential to, and that may require special
management to provide for, the conservation of the species involved.''
50 CFR 424.14(c)(2)(i).
Petition Finding
After considering the petition, the information cited by the
petitioner, and relevant information readily available in our files, we
conclude that, with respect to areas under NMFS' jurisdiction, the
petition presents substantial scientific information indicating that
the petitioned revision of designated critical habitat for leatherback
sea turtles may be warranted.
Authority
The authority for this action is the ESA, as amended (16 U.S.C.
1533 et seq.).
Dated: April 28, 2011.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-10956 Filed 5-4-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
