Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Rulemaking To Revise Critical Habitat for Hawaiian Monk Seals, 37867-37868 [2012-15441]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 122 / Monday, June 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
participant in Safety Board
investigations. 49 U.S.C. 1132(c). The
role of the FAA representatives is to
support the Safety Board’s investigation
and determine if immediate regulatory
action is necessary to prevent another
accident. The NTSB directs FAA
representatives to refrain from using
their participation to develop
information for punitive actions or
issuing violations.
The parties involved in NTSB
investigations could be small entities,
and, depending on the scope and
circumstances of the investigation, the
NTSB could request these small entities
to be available for the on-scene portion
of an investigation, as well as follow-up
meetings and/or tasks. The NTSB does
not reimburse investigation participants
for the amount of time expended for an
NTSB investigation, nor does the NTSB
pay for any travel costs that arise out of
such participation. As a result, it is
remotely possible that a combination of
NTSB investigations could result in
costs that exceed $100 million.
Biennial Review
Although this interpretation of 49
CFR part 831 as containing ‘‘significant
regulatory actions’’ is based on a broad
reading of ‘‘significant,’’ and the NTSB
has not yet overseen any investigations
that singly or in combination exceed the
aforementioned threshold, the NTSB
nevertheless is committed to reviewing
its regulations within 49 CFR part 831,
in the interest of ensuring none are
‘‘outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or
excessively burdensome’’ under
Executive Orders 13563 and 13579. In
this regard, the NTSB herein proposes to
review 49 CFR part 831 within the next
6 months to determine if any sections
within part 831 could be modified,
streamlined, expanded, or repealed,
pursuant to the direction of Executive
Order 13579. The NTSB’s findings will
form the basis for the NTSB’s decision
concerning whether the NTSB should
make any changes to part 831. The
NTSB is committed to issuing a Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking within 6
months of the published findings,
should the findings counsel in favor of
changing any sections of part 831.
After the conclusion of any
rulemaking activity, the NTSB will
undertake a biennial review of part 831
to ensure no regulations are outmoded,
ineffective, insufficient, or excessively
burdensome. If the NTSB determines no
changes to part 831 are necessary, the
NTSB will begin computing time for its
biennial review following the date of its
publication of findings. The NTSB
believes review on a biennial basis is
appropriate for the subject matter
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:54 Jun 22, 2012
Jkt 226001
contained in part 831, as the NTSB’s
party process is familiar to regular party
participants, and party participants have
not articulated concerns with the
process that would warrant a change in
regulations.
Following each biennial review, the
NTSB will make its findings available
for public comment, providing an
opportunity for public input as to which
of the regulations that are ripe for
evaluation warrant a formal public
review. This input, in addition to the
NTSB’s recommendation, will inform
the NTSB’s decision as to which
regulations will be the subject of a
formal public review. This public
review could be initiated by a notice
seeking public comment on whether the
regulations continue to meet their
original objectives or by a proposal of
specific changes to the regulations.
As indicated by the number of recent
rulemaking activities, the NTSB is
committed to developing a strong
culture of retrospective analysis of its
existing regulations. The NTSB
currently is undertaking a review of
other regulations that would not be
considered ‘‘significant,’’ in which it is
examining regulations to ensure they
continue to be appropriate to meet the
goal of the regulations without imposing
an undue burden. In addition, the NTSB
will seek to expand its effort to conduct
regulatory reform and to make
suggestions to modify, improve, or
repeal regulations that may further the
purpose of Executive Orders 13563,
13579, and 13610. The NTSB also
encourages public comment on any of
its regulations in title 49, Code of
Federal Regulations, chapter VIII, in
addition to 49 CFR part 831, consistent
with the objectives of these Executive
Orders. The NTSB will also consider the
spirit of these Executive Orders when
evaluating possible new regulations.
With this change in the overall outlook
concerning its regulations, the NTSB
believes it will achieve the general
objectives of these Executive Orders
with regard to every part of its
regulations, notwithstanding the fact
that the vast majority of them are not
‘‘significant’’ under Executive Order
12866.
Dated: June 19, 2012.
Deborah A.P. Hersman,
Chairman.
[FR Doc. 2012–15327 Filed 6–22–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7533–01–P
Frm 00045
Fmt 4702
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 226
[Docket No. 110207102–2084–02]
RIN 0648–BA81
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Proposed Rulemaking To
Revise Critical Habitat for Hawaiian
Monk Seals
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of 6month extension of the deadline for a
final critical habitat determination.
AGENCY:
We, National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS), published a
proposed rule in the Federal Register on
June 2, 2011, proposing to revise critical
habitat for the Hawaiian monk seal
under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA) and requesting information
related to the proposed action. This
document announces a 6-month
extension of the deadline for a final
determination on the proposed rule.
Based on comments received during the
public comment period, we find that
substantial disagreement exists
regarding the sufficiency and accuracy
of the data and analyses used to support
the scope of the proposed critical
habitat designation in the Main
Hawaiian Islands. Accordingly, we are
extending the deadline for the final
revision to critical habitat for the
Hawaiian monk seal an additional 6
months to further analyze data and
consider concerns raised by State,
Federal, and other entities, and better
inform our determinations for the final
revision of Hawaiian monk seal critical
habitat under the ESA.
DATES: A final revision will be made no
later than December 2, 2012.
ADDRESSES: The proposed rule, maps,
and other materials relating to this
proposal can be found on the NFMS
Pacific Island Region’s Web site at
https://www.fpir.noaa.gov/PRD/
prd_critical_habitat.html.
SUMMARY:
Cultural Change
PO 00000
37867
Sfmt 4702
Jean
Higgins, NMFS, Pacific Islands Regional
Office, (808) 944–2157; Lance Smith,
NMFS, Pacific Islands Regional Office,
(808) 944–2258; or Dwayne Meadows,
NMFS, Office of Protected Resources
(301) 427–8403.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
E:\FR\FM\25JNP1.SGM
25JNP1
37868
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 122 / Monday, June 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Background
On June 2, 2011, we published a
proposed rule to revise critical habitat
for the Hawaiian monk seal (Monachus
schauinslandi) by extending the current
designation in the Northwestern
Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) out to the
500-meter (m) depth contour and
including Sand Island at Midway
Islands; and by designating six new
areas in the main Hawaiian Islands
(MHI), pursuant to section 4 of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) (76 FR
32044; June 2, 2011). We received
public comments in response to the
proposed rule from June 2, 2011 through
January 6, 2012. Comments were
received, through electronic
submissions, letters and oral testimonies
from public hearings held in
Kaunakakai, Molokai; Kihei, Maui;
Lihue, Kauai; Honolulu, Oahu; Hilo,
Hawaii; and in Kailua Kona, Hawaii.
Several commenters, including the
Hawaii Department of Land and Natural
Resources; the Western Pacific Regional
Fishery Management Council; the State
of Hawaii’s House Committee on Water,
Land, and Ocean Resources; and the
State of Hawaii’s Senate Committee on
Water, Land, and Housing, have
strongly criticized the scope of the
proposed critical habitat designation. In
particular comments focused on the
sufficiency of the analysis and the
accuracy of the description of the six
physical or biological features that are
identified as essential for the
conservation of the species, as well as
whether the areas proposed are
appropriate for designation.
Additionally, comments suggested that
our identification of essential features
and the science upon which they are
based, did not rely on the best available
science to support the delineation of the
proposed designation. We have
considered these comments, and we
find that substantial disagreement exists
over the identification of the essential
features that support the scope of the
proposed designation of critical habitat
in the Main Hawaiian Islands, and
whether these features are essential for
the conservation of the species.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:54 Jun 22, 2012
Jkt 226001
Extension of Critical Habitat Revision
Determination
The ESA, section 4(b)(6), requires that
we take one of three actions within 1
year of a proposed revision to critical
habitat: (1) Finalize the proposed
revision; (2) withdraw the proposed
revision; or (3) extend the final revision
to critical habitat by not more than 6
months. Section 4(b)(6)(B)(i) allows a 6month extension of the 1-year deadline
for a final revision if there is substantial
disagreement regarding the sufficiency
or accuracy of the available data
relevant to the revision for the purposes
of soliciting additional data.
We have received multiple comments
on the scope of the designation and the
sufficiency or accuracy of the available
data used to support this proposed
rulemaking. In particular, commenters
raised questions regarding the foraging
ecology of Hawaiian monk seals in the
main Hawaiian Islands and whether the
areas proposed for designation address
the foraging needs and preferences in
this habitat. The State of Hawaii’s
Department of Land and Natural
Resources submitted a comment
disagreeing with the identified physical
and biological features and describing
an alternative approach for considering
foraging areas for this designation. We
are presently working with the State to
obtain further information regarding the
data and analysis they used to support
their evaluation of foraging areas.
Additionally, the Western Pacific
Regional Fishery Management Council
submitted a comment disagreeing with
the delineation of areas used by monk
seals for foraging in the main Hawaiian
Islands. NMFS has released just over 20
GPS-equipped cellular transmitter tags
on seals in the main Hawaiian Islands
in the past two years; we believe that
further analysis of this data will provide
additional information bearing on this
dispute and may be sufficient to resolve
it.
As a result of these comments, NMFS
is extending the final revision to critical
habitat for 6 months pursuant to section
4(b)(6)(B)(i). An additional 6 months
will allow us to further evaluate the data
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
used by the State, as well as analyze
information received from GPSequipped cellular transmitter tags in the
main Hawaiian Islands. To ensure that
the final rule is based solely on the best
available scientific information, it is
essential to resolve the substantial
disagreement regarding the
identification and analysis of the
essential features which support the
scope of the designation; therefore, we
conclude that a 6-month extension of
the final revision to critical habitat for
the Hawaiian monk seal is warranted.
Although not a basis for the
extension, we will also use this period
to further evaluate all comments
received regarding the potential
economic impacts of the proposed
designation.
In consideration of the disagreement
surrounding the scope of this proposed
designation, we extend the timeline for
the final designation for an additional 6
months (until December 2, 2012) to
resolve the disagreement.
Classification
Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O.
12866)
This notice has been determined to be
not significant for purposes of E.O.
12866. A draft Economic Analysis
report and draft ESA section 4(b)(2)
report (NMFS, 2010b) were prepared to
support the exclusion process under
section 4(b)(2) of the ESA and our
consideration of alternatives to this
rulemaking as required under E.O.
12866. The draft Economic Analysis
report (ECONorthwest, 2010) and draft
ESA section 4(b)(2) report (NMFS,
2010b) are available on the Pacific
Islands Region Web site at https://
www.fpir.noaa.gov/PRD/
prd_critical_habitat.html.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.
Dated: June 19, 2012.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2012–15441 Filed 6–22–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
E:\FR\FM\25JNP1.SGM
25JNP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 122 (Monday, June 25, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37867-37868]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-15441]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 226
[Docket No. 110207102-2084-02]
RIN 0648-BA81
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed
Rulemaking To Revise Critical Habitat for Hawaiian Monk Seals
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of 6-month extension of the deadline for
a final critical habitat determination.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), published a
proposed rule in the Federal Register on June 2, 2011, proposing to
revise critical habitat for the Hawaiian monk seal under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) and requesting information related to the proposed
action. This document announces a 6-month extension of the deadline for
a final determination on the proposed rule. Based on comments received
during the public comment period, we find that substantial disagreement
exists regarding the sufficiency and accuracy of the data and analyses
used to support the scope of the proposed critical habitat designation
in the Main Hawaiian Islands. Accordingly, we are extending the
deadline for the final revision to critical habitat for the Hawaiian
monk seal an additional 6 months to further analyze data and consider
concerns raised by State, Federal, and other entities, and better
inform our determinations for the final revision of Hawaiian monk seal
critical habitat under the ESA.
DATES: A final revision will be made no later than December 2, 2012.
ADDRESSES: The proposed rule, maps, and other materials relating to
this proposal can be found on the NFMS Pacific Island Region's Web site
at https://www.fpir.noaa.gov/PRD/prd_critical_habitat.html.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jean Higgins, NMFS, Pacific Islands
Regional Office, (808) 944-2157; Lance Smith, NMFS, Pacific Islands
Regional Office, (808) 944-2258; or Dwayne Meadows, NMFS, Office of
Protected Resources (301) 427-8403.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[[Page 37868]]
Background
On June 2, 2011, we published a proposed rule to revise critical
habitat for the Hawaiian monk seal (Monachus schauinslandi) by
extending the current designation in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands
(NWHI) out to the 500-meter (m) depth contour and including Sand Island
at Midway Islands; and by designating six new areas in the main
Hawaiian Islands (MHI), pursuant to section 4 of the Endangered Species
Act (ESA) (76 FR 32044; June 2, 2011). We received public comments in
response to the proposed rule from June 2, 2011 through January 6,
2012. Comments were received, through electronic submissions, letters
and oral testimonies from public hearings held in Kaunakakai, Molokai;
Kihei, Maui; Lihue, Kauai; Honolulu, Oahu; Hilo, Hawaii; and in Kailua
Kona, Hawaii.
Several commenters, including the Hawaii Department of Land and
Natural Resources; the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management
Council; the State of Hawaii's House Committee on Water, Land, and
Ocean Resources; and the State of Hawaii's Senate Committee on Water,
Land, and Housing, have strongly criticized the scope of the proposed
critical habitat designation. In particular comments focused on the
sufficiency of the analysis and the accuracy of the description of the
six physical or biological features that are identified as essential
for the conservation of the species, as well as whether the areas
proposed are appropriate for designation. Additionally, comments
suggested that our identification of essential features and the science
upon which they are based, did not rely on the best available science
to support the delineation of the proposed designation. We have
considered these comments, and we find that substantial disagreement
exists over the identification of the essential features that support
the scope of the proposed designation of critical habitat in the Main
Hawaiian Islands, and whether these features are essential for the
conservation of the species.
Extension of Critical Habitat Revision Determination
The ESA, section 4(b)(6), requires that we take one of three
actions within 1 year of a proposed revision to critical habitat: (1)
Finalize the proposed revision; (2) withdraw the proposed revision; or
(3) extend the final revision to critical habitat by not more than 6
months. Section 4(b)(6)(B)(i) allows a 6-month extension of the 1-year
deadline for a final revision if there is substantial disagreement
regarding the sufficiency or accuracy of the available data relevant to
the revision for the purposes of soliciting additional data.
We have received multiple comments on the scope of the designation
and the sufficiency or accuracy of the available data used to support
this proposed rulemaking. In particular, commenters raised questions
regarding the foraging ecology of Hawaiian monk seals in the main
Hawaiian Islands and whether the areas proposed for designation address
the foraging needs and preferences in this habitat. The State of
Hawaii's Department of Land and Natural Resources submitted a comment
disagreeing with the identified physical and biological features and
describing an alternative approach for considering foraging areas for
this designation. We are presently working with the State to obtain
further information regarding the data and analysis they used to
support their evaluation of foraging areas. Additionally, the Western
Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council submitted a comment
disagreeing with the delineation of areas used by monk seals for
foraging in the main Hawaiian Islands. NMFS has released just over 20
GPS-equipped cellular transmitter tags on seals in the main Hawaiian
Islands in the past two years; we believe that further analysis of this
data will provide additional information bearing on this dispute and
may be sufficient to resolve it.
As a result of these comments, NMFS is extending the final revision
to critical habitat for 6 months pursuant to section 4(b)(6)(B)(i). An
additional 6 months will allow us to further evaluate the data used by
the State, as well as analyze information received from GPS-equipped
cellular transmitter tags in the main Hawaiian Islands. To ensure that
the final rule is based solely on the best available scientific
information, it is essential to resolve the substantial disagreement
regarding the identification and analysis of the essential features
which support the scope of the designation; therefore, we conclude that
a 6-month extension of the final revision to critical habitat for the
Hawaiian monk seal is warranted.
Although not a basis for the extension, we will also use this
period to further evaluate all comments received regarding the
potential economic impacts of the proposed designation.
In consideration of the disagreement surrounding the scope of this
proposed designation, we extend the timeline for the final designation
for an additional 6 months (until December 2, 2012) to resolve the
disagreement.
Classification
Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O. 12866)
This notice has been determined to be not significant for purposes
of E.O. 12866. A draft Economic Analysis report and draft ESA section
4(b)(2) report (NMFS, 2010b) were prepared to support the exclusion
process under section 4(b)(2) of the ESA and our consideration of
alternatives to this rulemaking as required under E.O. 12866. The draft
Economic Analysis report (ECONorthwest, 2010) and draft ESA section
4(b)(2) report (NMFS, 2010b) are available on the Pacific Islands
Region Web site at https://www.fpir.noaa.gov/PRD/prd_critical_habitat.html.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.
Dated: June 19, 2012.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-15441 Filed 6-22-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
