60362 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 20, 2017 / Proposed Rules

PART 395—HOURS OF SERVICE OF concerning this regulatory guidance. issue 12-month findings on the DRIVERS The FMCSA will consider comments petitions, which will address whether or received by the closing date of the not the petitioned action is warranted, Section 395.1 Scope of the rules in this comment period to determine whether in accordance with the Act. In addition, part any further clarification of these we announce a correction to Question 34: Does the agricultural regulatory provisions is necessary. In information contained in the 90-day commodity exception (§ 395.1(k)(1)) addition to comments concerning the petition finding for the leopard apply to drivers while driving unloaded proposed regulatory guidance above, (Panthera pardus), which clarifies the to a source where an agricultural including the issue of ‘‘sources’’ of range and entity we are evaluating in commodity will be loaded, and to an agricultural commodities, as outlined our status review of the species. unloaded return trip after delivering an above, the Agency is seeking agricultural commodity under the DATES: These findings were made on information on the following: December 20, 2017. exception? 1. Are there particular segments of the Guidance: Yes, provided that the trip industry that would take advantage of ADDRESSES: Summaries of the bases for does not involve transporting other this change more than others? the petition findings contained in this cargo and the sole purpose of the trip is 2. How does the flexibility provided document are available on http:// to complete the delivery or pick up of in this guidance impact a carrier’s need www.regulations.gov under the agricultural commodities, as defined in for an electronic logging device? appropriate docket number (see table § 395.2. In that case, driving and on- 3. How many carriers and drivers are under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION). duty time are not limited, nor do other there transporting agricultural Supporting information in preparing requirements of 49 CFR part 395 apply. commodities in various segments these findings is available for public Question 35: Does the agricultural (livestock, unprocessed food, others) inspection, by appointment, during commodity exception (§ 395.1(k)(1)) that are impacted by this guidance? normal business hours by contacting the apply if the destination for the appropriate person, as specified in FOR commodity is beyond the 150 air-mile Issued on: December 13, 2017. Cathy F. Gautreaux, FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. If you radius from the source? have new information concerning the Guidance: The exception applies to Deputy Administrator. status of, or threats to, the species for transportation during the initial 150 air- [FR Doc. 2017–27310 Filed 12–19–17; 8:45 am] which we made these petition findings, miles from the source of the commodity. BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P or their habitats, please submit that Once a driver operates beyond the 150 information by one of the following air-mile radius of the source, part 395 methods: applies. Starting at zero from that point, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR the driver must then begin recording his (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal or her duty time, and the limits under Fish and Wildlife Service eRulemaking Portal: http:// the 11-hour, 14-hour, and the 60-/70- www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, hour rules apply. Once the hours of 50 CFR Part 17 enter the appropriate docket number service rules begin to apply on a given (see table under SUPPLEMENTARY [4500030115] trip, they continue to apply for the INFORMATION). Then, click on the Search button. After finding the correct duration of that trip, until the driver Endangered and Threatened Wildlife document, you may submit information crosses back into the area within 150 and Plants; 90-Day Findings for Five by clicking on ‘‘Comment Now!’’ If your air-miles of the original source of the Species commodities and is returning to that information will fit in the provided source. If the driver is not returning to AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, comment box, please use this feature of the original source, the HOS rules Interior. http://www.regulations.gov, as it is most continue to apply, even if the driver ACTION: Notification of petition findings compatible with our information review reenters the 150-mile radius. and initiation of status reviews. procedures. If you attach your information as a separate document, our VI. Expiration Date for the Proposed SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and preferred file format is Microsoft Word. Regulatory Guidance Wildlife Service (Service), announce 90- If you attach multiple comments (such In accordance with section day findings on several petitions to list as form letters), our preferred format is 5203(a)(2)(A) and (a)(3) of the Fixing or reclassify wildlife or plants under the a spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel. America’s Surface Transportation Endangered Species Act of 1973, as (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail (FAST) Act, Public Law 114–94, 129 amended (Act). Based on our review, we or hand-delivery to: Public Comments Stat. 1312, 1535 (Dec. 4, 2015), the find that the petitions present Processing, Attn: [Insert appropriate proposed regulatory guidance will be substantial scientific or commercial docket number; see table under posted on FMCSA’s website, information indicating that the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION], U.S. Fish www.fmcsa.dot.gov, if finalized. It petitioned actions may be warranted and Wildlife Service, MS: BPHC, 5275 would be reviewed by the Agency no with respect to the species mentioned in Leesburg Pike; Falls Church, VA 22041– later than five years after it is finalized. this notification. Therefore, with the 3803. The Agency would consider at that time publication of this document, we announce that we plan to initiate a We request that you send information whether the guidance should be only by the methods described above. withdrawn, reissued for another period review of the status of each of these species to determine if the petitioned We will post all information we receive up to five years, or incorporated into the on http://www.regulations.gov. This safety regulations. actions are warranted. To ensure that these status reviews are comprehensive, generally means that we will post any VII. Request for Comments we are requesting scientific and personal information you provide us (see Request for Information for Status Refer to the ADDRESSES section above commercial data and other information for instructions on submitting regarding these species. After Reviews, below, for more information). comments to the public docket completing the status reviews, we will FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:03 Dec 19, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20DEP1.SGM 20DEP1 ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 20, 2017 / Proposed Rules 60363

Common name Contact person

Oblong rocksnail ...... Brian Evans, 404–679–7118; [email protected]. Sturgeon chub and sicklefin chub ...... Justin Shoemaker, 309–757–5800 x214; [email protected]. Tricolored bat ...... Krishna Gifford, 413–253–8619; [email protected]. Venus flytrap ...... Brian Evans, 404–679–7118; [email protected]. Leopard ...... Janine Van Norman, 703–358–2370; [email protected].

If you use a telecommunications reasonable person to believe that the evidence sufficient to suggest that these device for the deaf (TDD), please call the measure proposed in the petition may threats may be affecting the species to Federal Relay Service (FIRS) at 800– be warranted’’ (former 50 CFR the point that the species may meet the 877–8339. 424.14(b)). definition of an ‘‘endangered species’’ or SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A species may be determined to be an ‘‘threatened species’’ under the Act. endangered or threatened species Background If we find that a petition presents because of one or more of the five such information, our subsequent status Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the review will evaluate all identified and its implementing regulations in title Act. The five factors are: threats by considering the individual, 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (a) The present or threatened population, and species-level effects, (50 CFR part 424) set forth the destruction, modification, or and the expected response by the procedures for adding a species to, or curtailment of its habitat or range species. We will evaluate individual removing a species from, the Federal (Factor A); threats and their expected effects on the Lists of Endangered and Threatened (b) Overutilization for commercial, species, then analyze the cumulative Wildlife and Plants. Section 4(b)(3)(A) recreational, scientific, or educational effect of the threats on the species as a of the Act requires that we make a purposes (Factor B); whole. We also consider the cumulative finding on whether a petition to list, (c) Disease or predation (Factor C); effect of the threats in light of those delist, or reclassify a species presents (d) The inadequacy of existing actions and conditions that will have substantial scientific or commercial regulatory mechanisms (Factor D); or positive effects on the species—such as information indicating that the (e) Other natural or manmade factors any existing regulatory mechanisms or petitioned action may be warranted. To affecting its continued existence (Factor conservation efforts that may ameliorate the maximum extent practicable, we are E).These factors represent broad threats. It is only after conducting this to make this finding within 90 days of categories of natural or human-caused cumulative analysis of threats and the our receipt of the petition and publish actions or conditions that could have an actions that may ameliorate them, and the finding promptly in the Federal effect on a species’ continued existence the expected effect on the species now Register. (i.e., threats). In evaluating these actions Last year, the Service and the and conditions, we look for those that and in the foreseeable future, that we National Marine Fisheries Service of the may have a negative effect on can determine whether the species Department of Commerce revised the individuals of the species, as well as for meets the definition of an ‘‘endangered regulations that outline the procedures those that may ameliorate any negative species’’ or ‘‘threatened species.’’ for evaluating petitions (81 FR 66462; effects and those that may have positive If we find that a petition presents September 27, 2016). The new effects. In considering whether the substantial scientific or commercial regulations at 50 CFR 424.14 were petition presents substantial information, the Act requires us to effective October 27, 2016. We received information indicating the species may promptly commence a review of the the petitions referenced in this be threatened or endangered, we must status of the species, and we will document prior to that effective date. look beyond the exposure of the species subsequently complete a status review Therefore, we evaluated these petitions to a threat to evaluate whether the in accordance with our prioritization under the 50 CFR 424.14 requirements species may respond to the threat in a methodology for 12-month findings (81 that were in effect prior to October 27, way that causes actual impacts to the FR 49248; July 27, 2016). 2016, as those requirements applied species. The mere identification of Summaries of Petition Findings when the petitions were received. The threats that could affect a species regulations in effect prior to October 27, negatively may not be sufficient to The petition findings contained in 2016, establish that the standard for compel a finding that the information in this document are listed in the table substantial scientific or commercial the petition is substantial information below and the bases for the findings, information with regard to a 90-day indicating that the petitioned action along with supporting information, are petition finding is ‘‘that amount of may be warranted. The information available on http://www.regulations.gov information that would lead a presented in the petition must include under the appropriate docket number.

TABLE—SUBSTANTIAL FINDINGS AND CORRECTION ANNOUNCED

Common name Docket No. URL to docket on http://www.regulations.gov

Oblong rocksnail ...... FWS–R4–ES–2017–0042 http://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FWS-R-ES-2017-0042. Sturgeon chub and sicklefin chub ...... FWS–R6–ES–2017–0010 http://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FWS-R6-ES-2017-0010. Tricolored bat ...... FWS–R5–ES–2017–0011 http://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FWS-R5-ES-2017-0011. Venus flytrap ...... FWS–R4–ES–2017–0041 http://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FWS-R4-ES-2017-0041. Leopard ...... FWS–HQ–ES–2016–0131 http://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FWS-HQ-ES-2016-0131.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:03 Dec 19, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20DEP1.SGM 20DEP1 ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS 60364 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 20, 2017 / Proposed Rules

Evaluation of a Petition To List the the Yellowstone and Missouri Rivers, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Oblong Rocksnail as an Endangered or Middle and Lower Mississippi River). Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Threatened Species Under the Act Sicklefin chub (Macrhybopsis meeki): Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Arkansas, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Species and Range Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oblong rocksnail (Leptoxis Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North New York, North Carolina, Ohio, compacta): Cahaba River, Shelby Dakota, South Dakota, and Tennessee Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, County, Alabama. (Missouri River, Lower Yellowstone South Carolina, South Dakota, Petition History River, and Middle and Lower Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Mississippi River). On June 21, 2016, we received a West Virginia, and Wisconsin; Canada petition dated the same day from the Petition History (New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario, and Quebec); Mexico (Eastern and Center for Biological Diversity and On August 15, 2016, we received a Cahaba Riverkeeper requesting that the petition dated August 11, 2016, from southern regions: Coahuila to Chiapas); oblong rocksnail be listed as endangered WildEarth Guardians requesting that the Central America (Guatemala) or threatened and that critical habitat be sturgeon chub and sicklefin chub be Petition History designated for this species under the listed as endangered or threatened and Act. The petition clearly identified itself that critical habitat be designated for On June 14, 2016, we received a as such and included the requisite these species under the Act. The petition dated June 14, 2016, from the identification information for the petition clearly identified itself as such Center for Biological Diversity and petitioners, required at former 50 CFR and included the requisite identification Defenders of Wildlife requesting that the 424.14(a). This finding addresses the information for the petitioner, required tricolored bat be listed as endangered or petition. at former 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding threatened and that critical habitat be Finding addresses the petition. designated for this species under the Based on our review of the petition Finding Act. The petition clearly identified itself and sources cited in the petition, we as such and included the requisite find that the petition presents Based on our review of the petition identification information for the substantial scientific or commercial and sources cited in the petition, we petitioners, required at former 50 CFR find that the petition presents information indicating that the 424.14(a). This finding addresses the substantial scientific or commercial petitioned action may be warranted for petition. the oblong rocksnail, based on Factors A information indicating that the and E as set forth in section 4(a)(1) of petitioned action may be warranted for Finding the sturgeon chub and sicklefin chub, the Act (for information about these Based on our review of the petition factors, see Background, above). based on Factors A, C, D, and E as set and sources cited in the petition, we However, during our status review, we forth in section 4(a)(1) of the Act (for will thoroughly evaluate all potential information about these factors, see find that the petition presents threats to the species, including the Background, above). However, during substantial scientific or commercial extent to which any protections or other our status review, we will thoroughly information indicating that the conservation efforts have reduced those evaluate all potential threats to the petitioned action may be warranted for threats. Thus, for this species, the species, including the extent to which the tricolored bat, based on Factors A, Service requests any information any protections or other conservation C, and E as set forth in section 4(a)(1) relevant to whether the species falls efforts have reduced those threats. Thus, of the Act (for information about these within the definition of either for these species, the Service requests factors, see Background, above). ‘‘endangered species’’ under section 3(6) any information relevant to whether the However, during our status review, we of the Act or ‘‘threatened species’’ under species fall within the definition of will thoroughly evaluate all potential section 3(20) of the Act, including either ‘‘endangered species’’ under threats to the species, including the information on the five listing factors section 3(6) of the Act or ‘‘threatened extent to which any protections or other under section 4(a)(1) (see Request for species’’ under section 3(20) of the Act, conservation efforts have reduced those Information for Status Reviews, below). including information on the five listing threats. Thus, for this species, the factors under section 4(a)(1) (see The basis for our finding on this Service requests any information Request for Information for Status petition, and other information relevant to whether the species falls Reviews, below). regarding our review of the petition, can within the definition of either be found as an appendix at http:// The basis for our finding on this ‘‘endangered species’’ under section 3(6) www.regulations.gov under Docket No. petition, and other information of the Act or ‘‘threatened species’’ under FWS–R4–ES–2017–0042 under the regarding our review of the petition, can section 3(20) of the Act, including Supporting Documents section. be found as an appendix at http:// www.regulations.gov under Docket No. information on the five listing factors Evaluation of a Petition To List the FWS–R6–ES–2017–0010 under the under section 4(a)(1) (see Request for Sturgeon Chub and Sicklefin Chub as Supporting Documents section. Information for Status Reviews, below). Endangered or Threatened Species The basis for our finding on this Under the Act Evaluation of a Petition To List the Tricolored Bat as an Endangered or petition, and other information Species and Range Threatened Species Under the Act regarding our review of the petition, can Sturgeon chub (Macrhybopsis gelida): be found as an appendix at http:// Arkansas, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Species and Range www.regulations.gov under Docket No. Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tricolored bat (Perimyotis subflavus): FWS–R5–ES–2017–0011 under the Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Supporting Documents section. Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Connecticut, Delaware, District of Wyoming (Missouri River, tributaries to Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Illinois,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:03 Dec 19, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20DEP1.SGM 20DEP1 ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 20, 2017 / Proposed Rules 60365

Evaluation of a Petition To List the wildlife or plants under the Endangered complete and based on the best Venus Flytrap as an Endangered or Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act; available scientific and commercial Threatened Species Under the Act 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). That document information, we request information on included a finding on a petition to these species from governmental Species and Range reclassify leopard (Panthera pardus) as agencies, Native American Tribes, the Venus flytrap (Dionaea muscipula an endangered species throughout its scientific community, industry, and any Ellis): Southeastern North Carolina and range. However, in the discussion of our other interested parties. We seek northeastern South Carolina, and one finding and supporting documentation, information on: introduced population each in Florida we made two errors. Therefore, with (1) The species’ biology, range, and and New Jersey. this document, we correct those errors, population trends, including: Petition History clarify our intent to evaluate the status (a) Habitat requirements; of the species throughout its range. The (b) Genetics and taxonomy; On October 21, 2016, we received a public is welcome to submit (c) Historical and current range, petition dated the same day from information on the species in light of including distribution patterns; and Donald M. Waller, J.T. Curtis Professor these corrections (see ADDRESSES, (d) Historical and current population of Botany and Environmental Studies, above). If you sent information levels and current and projected trends. University of Wisconsin-Madison, and previously, you need not resend it. (2) The five factors described in 25 additional supporters requesting that The first error we made in the section 4(a)(1) of the Act (see the Venus flytrap be listed as November 30, 2016, 90-day finding is Background, above) that are the basis for endangered or threatened and that that we mistakenly titled the action making a listing, reclassification, or critical habitat be designated for this ‘‘Evaluation of a Petition To Reclassify delisting determination for a species species under the Act. The petition Leopards Currently Listed as under section 4(a) of the Act (16 U.S.C. clearly identified itself as such and Threatened Species to Endangered 1531 et seq.), including past and included the requisite identification Species Under the Act,’’ inadvertently ongoing conservation measures that information for the petitioners, required implying that we will evaluate the could decrease the extent to which one at former 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding status of the species only in the or more of the factors affect the species, addresses the petition. countries in which it is currently listed its habitat, or both. (3) The potential effects of climate Finding as threatened. However, the petition requests that we reclassify leopards as change on the species and its habitat, Based on our review of the petition endangered throughout the species’ and the extent to which it affects the and sources cited in the petition, we current range, and we evaluated the habitat or range of the species. find that the petition presents petition based on that request. Our If, after the status review, we substantial scientific or commercial finding on the petition—that the determine that listing is warranted, we information indicating that the petition contains substantial will propose critical habitat (see petitioned action may be warranted for information that listing the leopard as definition at section 3(5)(A) of the Act) the Venus flytrap, based on Factors A, endangered throughout its range may be for domestic (United States) species B, and D as set forth in section 4(a)(1) warranted—has not changed. Therefore, under section 4 of the Act, to the of the Act (see Background, above). we clarify that we will evaluate the maximum extent prudent and However, during our status review, we status of leopards throughout their determinable at the time we propose to will thoroughly evaluate all potential current range in our assessment of the list the species. Therefore, we also threats to the species, including the species’ status. request data and information (submitted extent to which any protections or other The second error we made in the as provided for in ADDRESSES, above) for conservation efforts have reduced those November 30, 2016, 90-day finding is the species listed in the table above on: threats. Thus, for this species, the that we mistakenly described the (1) What may constitute ‘‘physical or Service requests any information current range of the leopard as: biological features essential to the relevant to whether the species falls Democratic Republic of the Congo, conservation of the species,’’ within the within the definition of either Gabon, Kenya, and Uganda. However, geographical range occupied by the ‘‘endangered species’’ under section 3(6) the correct current range of the species species; of the Act or ‘‘threatened species’’ under is as follows: (2) Where these features are currently section 3(20) of the Act, including found; information on the five listing factors Species and Range (3) Whether or not any of these under section 4(a)(1) (see Request for Leopard (Panthera pardus): 62 features may require special Information for Status Reviews, below). countries in Africa and Asia. management considerations or The basis for our finding on this The corrected information regarding protection; petition, and other information our review of this petition can be found (4) Specific areas outside the regarding our review of the petition, can as an appendix at http:// geographical area occupied by the be found as an appendix at http:// www.regulations.gov under Docket No. species that are ‘‘essential for the www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS–HQ–ES–2016–0131 in the conservation of the species’’; and FWS–R4–ES–2017–0041 under the Supporting Documents section. (5) What, if any, critical habitat you Supporting Documents section. think we should propose for designation Request for Information for Status if the species is proposed for listing, and Correction to our Evaluation of a Reviews why such habitat falls within the Petition To Reclassify the Leopard as When we make a finding that a definition of ‘‘critical habitat’’ at section an Endangered Species Throughout Its petition presents substantial 3(5) of the Act. Range information indicating that listing, Please include sufficient information On November 30, 2016, we published reclassification, or delisting of a species with your submission (such as scientific a document in the Federal Register (81 may be warranted, we are required to journal articles or other publications) to FR 86315) announcing 90-day findings review the status of the species (a status allow us to verify any scientific or on three petitions to list or reclassify review). For the status review to be commercial information you include.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:03 Dec 19, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20DEP1.SGM 20DEP1 ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS 60366 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 20, 2017 / Proposed Rules

Submissions merely stating support determine whether these actions are complete the required fields, and enter for or opposition to the actions under warranted under the Act. At the or attach your comments. consideration without providing conclusion of each status review, we • Mail: Send written comments to supporting information, although noted, will issue a finding, in accordance with Michael D. Tosatto, Regional will not be considered in making a section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act, as to Administrator, NMFS Pacific Islands determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the whether or not the petitioned action is Region (PIR), 1845 Wasp Blvd., Bldg. Act directs that determinations as to warranted. 176, Honolulu, HI 96818. whether any species is an endangered or Instructions: NMFS may not consider threatened species must be made Authors comments sent by any other method, to ‘‘solely on the basis of the best scientific The primary authors of this document any other address or individual, or and commercial data available.’’ are staff members of the Ecological received after the end of the comment You may submit your information Services Program, U.S. Fish and period. All comments received are a concerning these status reviews by one Wildlife Service. part of the public record and will of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. If generally be posted for public viewing Authority you submit information via http:// on https://www.regulations.gov change. www.regulations.gov, your entire The authority for these actions is the All personal identifying information submission—including any personal Endangered Species Act of 1973, as (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential identifying information—will be posted amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). business information, or otherwise on the website. If you submit a Dated: October 23, 2017. sensitive information submitted hardcopy that includes personal James W. Kurth, voluntarily by the sender will be identifying information, you may publicly accessible. request at the top of your document that Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, exercising the authority of the NMFS prepared an environmental we withhold this personal identifying Director U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. analysis that describes the potential information from public review. [FR Doc. 2017–27389 Filed 12–19–17; 8:45 am] impacts on the human environment that However, we cannot guarantee that we would result from the proposed ACL BILLING CODE 4333–15–P will be able to do so. We will post all and AM. Copies of the environmental hardcopy submissions on http:// analyses and other supporting www.regulations.gov. documents are available at https:// It is important to note that the DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE www.regulations.gov. standard for a 90-day finding differs from the Act’s standard that applies to National Oceanic and Atmospheric FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: a status review to determine whether a Administration Sarah Ellgen, NMFS PIR Sustainable petitioned action is warranted. In Fisheries, 808–725–5173. making a 90-day finding, we consider 50 CFR Part 665 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Kona crab fishery in the U.S. Exclusive information in the petition and sources [Docket No. 170915903–7999–01] cited in the petition, as well as Economic Zone (generally 3–200 nm information which is readily available, RIN 0648–XF706 from shore) around Hawaii is managed and we evaluate merely whether that under Fishery Ecosystem Plan for the information constitutes ‘‘substantial Pacific Island Fisheries; 2017 Hawaii Hawaiian Archipelago (FEP). The information’’ indicating that the Kona Crab Annual Catch Limit and Western Pacific Fishery Management petitioned action ‘‘may be warranted.’’ Accountability Measure Council (Council) developed the FEP, and NMFS implemented the plan under In a 12-month finding, we must AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens complete a thorough status review of the Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and species and evaluate the ‘‘best scientific Fishery Conservation and Management Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). and commercial data available’’ to Department of Commerce. determine whether a petitioned action The FEP contains a process for the ‘‘is warranted.’’ Because the Act’s ACTION: Proposed specification; request Council and NMFS to specify ACLs and standards for 90-day and 12-month for comments. AMs; that process is codified at Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations, Section findings are different, a substantial 90- SUMMARY: NMFS proposes a 2017 day finding does not mean that the 12- 665.4 (50 CFR 665.4). The regulations annual catch limit (ACL) of 3,500 lb for require NMFS to specify, every fishing month finding will result in a Hawaii Kona Crab, and an ‘‘warranted’’ finding. year, an ACL for each stock and stock accountability measure (AM) to correct complex of management unit species Conclusion or mitigate any overages of catch limits. (MUS) in an FEP, as recommended by On the basis of our evaluation of the The proposed ACL and AM support the the Council and considering the best information presented in the petitions long-term sustainability of fishery available scientific, commercial, and under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we resources of the U.S. Pacific Islands. other information about the fishery. If a have determined that the petitions DATES: NMFS must receive comments fishery exceeds an ACL, the regulations referenced above for the oblong by January 4, 2018. require the Council to take action, rocksnail, sturgeon chub, sicklefin chub, ADDRESSES: You may submit comments which may include reducing the ACL tricolored bat, and Venus flytrap present on this document, identified by NOAA– for the subsequent fishing year by the substantial scientific or commercial NMFS–2017–0120, by either of the amount of the overage, or other information indicating that the following methods: appropriate action. requested actions may be warranted. • Electronic Submission: Submit all The Council recommended that Because we have found that these electronic public comments via the NMFS specify an ACL of 3,500 lb of petitions present substantial Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to Hawaii Kona crab for fishing year 2017, information indicating that the http://www.regulations.gov/#! which began on January 1 and ends on petitioned actions may be warranted, we docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2017- December 31. The Council based its are initiating status reviews to 0120, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, ACL recommendation on a

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:03 Dec 19, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20DEP1.SGM 20DEP1 ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS