65676 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 245 / Thursday, December 20, 2001 / Proposed Rules

State City/town/county Source of flooding Location

#Depth in feet above

ground. *Elevation in feet

(NGVD)

Existing Modified

Maps available for inspection at Bay City Village Hall, W6371 Main Street, Bay City, Wisconsin.

Send comments to Mr. James Turvaville, Bay City Village President, P.O. Box 9, Bay City, Wisconsin 54723.

Wisconsin .............. Chippewa Falls

(City), Chippawa

County.

Duncan Creek .................. Upstream side of Bridge Street ................ *828 *827

Approximately 0.72 mile upstream of

Glen Loch Dam.

*899 *898

Maps available for inspection at the Chippewa Falls City Hall, 30 West Central Street, Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin.

Send comments to The Honorable Virginia O. Smith, Mayor of the City of Chippewa Falls, 30 West Central Street, Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin

54729.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No.

83.100, ‘‘Flood Insurance’’)

Dated: December 11, 2001.

Robert F. Shea,

Acting Administrator, Federal Insurance and

Mitigation Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–31371 Filed 12–19–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6718–04–P

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

48 CFR Part 235

[DFARS Case 2001–D002]

Defense Federal Acquisition

Regulation Supplement; Research and

Development Streamlined Contracting

Procedures; Correction

AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD).

ACTION: Correction.

SUMMARY: DoD is issuing a correction to

the preamble to the proposed rule

published at 66 FR 63348–63349,

December 6, 2001, pertaining to

streamlined research and development

contracting.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Angelena Moy, Defense Acquisition

Regulations Council, OUSD

(AT&L)DP(DAR), IMD 3C132, 3062

Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC

20301–3062. Telephone (703) 602–1302;

facsimile (703) 602–0350.

Correction

In the issue of Thursday, December 6,

2001, on page 63349, in the first

column, the second sentence of the

Background section is corrected to read

as follows: ‘‘The standard format is

available on the research and

development streamlined solicitation

(RDSS) website at http://

www.rdss.osd.mil.’’

Michele P. Peterson,

Executive Editor, Defense Acquisition

Regulations Council.

[FR Doc. 01–31354 Filed 12–19–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5000–04–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 223 and 224

[Docket No. 011212298–1298–01; I.D. No.

113001A;]

Listing Endangered and Threatened

Wildlife and Plants and Designating

Critical Habitat; 90-Day Finding for a

Petition to List Atlantic White marlin

(Tetrapturus albidus)

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of petition finding;

request for information and comments.

SUMMARY: NMFS announces the 90–day

finding for a petition to list Atlantic

white marlin (Tetrapturus albidus) as

threatened or endangered throughout its

known range and to designate critical

habitat under the Endangered Species

Act (ESA). NMFS finds that the petition

presents substantial scientific

information indicating that the

petitioned action may be warranted.

NMFS will conduct a status review of

Atlantic white marlin to determine if

the petitioned action is warranted. To

ensure that the review is

comprehensive, NMFS is soliciting

information and comments pertaining to

this species and potential critical habitat

from any interested party. NMFS also

seeks suggestions from the public for

peer reviewers to take part in the peer

review process for the Atlantic white

marlin status review.

DATES: Comments and information

related to this petition finding must be

received by February 19, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of the

petition, and information and comments

on this finding should be submitted to

Georgia Cranmore, Assistant Regional

Administrator for Protected Resources,

National Marine Fisheries Service,

Southeast Regional Office, 9721

Executive Center Drive North, St.

Peterburg, FL 33702–2432. The petition,

finding and supporting data are

available for public inspection, by

appointment, during normal business

hours at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jennifer Lee, NMFS Southeast Region,

(727) 570–5312; or David O’Brien,

NMFS, Office of Protected Resources,

(301) 713–1401.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Section 4 (b)(3)(A) of the ESA (16

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that NMFS

make a finding as to whether a petition

to list, delist, or reclassify a species

presents substantial scientific or

commercial information indicating that

the petitioned action may be warranted.

NMFS’ ESA implementing regulations

(50 CFR 424.14) 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 determining whether

substantial information exists for a

petition to list a species, NMFS takes

into account several factors, including

information submitted with, and

referenced in, the petition and all other

information readily available in NMFS’

files. To the maximum extent

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 245 / Thursday, December 20, 2001 / Proposed Rules 65677

practicable, this finding is to be made

within 90 days of the receipt of the

petition, and the finding is to be

published promptly in the Federal

Register. If NMFS finds that a petition

presents substantial information

indicating that the requested action may

be warranted, section 4 (b)(3)(A) of the

ESA requires the Secretary of Commerce

(Secretary) to conduct a status review of

the species. Section 4 (b)(3)(B) requires

the Secretary to make a finding as to

whether or not the petitioned action is

warranted within 1 year of the receipt

of the petition.

Analysis of Petition

On September 4, 2001, NMFS

received a petition from the Biodiversity

Legal Foundation and James R.

Chambers requesting NMFS to list the

Atlantic white marlin (Tetrapturus

albidus) as threatened or endangered

throughout its range, and to designate

critical habitat under the ESA. The

petition contained a detailed

description of the species, including the

present legal status; taxonomy and

physical appearance; ecological and

fisheries importance; distribution;

physical and biological characteristics

of its habitat and ecosystem

relationships; population status and

trends; and factors contributing to the

population’s decline. Potential threats

identified in the petition include: (1)

overutilization for commercial

purposes; (2) inadequacy of existing

regulatory mechanisms; (3) predation;

and (4) other natural or man-made

factors affecting the species’ continued

existence. The petitioners also included

information regarding how the species

would benefit from being listed under

the ESA, cited references and provided

appendices in support of the petition.

Under the ESA, a listing

determination can address a species,

subspecies, or a distinct population

segment (DPS) of a species (16 U.S.C.

1532 (16)). The petitioners requested

that NMFS list Atlantic white marlin

throughout its entire range. They are

found in warm waters throughout

tropical and temperate portions of the

Atlantic Ocean and its adjacent seas

(Caribbean, Mediterranean and Gulf of

Mexico). A highly migratory pelagic

species, they are found predominantly

in the open ocean over deep water, near

the surface in the vicinity of major

ocean currents where their prey is

concentrated. Their food resources

include small fishes and invertebrates

such as squid that can be swallowed

whole.

The petitioners provided a detailed

narrative justification for their

petitioned action, describing past and

present numbers and distribution of

Atlantic white marlin. Information

regarding its status was provided for the

entire range of the species. The petition

was accompanied by appropriate

supporting documentation, including

the most recent stock assessment for this

species (SCRS/00/23).

In 1997, the Atlantic white marlin

was listed as overfished under the

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery

Conservation and Management Act (16

U.S.C. 1801 et seq.). In April 1999,

NMFS published Amendment 1 to the

Atlantic Billfish Fishery Management

Plan, which included rebuilding

programs and measures to reduce

bycatch and bycatch mortality for

Atlantic billfish, including white

marlin. The International Commission

for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas

(ICCAT), responsible for management of

tunas and tuna-like fishes of the

Atlantic Ocean also considers the

Atlantic white marlin to be overfished.

Several binding recommendations have

been adopted by ICCAT over the last

few years to reduce landings and

improve data and monitoring. The most

recent recommendation in November

2000 included a two-phase rebuilding

plan involving further landing

reductions and the development of more

rebuilding measures after the next stock

assessments in 2002.

The petitioners assert that existing

protection for Atlantic white marlin at

both the national and international level

is inadequate to conserve the species or

prevent its slide to extinction. The

population’s decline has been

documented thoroughly by ICCAT’s

scientific advisors, the Standing

Committee for Research and Statistics

(SCRS). According to the petitioners, the

primary cause of the Atlantic white

marlin decline is due to bycatch in the

international swordfish and tuna

fisheries. The most recent stock

assessment conducted in July of 2000

(SCRS/00/23) indicates that by the end

of 1999: (1) the total Atlantic stock

biomass had declined to less than 15

percent of its maximum sustainable

yield level; (2) fishing mortality was

estimated to be at least seven times

higher than the sustainable level; (3)

overfishing has taken place for over

three decades; and (4) the stock is less

productive than previously estimated,

with a maximum sustainable yield

smaller than 1,300 metric tons. The

population’s abundance was last at its

long-term sustainable level in 1980.

Reduction in prey species availability

may also be a threat to the species, with

two of its important prey species,

Atlantic bluefish and squid, listed as

overfished under the Magnuson-Stevens

Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.).

Petition Finding

Based on the above information and

the criteria specified in 50 CFR 424.14

(b)(2), NMFS finds that the petitioner

presents substantial scientific and

commercial information indicating that

a listing of Atlantic white marlin may be

warranted. Under section 4 (b)(3)(A) of

the ESA, this finding requires that

NMFS commence a status review on

Atlantic white marlin. NMFS is now

initiating this review. Within one year

of the receipt of the petition (by

September 3, 2002), a finding will be

made as to whether listing the Atlantic

population of the white marlin as

threatened or endangered is warranted,

as required by section 4 (b)(3)(B) of the

ESA. If warranted, NMFS will publish a

proposed rule and take public comment

before developing and publishing a final

rule.

Listing Factors and Basis for

Determination

Under section 4 (a)(1) of the ESA, a

species can be determined to be

threatened or endangered for any one of

the following reasons: (1) Present or

threatened destruction, modification, or

curtailment of habitat or range; (2) overutilization for commercial, recreational,

scientific, or educational purposes; (3)

disease or predation; (4) inadequacy of

existing regulatory mechanisms; or (5)

other natural or manmade factors

affecting its continued existence. Listing

determinations are made solely on the

basis of the best scientific and

commercial data available, after

conducting a review of the status of the

species and taking into account efforts

made by any state or foreign nation to

protect such species.

Information Solicited

To ensure that the status review is

completed in a timely manner and

based on the best available scientific

and commercial data, NMFS is

soliciting information and comments on

whether the Atlantic white marlin is

endangered or threatened based on the

above listing criteria. Specifically,

NMFS is soliciting information in the

following areas: (1) Historical and

current abundance of Atlantic white

marlin; (2) current spatial distribution;

(3) population status and trends; (4)

information on any current or planned

activities that may adversely impact

Atlantic white marlin, especially related

to the five listing factors identified

above; and (4) ongoing efforts to protect

Atlantic white marlin and their habitat.

NMFS requests that all data,

65678 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 245 / Thursday, December 20, 2001 / Proposed Rules

information, and comments be

accompanied by: (1) supporting

documentation such as maps,

bibliographic references, or reprints of

pertinent publications; and (2) the

submitter’s name, address, and any

association, institution, or business that

the person represents.

Critical Habitat

NMFS is also requesting information

on areas that may qualify as critical

habitat for the Atlantic white marlin.

Areas that include the physical and

biological features essential to the

recovery of the species should be

identified. Areas outside the present

range should also be identified if such

areas are essential to the recovery of the

species. Essential features include, but

are not limited to: (1) space for

individual growth and for normal

behavior; (2) food, water, air, light,

minerals, or other nutritional or

physiological requirements; (3) cover or

shelter; (4) sites for reproduction and

development of offspring; and (5)

habitats that are protected from

disturbance or are representative of the

historical, geographical, and ecological

distributions of the species (50 CFR

424.12 (b)).

For areas potentially qualifying as

critical habitat, NMFS requests

information describing (1) the activities

that affect the area or that could be

affected by the designation, and (2) the

economic costs and benefits of

management measures likely to result

from the designation. NMFS is required

to consider the probable economic and

other impacts on proposed or ongoing

activities in making a final critical

habitat designation(50 CFR 424.19).

Peer Review

On July 1, 1994, NMFS, jointly with

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

published a series of policies regarding

listings under the ESA, including a

policy for peer review of scientific data

(59 FR 34270). The intent of the peer

review policy is to ensure that listings

are based on the best scientific and

commercial data available. NMFS is

soliciting the names of recognized

experts in the field that could take part

in the peer review process for this status

review. Independent peer reviewers will

be selected from the academic and

scientific community, tribal and other

Native American groups, Federal and

state agencies, the private sector, and

public interest groups.

References Cited

SCRS. 2000. Report of the ICCAT

Billfish Workshop (Miami, FL, USA,

July 18–28,2000) – Billfish Detailed

Report

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.

Dated: December 14, 2001.

William T. Hogarth,

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,

National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 01–31285 Filed 12–19–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S