        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        [Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2010-0016]
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List Thorne's Hairstreak Butterfly as Endangered

        Correction
        In Federal Register document 2010-7547 beginning on page 17062 in the issue of April 5, 2010, make the following correction:
        On page 17062, proposed rule document 2010-7547 was inadvertently published in the Rules section of the issue of April 5, 2010, beginning on page 17062. It should have appeared in the Proposed Rules section.

      [FR Doc. C1-2010-7547-Filed 4-12-10; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 1505-01-D


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        15 CFR Part 922
        RIN-0648-XF140
        Plan for Periodic Review of Regulations

          AGENCY:
          Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS), National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC).

          ACTION:
          Notice of plan for periodic review of regulations; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) section 610 requires that the NOAA Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS) periodically review existing regulations that have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, such as small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. This plan describes how ONMS will perform this review and describes the regulation proposed for review during the current review-cycle.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received on or before May 15, 2017.

          ADDRESSES:
          Comments may be submitted by:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NOS-2017-0001, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

            Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NOAA. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (for example, name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily submitted by the commenter will be publicly accessible. NOAA will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Meredith Walz, NOAA Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, 1305 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, Meredith.Walz@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Background
        The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., requires that federal agencies take into account how their regulations affect “small entities,” including small businesses, small governmental jurisdictions and small organizations. For regulations proposed after January 1, 1981, the agency must either prepare a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis or certify the regulation, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

        Section 610 of the RFA requires federal agencies to review existing regulations. It requires that ONMS publish a plan in the Federal Register explaining how it will review existing regulations which have or will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Regulations that become effective after January 1, 1981 must be reviewed within 10 years of the publication date of the final rule. Section 610(c) requires that ONMS publish in the Federal Register a list of rules it will review during the succeeding 12 months. The list must describe, explain the need for, provide the legal basis for the rules, as well as invite public comment on the rules.
        In addition, section 605 of the RFA provides that, when a rule is promulgated, the head of an agency may certify to the Small Business Administration's Chief Counsel for Advocacy that a rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Section 610 of the RFA requires review of these previously certified rules if the agency is aware of changed conditions that may mean that a certified rule now does have a significant impact.
        Criteria for Review of Existing Regulations
        The purpose of the review is to determine whether existing rules should be left unchanged, or whether they should be revised or rescinded in order to minimize significant economic impacts on a substantial number of small entities, consistent with the objectives of other applicable statutes. In deciding whether change is necessary, RFA section 610(b) establishes five factors that agencies will consider in reviewing existing regulations:
        (1) Whether the rule is still needed;
        (2) What type of complaints or comments were received concerning the rule from the public;
        (3) The complexity of the rule;
        (4) How much the rule overlaps, duplicates or conflicts with other federal rules, and, to the extent feasible, with state and local governmental rules; and
        (5) How long it has been since the rule has been evaluated or how much the technology, economic conditions, or other factors have changed in the area affected by the rule.
        Plan for Periodic Review of Rules

        ONMS will conduct reviews in such a way as to ensure that all rules for which a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis was prepared are reviewed within 10 years of the year in which they were originally issued. During this same period, ONMS will also review other rules certified under RFA section 605 as not having significant impacts. ONMS will evaluate whether those rules now have a significant impact and therefore should be reviewed under RFA section 610. ONMS intends that it will conduct section 610 reviews on applicable regulations on an annual basis. ONMS will make RFA Section 610 review reports available at the following Web site: http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/library/alldocs.html.

        ONMS Regulation Requiring Review for 2017

        One rulemaking finalized in 2007 requires review under RFA section 610: “Establishment of Marine Reserves and a Marine Conservation Area Within the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary”. RIN 0648-AT18. (72 FR 29208; May 24, 2007). ONMS issued this rule to supplement the State of California's marine reserves implemented in the state waters of the sanctuary in 2001 to 2003. This rule implemented new marine zones only in the Federal waters of the sanctuary, extending from the offshore extent of state waters to the outer boundary. This federal action established two types of zones: Marine reserves and marine conservation areas. All extractive activities (e.g., removal of any sanctuary resource) and injury to sanctuary resources are prohibited in all marine reserves. Commercial and recreational lobster fishing and recreational fishing for pelagic species are allowed within the marine conservation area, while all other extraction and injury are prohibited. This action established approximately 110.5 square nautical miles of marine reserves and 1.7 square nautical miles of marine conservation area in the federal waters of the sanctuary.

        ONMS invites comments on the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary marine reserves rule. ONMS plans to complete the RFA section 610 review of the regulation by May 24, 2017. Unless we publish a notice stating otherwise, ONMS will make the final report available at http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/library/alldocs.html.

          Dated: April 17, 2017.
          John Armor,
          Director, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries.

      [FR Doc. 2017-08404 Filed 4-25-17; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-NK-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        [4500090022]
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Findings on Petitions To List Eight Species as Endangered or Threatened Species

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Notice of 12-month petition findings.

          SUMMARY:
          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce 12-month findings on petitions to list eight species as endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). After a thorough review of the best available scientific and commercial information, we find that it is not warranted at this time to list the Arapahoe snowfly, brook floater, golden orb, Joshua tree, seaside alder, smooth pimpleback, tricolored blackbird, and yellow-banded bumble bee. However, we ask the public to submit to us at any time any new information that becomes available relevant to the status of any of the species mentioned above or their habitats.

          DATES:
          The findings in this document were made on August 15, 2019.

          ADDRESSES:

          Detailed descriptions of the basis for each of these findings are available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov under the following docket numbers:

            Species
            Docket No.

            Arapahoe snowfly
            FWS-R6-ES-2019-0031

            Brook floater
            FWS-R5-ES-2019-0032

            Golden orb
            FWS-R2-ES-2019-0034

            Joshua tree
            FWS-R8-ES-2016-0088

            Seaside alder
            FWS-R5-ES-2019-0036

            Smooth pimpleback
            FWS-R2-ES-2019-0037

            Tricolored blackbird
            FWS-R8-ES-2015-0138

            Yellow-banded bumble bee
            FWS-R5-ES-2016-0024

        Supporting information used to prepare these findings is available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours, by contacting the appropriate person, as specified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Please submit any new information, materials, comments, or questions concerning these findings to the appropriate person, as specified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

              Species
              Contact information

              Arapahoe snowfly
              Justin Shoemaker, Acting Regional Liaison, Mountain-Prairie Regional Office, 309-757-5800, ext. 214.

              Brook floater
              David Stilwell, Field Supervisor, New York Ecological Services Field Office, 607-753-9334.

              Golden orb
              Chuck Ardizzonne, Field Supervisor, Texas Coastal Field Office, 281-286-8282, ext. 26506.

              Joshua tree
              Ken Corey, Field Supervisor, Palm Springs Field Office, 760-322-2070.

              Seaside alder
              Cherry Keller, Senior Endangered Species Biologist, Chesapeake Bay Field Office, 410-573-4532.

              Smooth pimpleback
              Chuck Ardizzonne, Field Supervisor, Texas Coastal Field Office, 281-286-8282, ext. 26506.

              Tricolored blackbird
              Josh Hull, Recovery and Listing Division Chief, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, 916-414-6742.

              Yellow-banded bumble bee
              Krishna Gifford, Endangered Species Act Listing Coordinator, Northeast Regional Office, 413-253-8619.

          If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        We are required to make a finding whether or not a petitioned action is warranted within 12 months after receiving any petition for which we have determined contained substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted (section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)) (“12-month finding”). We must make a finding that the petitioned action is: (1) Not warranted; (2) warranted; or (3) warranted but precluded. “Warranted but precluded” means that (a) the petitioned action is warranted, but the immediate proposal of a regulation implementing the petitioned action is precluded by other pending proposals to determine whether species are endangered or threatened species, and (b) expeditious progress is being made to add qualified species to the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists) and to remove from the Lists species for which the protections of the Act are no longer necessary. Section 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that we treat a petition for which the requested action is found to be warranted but precluded as though resubmitted on the date of such finding, that is, requiring that a subsequent finding be made within 12 months of that date. We must publish these 12-month findings in the Federal Register.
        Summary of Information Pertaining to the Five Factors
        Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing regulations at part 424 of title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth procedures for adding species to, removing species from, or reclassifying species on the Lists. The Act defines “endangered species” as any species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range (16 U.S.C. 1532(6)), and “threatened species” as any species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range (16 U.S.C. 1532(20)). Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, a species may be determined to be an endangered species or a threatened species because of any of the following five factors:
        (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;
        (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
        (C) Disease or predation;
        (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
        (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
        In considering whether a species may meet the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species because of any of the five factors, we must look beyond the mere exposure of the species to the stressor to determine whether the species responds to the stressor in a way that causes actual impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a stressor, but no response, or only a positive response, that stressor does not cause a species to meet the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species. If there is exposure and the species responds negatively, we determine whether that stressor drives or contributes to the risk of extinction of the species such that the species warrants listing as an endangered or threatened species. The mere identification of stressors that could affect a species negatively is not sufficient to compel a finding that listing is or remains warranted. For a species to be listed or remain listed, we require evidence that these stressors are operative threats to the species and its habitat, either singly or in combination, to the point that the species meets the definition of an endangered or a threatened species under the Act.

        In conducting our evaluation of the five factors provided in section 4(a)(1) of the Act to determine whether the Arapahoe snowfly (Arsapnia arapahoe), brook floater (Alasmidonta varicosa), golden orb (Cyclonaias aurea), Yucca brevifolia and Yucca jaegeriana (Joshua tree), Alnus maritima (seaside alder), smooth pimpleback (Cyclonaias houstonensis), tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), and yellow-banded bumble bee (Bombus terricola) meet the definition of “endangered species” or “threatened species,” we considered and thoroughly evaluated the best scientific and commercial information available regarding the past, present, and future stressors and threats. We reviewed the petitions, information available in our files, and other available published and unpublished information. These evaluations may include information from recognized experts; Federal, State, and tribal governments; academic institutions; foreign governments; private entities; and other members of the public.

        The species assessment forms for the Arapahoe snowfly, brook floater, golden orb, Joshua tree, seaside alder, smooth pimpleback, tricolored blackbird, and yellow-banded bumble bee contain more detailed biological information, a thorough analysis of the listing factors, and an explanation of why we determined that these species do not meet the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species. This supporting information can be found on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov under the appropriate docket number (see ADDRESSES, above). The following are informational summaries for each of the findings in this document.
        Arapahoe Snowfly
        Previous Federal Actions

        On April 6, 2010, we received a petition from the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, Dr. Boris Kondratieff, Save the Poudre: Poudre Water Keeper, Cache la Poudre River Foundation, WildEarth Guardians, and Center for Native Ecosystems, requesting that the Arapahoe snowfly be listed as an endangered species under the Act. On April 26, 2011, we published a 90-day finding in the Federal Register (76 FR 23256), concluding that the petition presented substantial scientific and commercial information indicating that listing Arapahoe snowfly may be warranted. On May 10, 2012, we published a 12-month finding in the Federal Register (77 FR 27386) in which we stated that listing the Arapahoe snowfly as endangered or threatened was warranted. However, listing was precluded at that time by higher priority actions, and the species was added to the candidate species list. From 2012 through 2016, we addressed the status of the Arapahoe snowfly annually in our candidate notice of review, with the determination that listing was warranted but precluded (see 77 FR 69994, November 21, 2012; 78 FR 70104, November 22, 2013; 79 FR 72450, December 5, 2014; 80 FR 80584, December 24, 2015; 81 FR 87246, December 2, 2016).
        Summary of Finding

        The Arapahoe snowfly is a winter stonefly found in small streams characterized by substrates of pebble, cobble, and bedrock along the northern Front Range of the Rocky Mountains of Colorado. At the time of the preparation of the 12-month finding (77 FR 27386; May 10, 2012), the Arapahoe snowfly was documented in only 2 small tributaries of the Cache la Poudre River. Subsequently, the species has been documented in a total of 19 streams along the northern Front Range of Colorado. The number of Arapahoe snowfly individuals at these sites are consistently low; in sampling studies targeted at Arapahoe snowfly, only 41 of 26,170 specimens were morphologically identified as that taxon, and all were males. Arapahoe snowfly always co-occurred with two more-widely distributed and common stoneflies, Arsapnia decepta and Capnia gracilaria.

        Genetic analyses, involving two mitochondrial genes, one nuclear gene, and thousands of individual nuclear polymorphisms, of 98 specimens from nine separate locations, demonstrated that all individuals examined were the first-generation progeny of crosses between female Arsapnia decepta and male Capnia gracilaria. No backcrosses or later-generation hybrids were observed, indicating that these progeny do not represent a self-sustaining lineage. Instead of representing a distinct taxon, individuals formerly recognized as being the distinct species Arsapnia arapahoe (the Arapahoe snowfly) are actually first-generation hybrids between female A. decepta and male C. gracilaria that appear in the narrow zone of range overlap between the parental species in northern Colorado. Therefore, we find the Arapahoe snowfly is not a valid taxonomic entity; does not meet the definition of a species or subspecies under the Act; and, as a result, cannot warrant listing under the Act. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in the Arapahoe snowfly species assessment form and other supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, above).
        Brook Floater
        Previous Federal Actions

        On April 20, 2010, we received a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity, Alabama Rivers Alliance, Clinch Coalition, Dogwood Alliance, Gulf Restoration Network, Tennessee Forests Council, and West Virginia Highlands Conservancy to list 404 aquatic, riparian, and wetland species, including the brook floater, as endangered or threatened species under the Act. On September 27, 2011, we published a 90-day finding in the Federal Register (76 FR 59836), concluding that the petition presented substantial information indicating that listing the brook floater may be warranted. This notice constitutes the 12-month finding on the April 20, 2010, petition to list the brook floater under the Act.
        Summary of Finding
        The brook floater is a small freshwater mussel usually less than 75 millimeters (2.95 inches) in length. The species is an Atlantic slope freshwater mussel historically native to the District of Columbia, 16 States in the eastern United States, and two Canadian provinces. The mussel has a widespread distribution, is currently found in 14 of the 16 historically known States, and is considered extirpated in Delaware and Rhode Island and in the District of Columbia.
        The most robust populations of brook floaters inhabit creeks and rivers of varying size with stable substrates, intact riparian buffers (vegetated areas comprised of forest, shrub, or herbaceous plants located adjacent to streams), excellent water quality, and little to no anthropogenic influences. The species needs clean, low to moderately flowing water, with stable substrate (sand, gravel, and cobble), appropriate food levels, water temperatures above 14 °C (57.2 °F) for glochidia release, and interstitial chemistry and presence of fish hosts for glochidia attachment and dispersal.
        We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial information available regarding the past, present, and future threats to the brook floater, and we evaluated all relevant factors under the five listing factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and conservation measures addressing these stressors. The primary stressors affecting the brook floater's biological status include disjunct populations facing habitat loss or fragmentation; changes in water flows; and degraded water quality from development, energy production, and agriculture. We also assessed impacts to the brook floater from effects of climate change. There are uncertainties in predicting precipitation changes over such a wide range and assessing the species' response, but we do not expect effects from climate change to be a primary stressor affecting the species' viability. We examined a number of other factors, including inherent factors (small population size and low fecundity), predation, invasive species, and hybridization, and we found that these factors did not rise to such a level that affected multiple populations or the species as a whole.

        Despite impacts from the primary stressors, the species has maintained resilient populations throughout its range. Although we predict some continued impacts from these stressors in the future, we anticipate the species will continue to maintain resilient populations throughout the foreseeable future that are distributed widely throughout each of its representative units. Therefore, we find that listing the brook floater as endangered or threatened is not warranted. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in the brook floater species assessment form and other supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, above).
        Golden Orb
        Previous Federal Actions

        On June 25, 2007, we received a petition from WildEarth Guardians (then Forest Guardians), to list 475 species in the Southwest Region, including the golden orb, as endangered or threatened species under the Act. On December 15, 2009, we published a 90-day finding in the Federal Register (74 FR 66260), concluding that the petition presented substantial information indicating that listing the golden orb may be warranted. On October 6, 2011, we published a 12-month finding in the Federal Register (76 FR 62166) in which we stated that listing the golden orb was warranted. However, listing was precluded at that time by higher priority actions, and the species was added to the candidate species list. From 2012 through 2016, we addressed the status of the golden orb annually in our candidate notice of review, with the determination that listing was warranted but precluded (see 77 FR 69994, November 21, 2012; 78 FR 70104, November 22, 2013; 79 FR 72450, December 5, 2014; 80 FR 80584, December 24, 2015; 81 FR 87246, December 2, 2016).
        Summary of Finding

        Recent genetic studies revealed that individuals thought to be golden orb are actually members of a more widespread, common species, the pimpleback (Cyclonaias pustulosa). These studies have been widely accepted by the relevant scientific community and the Service. Due to being synonymized with pimpleback, golden orb is not a valid taxonomic entity; does not meet the definition of a species or subspecies under the Act; and, as a result, cannot warrant listing under the Act. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in the golden orb species assessment form and other supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, above).
        Joshua Tree
        Previous Federal Actions

        On September 29, 2015, we received a petition from Wild Earth Guardians to list the Joshua tree as a threatened species under the Act. On September 14, 2016, we published a 90-day finding in the Federal Register (81 FR 63160), concluding that the petition presented substantial information indicating that listing the Joshua tree may be warranted. Recent research has suggested Joshua tree is comprised of two species, based on morphological, pollinator, and genetic differences: Yucca brevifolia and Yucca jaegeriana. After reviewing these genetic analyses and corresponding with experts on plant taxonomy, we now consider that Yucca brevifolia and Yucca jaegeriana are two distinct species, and we conducted status reviews of both entities separately. This notice constitutes the 12-month finding on the September 29, 2015, petition to list Joshua tree under the Act.
        Summary of Finding

        The Joshua tree is a distinctive and iconic plant of the Mojave Desert and surrounding areas. The two species of Joshua tree are distinguished in the field by their respective vegetative and flora morphology, and by their differing obligate yucca moth pollinator. Yucca brevifolia is a 5- to 12-meters (16- to 40-feet) tall, evergreen, xerophytic monocot with a somewhat spongy, indehiscent (remaining closed at maturity) fruit that is pollinated by Tegeticula synthetica, a species of yucca moth. The leaves are between 19 to 37 centimeters (7.5 to 14.6 inches) long, and are clustered in rosettes at the branch ends. The flowers are nearly spherical with short, wide petals that curve over the tip of the pistils and occur in dense, heavy panicles. Yucca jaegeriana is a 3- to 6-meters (9- to 20-feet) tall, evergreen, xerophytic monocot with spongy, indehiscent fruit that is pollinated by Tegeticula antithetica, a species of yucca moth. Yucca jaegeriana displays dichotomous branching and generally has shorter leaves (less than 22 centimeters (8.7 inches)) and shorter height to first branching at 0.75 to 1.0 meter (2.3 to 3.3 feet) than Y. brevifolia.

        Joshua trees generally occur on flats, mesas, bajadas, and gentle slopes (alluvial fans). Joshua trees grow on a wide variety of soil types but generally on old alluvia of igneous, rather than sedimentary, origin that consist of silty, loamy, or sandy soils that have minimal runoff. Joshua trees are able to tolerate alkaline or saline soils in soil temperatures that range from 4 °C (39 °F) in winter to 46 °C (110 °F) in summer.

        We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial information regarding the past, present, and future threats to Joshua tree, and we evaluated all relevant factors under the five listing factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and conservation measures addressing these stressors. The primary stressors to Joshua trees include wildfire, invasive plants, effects of climatic changes, and habitat loss. While these threats are currently acting on Yucca jaegeriana and Y. brevifolia individually, we did not find that they were acting on the two species at either a population- or species-level scale. With the two species still occupying their historical ranges, which extend to over 2.2 million hectares (5.6 million acres) for Y. brevifolia and 2.5 million hectares (6.4 million acres) for Y. jaegeriana, as well as a hybrid zone of approximately 52,000 hectares (130,000 acres), the current conditions of the two species still provide for enough resiliency, redundancy, and representation despite the identified threats acting on them. There is no evidence to indicate recent population size reductions or range contractions for either species over the last 40 years based on distribution mapping. Recruitment of both Y. jaegeriana and Y. brevifolia is occurring across their respective ranges.

        Similarly, estimates of future resiliency, redundancy, and representation for Yucca jaegeriana and Y. brevifolia are high. The two species will most likely face the same threats they are currently facing into the future (wildfire, invasive plants, effects of climatic changes, and habitat loss). We evaluated environmental conditions and threat factors acting on the two species into the future (approximately 80 years) and developed two future scenarios to assist in determining the potential future conditions for the two species. Because the two species are long-lived, have such large ranges and distributions, mostly occur on Federal land, and occupy numerous ecological settings, we have determined that future stochastic and catastrophic events would not lead to population- or species-level declines in the foreseeable future. As a result, we have determined that neither Yucca jaegeriana nor Yucca brevifolia are in danger of extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of their ranges. Therefore, we find that listing the Joshua tree as an endangered or threatened species is not warranted. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in the Joshua tree species assessment form and other supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, above).
        Seaside Alder
        Previous Federal Actions

        On April 20, 2010, we received a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity, the Alabama Rivers Alliance, the Clinch Coalition, Dogwood Alliance, the Gulf Restoration Network, Tennessee Forests Council, and the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy to list 404 aquatic, riparian, and wetland species, including seaside alder, as endangered or threatened species under the Act. On September 27, 2011, we published a 90-day finding in the Federal Register (76 FR 59836), concluding that the petition presented substantial information indicating that listing the seaside alder may be warranted. Although the petitioned entity is seaside alder, the best available information indicates that seaside alder comprises three subspecies: Alnus maritima ssp. maritima (Delmarva alder), A. maritima ssp. georgiensis (Georgia alder), and A. maritima ssp. oklahomensis (Oklahoma alder). The Service used its discretion to conduct the status review at the species and subspecies levels. This notice constitutes the 12-month finding on the April 20, 2010, petition to list seaside alder under the Act.
        Summary of Finding
        Seaside alder is a large, deciduous shrub or small tree, 16 to 23 feet (5 to 7 meters) tall that grows in multistemmed clumps, instead of individual trees, in the wet soils of river, stream, or pond edges. Despite its name, it is known to occur only in freshwater habitats and prefers areas with full sun and soils that are at least periodically saturated or inundated. The species is capable of both sexual and asexual reproduction, but evidence of new plants from seedlings is rare, and, like many other riparian shrubs, seaside alder primarily reproduces asexually through clones and runners. Despite this, genetic diversity appears to be adequate.

        The species currently occurs in three regional populations that have been described and accepted as subspecies: Delmarva alder (A. maritima spp. maritima) in Dorchester, Somerset, Wicomico, and Worcester Counties in Maryland, and Kent and Sussex Counties in Delaware; Georgia alder (A. maritima spp. georgiensis) in Bartow County, Georgia; and Oklahoma alder (Alnus maritima spp. oklahomensis) in Pontotoc and Johnston Counties of south-central Oklahoma. The seaside alder occupies at least 35 known watersheds, and the species' current distribution is similar to its historical distribution. We are aware of additional records of occurrence on private lands; however, supporting information on those records is not available to us, and, therefore, these records are not included in our assessment.

        We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial information available regarding the past, present, and future threats to seaside alder, and we evaluated all relevant factors under the five listing factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and conservation measures addressing these stressors. The primary stressors to seaside alder, which vary depending on the subspecies, include changes to natural processes such as drought cycles, air temperature, precipitation patterns, flooding regimes, and sea level rise, or human-mediated actions (e.g., human population growth, development, and mining) that cause decreased water quantity and water quality degradation. Despite effects from these stressors, seaside alder has maintained resilient populations throughout its range and in each of the subspecies' ranges, and is expected to continue to do so into the foreseeable future. The species is represented by three genetically diverse subspecies, which occur in many types of freshwater habitat (tidal rivers, marshes and ponds, and spring-fed streams and rivers) that are adapted to three distinct climates (mid-Atlantic, Southeast, and Southwest); thus, the species is expected to retain its ability to adapt to changes in its environment. In summary, our review of the best available scientific and commercial information indicates that seaside alder does not meet the definition of an endangered species or threatened species. We also find that Delmarva alder, Georgia alder, and Oklahoma alder do not meet the definition of endangered species or threatened species. Therefore, we find that listing seaside alder or any of its subspecies as an endangered or threatened species under the Act is not warranted. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in the seaside alder species assessment form and other supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, above).
        Smooth Pimpleback
        Previous Federal Actions

        On October 15, 2008, we received a petition from WildEarth Guardians, to list six species of freshwater mussels, including the smooth pimpleback, as endangered or threatened species under the Act. On December 15, 2009, we published a 90-day finding in the Federal Register (74 FR 66260), concluding that the petition presented substantial information indicating that listing the smooth pimpleback may be warranted. On October 6, 2011, we published a 12-month finding in the Federal Register (76 FR 62166) in which we stated that listing the smooth pimpleback was warranted. However, listing was precluded at that time by higher priority actions, and the species was added to the candidate species list. From 2012 through 2016, we addressed the status of the smooth pimpleback annually in our candidate notice of review, with the determination that listing was warranted but precluded (see 77 FR 69994, November 21, 2012; 78 FR 70104, November 22, 2013; 79 FR 72450, December 5, 2014; 80 FR 80584, December 24, 2015; 81 FR 87246, December 2, 2016).
        Summary of Finding

        Recent genetic studies revealed that smooth pimpleback is synonymous with pimpleback, a wide-ranging species that is very common. These studies have been widely accepted by the relevant scientific community and the Service. Due to being synonymized with pimpleback, smooth pimpleback is not a valid taxonomic entity; does not meet the definition of a species or subspecies under the Act; and, as a result, cannot warrant listing under the Act. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in the smooth pimpleback species assessment form and other supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, above).
        Tricolored Blackbird
        Previous Federal Actions

        On February 3, 2015, we received a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity to list the tricolored blackbird as an endangered or threatened species under the Act. On September 18, 2015, we published a 90-day finding in the Federal Register (80 FR 56423), concluding that the petition presented substantial information indicating that listing the tricolored blackbird may be warranted. This document constitutes the 12-month finding on the February 3, 2015, petition to list the tricolored blackbird under the Act.
        Summary of Finding
        The tricolored blackbird occurs throughout most of lower-elevation California and additional smaller nesting colonies in Oregon, Washington, and Nevada in the United States, and in Baja California, Mexico. The tricolored blackbird exhibits a unique breeding behavior that is a combination of colonial, nomadic, and itinerant behaviors. Its colonial and generally highly synchronous nesting behavior is thought to be an adaptation to unpredictable insect outbreaks and/or high rates of predation pressure, as well as allowing the species to exploit available nesting and foraging opportunities in a changing environment. The species requires a protected nesting substrate (a vegetative substrate that is sturdy enough for nest placement and is protected by being surrounded by water, by having spines, and/or by being dense), such as wetland habitats with cattails and/or bulrushes; spiny, nonnative plants such as Himalayan blackberry or thistle; or silage crops grown for dairy cattle feed. Young tricolored blackbirds are fed a diet comprised almost entirely of insects, and adult blackbirds consume both native insects and other plant material such as grains and seeds.
        We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial information regarding the past, present, and future threats to the tricolored blackbird, and we evaluated all relevant factors under the five listing factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and conservation measures addressing these stressors. The tricolored blackbird is currently facing many threats throughout its range, and the species has undergone a substantial decline in recent decades. Still, more than 100,000 tricolored blackbirds were recorded in the most recent Statewide surveys, and individuals in the central portions of the species' range are well-connected, with birds frequently shifting their use of nesting sites and regions based on availability of suitable habitat.

        Many threats are continuing to impact the tricolored blackbird and its habitat, and drought may result in a decrease in habitat quality across the species' range. Furthermore, several researchers have indicated that, as a colonial nesting species, the tricolored blackbird may undergo a similarly rapid decline as have other colonial nesting birds. However, the tricolored blackbird has shown high nesting success in both small and large colonies, indicating that they may be adaptable to changing colony size as well as changing nesting habitat types. Additionally, regulatory mechanisms such as the California Endangered Species Act are currently acting to ameliorate the severity of some existing threats, such as impacts to colonies nesting in silage fields. Furthermore, the most likely future scenarios project that the tricolored blackbird will maintain its current resiliency, representation, or redundancy, or undergo only a slight decrease in habitat and population condition in some regions in the foreseeable future. Therefore, we find that listing the tricolored blackbird as endangered or threatened is not warranted. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in the tricolored blackbird species assessment form and other supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, above).
        Yellow-Banded Bumble Bee
        Previous Federal Actions

        On September 15, 2015, we received a petition from Defenders of Wildlife requesting that the yellow-banded bumble bee be listed as an endangered or threatened species and critical habitat be designated for this species under the Act. On March 16, 2016, we published a 90-day finding in the Federal Register (81 FR 14058), concluding that the petition presented substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the yellow-banded bumble bee may be warranted. This document constitutes the 12-month finding on the September 15, 2015, petition to list the yellow-banded bumble bee under the Act.
        Summary of Finding

        The yellow-banded bumble bee is an early-spring emerging bumble bee living in colonies that include a queen, worker bees (sterile females), and reproductives (new queens and fertile males). Colonies are annual, and the founding queen, workers, and males all die in the late summer or early fall. The mated new queens overwinter in a state of dormancy. Adult yellow-banded bumble bees have black hairs on their heads, legs, and base of the abdomen; yellow hairs on the front of the thorax and second and third segments; and slightly brown wings.
        The yellow-banded bumble bee's current range includes Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin in the United States; and Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Northwest Territories, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Saskatchewan, and Yukon Territory in Canada. The species inhabits a variety of forest types, including riparian woodland, mature deciduous and conifer forests, and treeline conifer forests. The species also uses wetlands, undisturbed bogs, alpine tundra, and prairies. The yellow-banded bumble bee requires diverse and abundant floral resources in proximity to nesting habitat throughout the spring, summer, and fall. It also requires suitable nesting and overwintering habitat.
        We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial information regarding the past, present, and future threats to the yellow-banded bumble bee, and we evaluated all relevant factors under the five listing factors, as well as existing conservation measures and the synergistic effects of the threats. The primary stressors are habitat loss and fragmentation, pesticide use, pathogens and parasites, the effects of small and isolated populations, and the effects of climate change.

        In the species' current condition, there is representation (i.e., occupancy) across the majority of the yellow-banded bumble bee's historical range. Although there has been a reduction in range with the apparent extirpation of the species from three ecoregions, the species continues to be found across 15 ecoregions, spanning much of the northern United States and much of Canada. Also, while the relative abundance has declined, there remains relatively consistent numbers of yellow-banded bumble bees captured across multiple States since the 1950s. The continued captures of the yellow-banded bumble bee indicate ongoing resiliency and redundancy supporting multiple populations of the species across its range. The continued persistence of occupied habitat across the species' range provides sufficient resiliency, redundancy, and representation to sustain the species beyond the near term.
        We evaluated four future scenarios for the yellow-banded bumble bee. The future scenarios all retain resiliency, redundancy, and representation to a sufficient degree such that the risk is low that the species will be in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future. The large range that the yellow-banded bumble bee inhabits provides for redundancy, as populations are distributed across the species' range such that it can withstand a catastrophic event. The species will continue to exhibit high or moderate resiliency in at least four ecoregions that are spread across the species' range; in two of the four future scenarios, seven ecoregions are projected to be in high or moderate resiliency in 20 years. Finally, the species would exhibit representation by continuing to occur across its range in various ecoregions to maintain ecological and genetic diversity. Taking into account the effects of the most likely threats and the potential for cumulative effects to the yellow-banded bumble bee's resource needs, our projections for the viability of the yellow-banded bumble bee in the future are that it will continue to be represented throughout its range, albeit at likely reduced occupancy and relative abundance percentages than currently found.

        Our review of the best available scientific and commercial information indicates that the yellow-banded bumble bee is not in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range or likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Therefore, we find that listing the yellow-banded bumble bee is not warranted. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in the yellow-banded bumble bee species assessment form and other supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, above).
        New Information

        We request that you submit any new information concerning the taxonomy of, biology of, ecology of, status of, or stressors to the Arapahoe snowfly, brook floater, golden orb, Joshua tree, seaside alder, smooth pimpleback, tricolored blackbird, and yellow-banded bumble bee to the appropriate person, as specified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, whenever it becomes available. New information will help us monitor these species and make appropriate decisions about their conservation and status. We encourage local agencies and stakeholders to continue cooperative monitoring and conservation efforts.
        References Cited

        Lists of the references cited in the petition findings are available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov in the dockets provided above in ADDRESSES and upon request from the appropriate person, as specified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
        Authors
        The primary authors of this document are the staff members of the Species Assessment Team, Ecological Services Program.
        Authority

        The authority for this action is section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

          Dated: July 25, 2019
          Margaret E. Everson,
          Principal Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Exercising the Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

      [FR Doc. 2019-17536 Filed 8-14-19; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 4333-15-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        [Docket No. FWS-R9-ES-2010-0086; MO 92210-0-0010 B6]
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List All Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) as Endangered

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Notice of petition finding and initiation of status review; correction, availability of supporting documents, and reopening of public comment period.

          SUMMARY:

          On September 1, 2011, we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, published in the Federal Register a 90-day finding on a petition to list all chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) as endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. We are now correcting an incorrect Docket Number given under ADDRESSES in that document. We are also making the petition and the large volume of supporting documents submitted with the petition available to the public on http://www.regulations.gov. To allow the public adequate time to review the petition and provide information, we are reopening the public comment period for an additional 90 days. However, please note that information already submitted does not need to be resubmitted.

          DATES:
          We request that we receive information on or before January 30, 2012.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit information by one of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Search for Docket No. FWS-R9-ES-2010-0086 and then follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R9-ES-2010-0086; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
          We will post all information received on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us. See the Information Solicited section of our September 1, 2011, notice (76 FR 54423) for more details.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Janine Van Norman, Chief, Branch of Foreign Species, Endangered Species Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 420, Arlington, VA 22203; telephone (703) 358-2171; facsimile (703) 358-1735. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        On September 1, 2011, we published in the Federal Register (76 FR 54423) a 90-day finding on a petition to list all chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) as endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.; Act). This publication opened a public comment period, which ended on October 31, 2011. Upon publication, we initiated a review of the status of the species to determine if listing the entire species as endangered is warranted. To ensure that this status review is comprehensive, we requested scientific and commercial data and other information regarding this species from the public, concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested parties. For details on what kinds of information we are requesting, see our September 1, 2011, document, which can be found on our Web site at http://www.fws.gov/policy/library/2011/2011-22372.pdf or at http://www.regulations.gov. Based on the status review, we will issue a 12-month finding on the petition, which will address whether the petitioned action is warranted, as provided in section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act.

        During the course of the comment period for our September 1, 2011, petition finding document, it came to our attention that the docket number given under ADDRESSES for U.S. mail and hand-delivery was incorrect. Therefore, we are correcting this error. Please be assured that any hard-copy comments submitted on this petition finding to the incorrect docket number that published (FWS-R9-IA-2008-0123) will be routed to the correct docket and do not need to be resubmitted. Moreover, the docket number that published for comments submitted via http://www.regulations.gov was correct, so comments submitted electronically have already been posted to the docket and do not need to be resubmitted.

        Additionally, we are now making the petition available to the public on http://www.regulations.gov (Docket No. FWS-R9-ES-2010-0086). This petition includes a large volume of supporting documents. To allow the public adequate time to review these documents and provide information, we are reopening the comment period for an additional 90 days to allow all interested parties to submit information. However, please note that information already submitted to us does not need to be resubmitted.

          Dated: October 18, 2011.
          Hannibal Bolton,
          (Acting) Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

      [FR Doc. 2011-28126 Filed 10-31-11; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No. 121022572-2572-01]
        RIN 0648-XC318
        Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Herring Fishery; Adjustment to 2013 Annual Catch Limits

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          Through this action NMFS proposes to reduce the 2013 annual catch limits (ACLs) for the Atlantic herring (herring) fishery to account for catch overages in 2011 and to prevent overfishing.

          DATES:
          Public comments must be received no later than 5 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, on December 13, 2012.

          ADDRESSES:

          Copies of supporting documents, the 2010-2012 Herring Specifications and Amendment 4 to the Herring Fishery Management Plan (FMP) are available from: Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950, telephone (978) 465-0492. These documents are also accessible via the Internet at http://www.nero.nmfs.gov.

          You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2012-0197, by any one of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal www.regulations.gov. To submit comments via the e-Rulemaking Portal, first click the “submit a comment” icon, then enter NOAA-NMFS-2012-0197 in the keyword search. Locate the document you wish to comment on from the resulting list and click on the “Submit a Comment” icon on the right of that line.
          • Mail: NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope “Comments on Adjustment to 2013 Herring Catch Limits.”
          • Fax: (978) 281-9135, Attn: Lindsey Feldman.

            Instructions: Comments must be submitted by one of the above methods to ensure that the comments are received, documented, and considered by NMFS. Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address) submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF formats only.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Lindsey Feldman, Fishery Management Specialist, 978-675-2179, fax 978-281-9135.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) developed herring specifications for 2010-2012, which were approved by NMFS on August 12, 2010 (75 FR 48874). The stock-wide herring ACL (91,200 mt) is divided among three management areas, one of which has two sub-areas. Area 1 is located in the Gulf of Maine (GOM) and is divided into an inshore section (Area 1A) and an offshore section (Area 1B). Area 2 is located in the coastal waters between Massachusetts and North Carolina, and Area 3 is on Georges Bank (GB). The herring stock complex is considered to be a single stock, but there are inshore (GOM) and offshore (GB) stock components. The GOM and GB stock components segregate during spawning and mix during feeding and migration. Each management area has its own sub-ACL to allow greater control of the fishing mortality on each stock component. The management area sub-ACLs established for 2010-2012 were: 26,546 mt for Area 1A, 4,362 mt for Area 1B, 22,146 mt for Area 2, and 38,146 mt for Area 3.

        Amendment 4 to the Herring FMP (Amendment 4) (76 FR 11373, March 2, 2011) revised the specification-setting process, bringing the Herring FMP into compliance with ACL and accountability measure (AM) requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA). Under the FMP, if NMFS determines catch will reach 95 percent of the sub-ACL allocated to a management area or seasonal period, then NMFS prohibits vessels from fishing for, possessing, catching, transferring, or landing more than 2,000 lb (907.2 kg) of herring per trip from that area or period. This AM slows catch to prevent or minimize catch in excess of a management area or seasonal period sub-ACL. As a way to account for ACL overages in the herring fishery, Amendment 4 established an AM that provided for overage deductions. If the catch of herring in any given fishing year exceeds any ACL or sub-ACL, the overage will subsequently be deducted from the corresponding ACL/sub-ACL. A range of reasonable alternatives to the current AMs will be considered as a part of the 2013-2015 specifications process. Until then, the current AMs, including the overage deduction addressed in this proposed rule, are still in place.
        Fishing year 2010 was the first year that NMFS monitored herring catch against the management area sub-ACLs. Herring catch from Areas 1B and 1A exceeded their 2010 allocations by 1,639 mt and 1,878 mt respectively. NMFS deducted the 2010 overages from the 2012 herring specifications in a final rule, which became effective on February 24, 2012 (77 FR 10978). Due to the overages that occurred in 2010, NMFS had previously revised vessel reporting requirements to obtain more timely catch reports (76 FR 54385, September 1, 2011). Accordingly, limited access herring vessels are now required to report herring catch daily via vessel monitoring systems (VMS), open access herring vessels are required report catch weekly via the interactive voice response system (IVR), and all herring-permitted vessels are required to submit vessel trip reports (VTRs) weekly.
        The 2011 Atlantic herring fishing year began on January 1 and ended on December 31, 2011. Based on dealer, VTR, and observer data, 2011 herring catch exceeded the sub-ACL in Area 1A by 1,425 mt. There were no sub-ACL overages in the other herring management areas. Therefore, NMFS is required to deduct the Area 1A overage in 2011 from the 2013 Area 1A sub-ACL. At the time of this proposed rule, the Atlantic herring 2013 specifications have not yet been finalized. The 2013-2015 herring specifications are currently in development and are not likely to be effective prior to the 2013 herring fishing year, which begins on January 1, 2013.
        The Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) met on September 13, 2012, to recommend acceptable biological catch (ABC) levels for the herring fishery. The Council is expected to take final action at its November meeting, and a proposed and final rule will follow. Although the 2013 herring specifications won't be in place on January 1, 2013, the regulations at § 648.200(d) include a provision that allows the previous years' specifications to roll over when the specifications are delayed past the start of the fishing year. Therefore, the 2012 herring specifications will be in place on January 1, 2013, until the 2013-2015 specifications are finalized, and the 2011 overage will be deducted initially from the 2011 herring specifications. Once the 2013-2015 specifications are final, the 2011 overage will be deducted from that amount as part of the rulemaking for the 2013-2015 specifications.
        Proposed Measures
        In accordance with regulations at § 648.201(a)(3), this action proposes to deduct the 1,425-mt 2011 overage in Area 1A from the 2013 Area 1A sub-ACL. Since the 2012 herring specifications will not be in place on January 1, 2013, this action proposes adjusting the rolled over sub-ACL in Area 1A until the 2013-2015 specifications are finalized. Therefore, on January 1, 2013, the sub-ACL for Area 1A would be revised from 26,546 mt to 25,121 mt (a reduction of 1,425 mt) to account for the 2011 catch overage. When the 2013 specifications are finalized, we will deduct the 1,425-mt overage from the final 2013 Area 1A sub-ACL.
        NMFS determined 2011 herring landings based on dealer reports (Federal and state) containing herring purchases, supplemented with VTRs (Federal and State of Maine) containing herring landings. NMFS compared dealer reports to VTRs for all trips that landed herring in 2011. Because VTRs are generally a hail weight or estimate of landings, with an assumed 10 percent margin of error, dealer reports are a more accurate source of landings data. However, if the amount of herring reported via VTR exceeded by 10-percent or more the amount of herring reported by the dealer, it was assumed that the dealer report for that trip was in error. In those instances, the amount of herring reported via VTR was used to determine the amount of herring landed on that trip. Herring landings in the VTR database were checked for accuracy against the scanned image of the paper VTRs submitted by the owner/operator of the vessel. VTR landings were also verified by comparing reported landings to harvesting potential and applicable possession limits for each vessel. Federal dealer reports and state reports for 2011 were finalized in June 2012.
        Herring landings reported on VTRs were assigned to herring management areas using latitude and longitude coordinates. VTRs with missing or invalid latitude/longitude coordinates were manually corrected using the statistical area reported on the VTR. If no statistical area was reported on the VTR, then a combination of recent fishing activity and a review of the scanned images of the original VTR were used to assign landings to a herring management area. Dealer reports without corresponding VTRs were prorated to a herring management area using the proportion of total herring landings stratified by week, gear type, and management area.
        NMFS resolved data errors resulting from misreporting. This was done by reviewing the 2011 herring data, and comparing VMS daily catch reports. Common dealer reporting issues included: Missing dealer reports; incorrect or missing VTR serial numbers; incorrect or missing vessel permit numbers; and misidentification of pair trawling vessels landing catch. VMS daily catch reports and VTRs had similar errors. Common VMS daily catch report errors included: Missing reports; data entry mistakes (including too many or not enough zeros); and missing kept all data reported by haddock stock area. Common VTR reporting issues included: Missing VTRs; missing or incorrect dealer information; incorrect amounts of landed herring; incorrect dates; and missing or incorrect statistical area. The quality of herring landings data is affected by unresolved data errors; therefore, NMFS strongly encourages vessel owner/operators and dealers to double check reports for accuracy and ensure reports are submitted on a timely basis.
        Discards of herring in 2011 were determined by extrapolating Northeast Fisheries Observer Program (observer) data to the entire herring fishery. The amount of observed herring discards (“Atlantic herring” and “herring unknown”) was divided by the amount of observed fish (all species) landed. That discard ratio was then multiplied by the amount of all fish landed for each trip to calculate total amount of herring discards in 2011. The amount of discards was determined for each management area and gear type. Observer data for 2011 were finalized on March 30, 2012.

        NMFS calculated the total herring catch for 2011 by adding the amount of herring landings to the amount of herring discarded. The methodology used by NMFS to calculate the amount of landed herring and the amount of discarded herring was reviewed and approved by the Council's Herring Plan Development Team (PDT) in August 2012. The final 2011 herring catch data differs from the catch data presented on the NOAA Fisheries Northeast Regional Office Web page (www.nero.noaa.gov) at the end of the 2011 fishing year due to differences in real-time quota monitoring and end of the year accounting methods. Herring catch was monitored in real time using weekly IVR reports supplemented with dealer data until September 8, 2011, when the VMS catch reports were required for limited access vessels. From September 8, 2011, through the remainder of the fishing year, herring catch was monitored in real-time using daily VMS catch reports for limited access herring vessels, and IVR reports for open access vessels. While using daily VMS catch reports are crucial for monitoring high volume fisheries such as the herring fishery in real-time, the final 2011 herring catch estimates used a combination of dealer and VTR data, which tends to have fewer errors and is more accurate. In addition, the year-end accounting method includes any late reported landings. Therefore, the final 2011 herring catch estimates can differ (sometimes significantly) from the real-time estimates shown on the NOAA Fisheries Northeast Regional Office Web site.
        The following chart contains information on the 2011 herring fishery:

          Total Catch of Atlantic Herring in 2011

            Management area
            Sub-ACL(mt)

            Landed herring
              (mt)

            Discarded herring
              (mt)

            Total herring catch(mt)

            Herring catch as percentage ofsub-ACL

            1A
            26,546
            30,621
            55
            30,676
            105

            1B
            4,362
            3,528
            2
            3,530
            81

            2
            22,146
            14,919
            81
            15,001
            68

            3
            38,146
            36,966
            71
            37,038
            97

        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the MSA, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Atlantic Herring FMP, other provisions of the MSA, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        The National Environmental Policy Act analysis to support this action was completed in Amendment 4 (76 FR 11373, March 2, 2011).
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. This proposed rule does not contain a collection-of-information requirement for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

        The Council prepared an IRFA, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) in the Environmental Assessment for Amendment 4. The IRFA describes the economic impact that herring accountability measures, including overage deductions, would have on small entities. A summary of the analysis and additional analysis on the economic impact of this proposed rule follows. A copy of the Amendment 4 analysis is available from the Council or NMFS (see ADDRESSES) or via the Internet at http://www.nero.noaa.gov.

        Statement of Objective and Need
        In 2011, there was a herring catch limit overage in herring management area 1A equal to 1,425 mt. In accordance with regulations at § 648.201(a)(3), this action proposes to deduct the 2011 management Area 1A overage from the 2013 management Area 1A catch limits. Since the 2013 specifications will not be finalized by January 1, 2013, and the 2012 specifications will be in place at the start of the herring fishing year, NMFS proposes to revise the rolled over sub-ACL for Area 1A for 2013 from 26,546 mt to 25,121 mt to account for 2011 the catch overage. When the 2013 herring specifications are finalized, NMFS will deduct the 1,425 mt from the final 2013 Area 1A sub-ACL.
        Description and Estimate of Number of Small Entities to Which the Rule Will Apply
        In 2011, 93 vessels were issued limited access herring permits, and 2,149 were issued open access herring permits. All participants in the herring fishery are small entities as defined by the SBA under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as none grossed more than $4 million annually, so there would be no disproportionate economic impacts on small entities.
        Total herring revenue in 2011 equaled approximately $22.4 million for limited access vessels and $43,000 for open access vessels. The reduced sub-ACL in Areas 1A is estimated to equal approximately $400,000 in lost revenue for the fishery in 2013. While this action reduces the amount of fish available for harvest, both the fishery-wide and individual-vessel economic effects are anticipated to be minimal, because the reduction is relatively minor, as compared with the fishery's overall revenue, and because it only affects one of the herring management areas.
        Minimizing Significant Economic Impacts on Small Entities
        Amendment 4 analyzed the effects of deducting ACL/sub-ACL overages from the subsequent corresponding ACL/sub-ACL. During a year when the ACL/sub-ACL is exceeded, fishery participants may benefit economically from higher catch. In the subsequent year, when the amount of the overage is deducted from that ACL/sub-ACL and the amount of harvest is lower, fishery participants may experience negative economic impacts. Since the participants in the fishery from year to year vary, there could be a minor economic impact on the fishery participants operating in Area 1A in 2013 due to the overage deduction from 2011.

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

          Dated: November 7, 2012.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, performing the functions and duties of the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2012-27543 Filed 11-9-12; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P