        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [I.D. 011900C]
        Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Deep-sea Red Crab Fishery; Scoping Process

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

          ACTION:
           Notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and notice of scoping process; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:

           The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) announces its intention to prepare a Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for deep-sea red crab (Chaceon
            quinquedens) and to prepare an EIS, if necessary, to analyze the impacts of any proposed management measures. The FMP would be developed pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). The Council also formally announces a public process to determine the scope of issues to be addressed in the environmental impact analyses. The purpose of this notification is to alert the interested public of the commencement of the scoping process and to provide for public participation in compliance with environmental documentation requirements.

          DATES:

           The Council will discuss and take scoping comments at public meetings in February 2000. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for specific dates and times. Written scoping comments must be received at the appropriate address or fax number (see ADDRESSES) on or before 5:00 p.m., local time, February 21, 2000.

          ADDRESSES:

           The Council will discuss and take scoping comments at public meetings in New Hampshire and Massachusetts. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for specific locations. Written comments and requests for copies of the scoping document and other information should be directed to Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950, Telephone (978) 465-0492. Comments may also be sent via facsimile (fax) to (978) 465-3116. Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or Internet.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
           Paul J. Howard, (978) 465-0492.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        The deep-sea red crab (Chaceon quinquedens) is a deep-water benthic species that supports a small commercial fishery on the Atlantic coast in southern New England and on the southern slope of Georges Bank. Although not regulated, the commercial fishery appears to be limited to approximately six vessels, with some possible seasonal participation by offshore lobster vessels. There is no FMP for red crab.
        Information is scarce for this resource, but recent annual landings appear to be close to estimates of maximum sustainable yield (MSY) (5.5 mil lb (2.5 mil kg)). Current capacity in this fishery is sufficient to harvest or exceed MSY; there is concern about excess harvesting capacity entering this fishery. The Council is considering development of a controlled access system in the red crab fishery to address the principle of matching capacity to sustainable harvest level. The limitation of entry into the fishery may be based on levels of participation or other criteria, such as domestic harvest capacity. The Council will consider other management measures (e.g., minimum size, quotas, trap limits and/or requirements, fishing seasons, etc.) as appropriate.
        Scoping Process

        All persons affected by or otherwise interested in red crab fishery management are invited to participate in determining the scope and significance of issues to be analyzed by submitting written comments (see ADDRESSES) or attending one of the scoping meetings. Scope consists of the range of actions, alternatives, and impacts to be considered. Alternatives include preparing an FMP that contains management measures such as the ones previously mentioned in this notice; preparing an FMP that does not contain management measures, but that has a framework procedure for the development of such measures in the future; not preparing an FMP at this time; or other reasonable courses of action. Impacts may be direct, indirect, individual, or cumulative. The scoping process also will identify and eliminate from detailed study issues that are not significant. If, after the scoping process is completed, the Council proceeds with the development of an FMP, the Council will prepare an EIS or Environmental Assessment, as appropriate, depending on the nature of the FMP to be developed. The Council will hold public hearings to receive comments on the draft FMP and the analysis of its impacts on the human environment.
        Public Meeting Schedule
        The Council will discuss and take scoping comments at public meetings as follows:

          February 11, 2000, 1:00 p.m., Urban Forestry Center, State of New Hampshire Division of Parks and Lands, 45 Elwyn Road, Portsmouth, NH 03801, (603) 431-6774 and

          February 14, 2000, 1:00 p.m., Center for Marine Science and Technology (CMAST), University of Massachusetts, 706 South Rodney French Boulevard, New Bedford, MA, (508) 999-8193.
        Additional scoping meetings may be scheduled as needed.
        Special Accommodations

        The meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Paul J. Howard (see ADDRESSES) at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

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

          Dated: January 27, 2000.
          Bruce C. Morehead,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 00-2275 Filed 2-1-00; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-F


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 218
        RIN 0648-BB14
        Taking and Importing Marine Mammals: Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to U.S. Navy Operations of Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System Low Frequency Active Sonar

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; extension of comment period.

          SUMMARY:
          On January 6, 2012, the NMFS published its proposed regulations to govern the take of marine mammals, by harassment, incidental to conducting operations of Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System (SURTASS) Low Frequency Active (LFA) sonar in areas of the world's oceans (with the exception of Arctic and Antarctic waters and certain geographic restrictions), from August 16, 2012, through August 15, 2017.
          The Federal Register notice indicated that written comments were due by February 6, 2012, which allowed 30 calendar days for public input. In response to a request from the Natural Resources Defense Council, NMFS has decided to extend the public comment period by 15 days, to February 21, 2012, which allows a total of 45 days for public input.

          DATES:
          NMFS has extended the public comment period for this action from February 6, 2012, to February 21, 2012. NMFS must receive written comments and information no later than February 21, 2012.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by 0648-BB14, by any one of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov, using the Keyword or ID 0648-BB14.
          • Hand delivery or mailing of paper, disk, or CD-ROM comments should be addressed to P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

            Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to http://www.regulations.gov without change. All Personal Identifying Information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may 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, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only. To help NMFS process and review comments more efficiently, please use only one method to submit comments.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Jeannine Cody, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        NMFS refers the reader to the January 6, 2012, Federal Register notice (77 FR 842) for background information concerning the proposed regulations. The information in the notice of proposed rulemaking is not repeated here. For additional information regarding the Navy's associated draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement/Supplemental Overseas Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS/SOEIS) for employment of SURTASS LFA sonar, please visit http://www.surtass-lfa-eis.com.

          Dated: February 3, 2012.
          Helen M. Golde,
          Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2012-3051 Filed 2-8-12; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 635
        [Docket No. 110527309-1307-01]
        RIN 0648-BA90
        Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; 2011 North and South Atlantic Swordfish Quotas

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          This proposed rule would adjust the North and South Atlantic swordfish quotas for the 2011 fishing year to account for 2010 underharvests and landings. This proposed rule incorporates International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) recommendations 10-02 and 09-03 into the quota adjustments for the 2011 fishing year. These recommendations extend, through the 2011 fishing year, the previously established baseline quotas for North and South Atlantic swordfish. Without this rule, the United States would be out of compliance with ICCAT recommendations.

          DATES:
          Comments on this proposed rule may be submitted by July 25, 2011.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by RIN 0648-BA90, by any one of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov.

          • Fax: 301-713-1917, Attn: Jennifer Cudney.
          • Mail: 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

            Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to http://www.regulations.gov without change. All Personal Identifying Information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may 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). You may submit attachments to electronic comments in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Jennifer Cudney or Karyl Brewster-Geisz by phone (301-713-2347) or by fax (301-713-1917).

          Copies of the supporting documents—including the 2007 Environmental Assessment (EA), Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA), and the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Fishery Management Plan (FMP)—are available from the HMS Web site at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The U.S. Atlantic swordfish fishery is managed under the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP. Implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 635 are issued under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., and the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA), 16 U.S.C. 971 et seq. As an active member of ICCAT, the United States implements the binding recommendations of ICCAT to comply with this international treaty. Under ATCA, Congress granted the authority to promulgate regulations as may be necessary and appropriate to implement binding recommendations of ICCAT.
        North Atlantic Swordfish Quota
        ICCAT recommendation 06-02 established a western North Atlantic swordfish total allowable catch (TAC) of 14,000 metric tons (mt) whole weight (ww) (10,526 mt dressed weight (dw)) through 2008. Of this TAC, the United States baseline quota was 2,937.6 mt dw (3,907.3 mt ww) per year. ICCAT recommendation 08-02 extended recommendation 06-02 through 2009, and maintained the U.S. previous years' quota allocation of 2,937.6 mt dw. ICCAT recommendation 09-02 reduced the western North Atlantic TAC to 13,700 mt ww (10,300.8 mt dw) through 2010. Of the 13,700 mt ww TAC, the United States continued to be allocated 2,937.6 mt dw (3,907.3 mt ww). At the 2010 ICCAT meeting, recommendation 10-02 was adopted for North Atlantic Swordfish for one year. Recommendation 10-02 included a total TAC of 13,700 mt ww, maintained the previous years' U.S. quota allocation of 2,937.6 mt dw, and maintained an 18.8 mt dw annual transfer to Canada. ICCAT recommendation 10-02 also limited the amount of North Atlantic swordfish underharvest that can be carried forward by all Contracting Parties, non-Contracting Cooperating Parties, Entities and Fishing Entities (CPCs) to 50 percent of the baseline quota allocation. Therefore, the United States may carry over a maximum of 1,468.8 mt dw of underharvests from the previous year (2010) to be added to the 2011 baseline quota.
        This proposed rule would adjust the U.S baseline quota for the 2011 fishing year to account for the 2010 underharvests. The 2011 North Atlantic swordfish baseline quota is 2,937.6 mt dw. The preliminary North Atlantic swordfish underharvest for 2010 was 2,921.10 mt dw, which exceeds the maximum carryover cap of 1,468.8 mt dw. Therefore, NMFS proposes to carry forward the capped amount per the ICCAT recommendation 10-02. The baseline quota plus the underharvest carryover maximum of 1,468.8 mt dw equals 4,406.4 mt dw, which is the proposed adjusted quota for the 2011 fishing year. From that proposed adjusted quota, the directed category would be allocated 3,677.1 mt dw that would be split equally into two seasons in 2010 (January through June, and July through December). The reserve category would be reduced from a quota of 448.1 mt dw to 429.3 mt dw due to the transfer of 18.8 mt dw to Canada per recommendation 10-02 (Table 1). This proposed rule would also allocate 300 mt dw to the incidental category, which includes recreational landings for the 2011 fishing season, per § 635.27 (c)(1)(i)(B). These landings are based on preliminary data. As late reports are received and the data go through a quality control process, some data may change. Any changes will be described in the final rule, as appropriate.
        South Atlantic Swordfish Quota
        ICCAT recommendation 06-03 established the South Atlantic swordfish TAC at 17,000 mt ww for 2007, 2008, and 2009. Of this, the United States received 75.2 mt dw (100 mt ww). As with the North Atlantic swordfish recommendation, ICCAT recommendation 06-03 established a cap on the amount of underharvest that can be carried forward. For South Atlantic swordfish, the United States is limited to carrying forward 100 percent (75.2 mt dw). The most recent South Atlantic swordfish measure, recommendation 09-03, is a 3-year measure that reduced the TAC to 15,000 mt dw but maintains the previous years' U.S. quota share of 75.2 mt dw (100 mt ww) through 2012.
        ICCAT recommendation 09-03 also requires that a total of 75.2 mt dw (100 mt ww) of the U.S. South Atlantic swordfish quota be transferred to other countries. These transfers are 37.6 mt dw (50 mt ww) to Namibia, 18.8 mt dw (25 mt ww) to Cote d'Ivore, and 18.8 mt dw (25 mt ww) to Belize. In 2010, the 75.2 mt dw that was transferred to these countries came entirely from the 2009 U.S. underharvested quota. In 2010, U.S. fishermen landed 0.2 mt dw of the U.S. quota. As such, due to 2010 landings of 0.2 mt dw, the United States only has 75.0 mt dw of the 2010 underharvest available for transfer and must transfer the remaining 0.2 mt dw from the 2011 baseline quota. Therefore, the 2011 adjusted quota for South Atlantic swordfish is 75.0 mt dw (Table 1).
        Impacts

        In recent years, the United States has not caught its entire swordfish quota. Beginning in 2007, the amount of underharvest that was available for carryover was capped at 50 percent of the quota for North Atlantic swordfish, and 100 percent for South Atlantic swordfish. The proposed adjusted quota for the North Atlantic swordfish, after accounting for the 2010 underharvests and annual transfer to Canada, would be the same in 2011 as the 2007 adjusted quota specifically examined in the Environmental Assessment (EA) that was prepared for the 2007 Swordfish Quota Specification Final Rule published on October 5, 2007 (72 FR 56929). While the 2011 baseline quota for South Atlantic swordfish is the same as that examined in the above mentioned EA, the proposed adjusted quota for the South Atlantic swordfish, after accounting for the 2010 landings and the transfer to other countries, would be 0.2 mt dw less than the adjusted quota examined in the EA. The quota adjustments would not increase overall quotas and are not expected to increase fishing effort, protected species interactions, or environmental effects beyond those considered in the EA mentioned above. Therefore, because there would be no changes to the swordfish management measures in this proposed rule, or the affected environment or any environmental effects that have not been previously analyzed, NMFS has determined that the proposed rule and impacts to the human environment as a result of the quota adjustments are not significant and therefore additional NEPA analysis beyond that discussed in the 2007 EA is not required.
        Administrative Change
        This proposed rule also makes a minor modification to the regulatory text. In the proposed rule establishing the 2003 swordfish quotas for the North and South Atlantic fisheries (68 FR 36967; June 20, 2003), NMFS proposed several changes to the regulatory text. In that proposed rule, NMFS included the sentence “The annual incidental category quota is 300 mt dw for each fishing year.” That sentence had been in the regulations for several years previous to that proposed rule. NMFS recently noticed that that sentence was inadvertently removed in the final rule (69 FR 68090; November 23, 2004) that finalized the swordfish quotas for that fishing year. NMFS proposes to reinstate that sentence in the regulatory text.

          Table 1—Landings and Quotas for the Atlantic Swordfish Fisheries (2007-2011)

            North Atlantic Swordfish quota (mt dw)
            2007
            2008
            2009
            ** 2010
            2011

            Baseline Quota
            2,937.6
            2,937.6
            2,937.6
            2,937.6
            2,937.6

            Quota Carried Over
            1,468.8
            1,468.8
            1,468.8
            1,468.8
            1,468.8

            Adjusted quota
            4,406.4
            4,406.4
            4,406.4
            4,406.4
            4,406.4

            Quota Allocation
            Directed Category
            3,601.9
            3,620.7
            3,639.5
            3,658.3
            3,677.1

            Incidental Category
            300.0
            300.0
            300.0
            300.0
            300.0

            Reserve Category
            504.5
            485.7
            466.9
            448.1
            429.3

            Utilized Quota
            Landings
            1,907.3
            1,752.7
            2,027.0
            ** 1,466.5
            TBD

            Reserve Transfer to Canada
            18.8
            18.8
            18.8
            18.8
            18.8

            Total Underharvest
            2,480.3
            2,634.9
            2,360.6
            ** 2,921.1
            TBD

            Dead Discards
            109.8
            149.8
            106.8
            TBD
            TBD

            Carryover Available +

            1,468.8
            1,468.8
            1,468.8
            1,468.8
            TBD

            South Atlantic Swordfish Quota (mt dw)
            2007
            2008
            2009
            ** 2010
            2011

            Baseline Quota
            75.2
            75.2
            75.2
            75.2
            75.2

            Quota Carried Over
            75.2
            75.2
            75.2
            * 0.0
            * −0.2

            Adjusted quota
            150.4
            150.4
            75.2
            75.2
            75.0

            Landings
            0.0
            0.0
            0.0
            ** 0.2
            TBD

            Carryover Available
            75.2
            75.2
            75.2
            75.0
            TBD

          + Under harvest is capped at 50 percent of the baseline quota allocation for the North Atlantic and 75.2 dw (100 mt ww) for the South Atlantic.
          * Under 09-03, 100 mt ww of the U.S. underharvest and base quota, as necessary, was transferred to Namibia (37.6 mt dw, 50 mt ww), Cote d'Ivore (18.8 mt dw, 25 mt ww), and Belize (18.8 mt dw, 25 mt ww).
          ** 2010 landings data are preliminary and are subject to change based on the 2011 ICCAT National Report.

        Public Hearings
        Public hearings on this proposed rule are not currently scheduled. If you would like to request a public hearing please contact Jennifer Cudney or Karyl Brewster-Geisz by phone at 301-713-2347.
        Classification
        The NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Consolidated HMS FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, ATCA, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        The Chief Council for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Council for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the United States is not expected to catch its entire quota, and the quota adjustments are the same in 2011 as they were in 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010.
        The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) published a final rule on October 5, 2007 (72 FR 56929), that established the 2,937.6 metric tons (mt) dressed weight (dw) and 75.2 mt dw yearly baseline quotas for the North and South Atlantic swordfish, respectively; established an underharvest carryover cap of 50 percent of the baseline quota for North Atlantic swordfish and 100 percent of the baseline quota for South Atlantic swordfish; and transferred 18.8 mt dw of quota to Canada from the reserve category in the North Atlantic. These actions were based upon the ICCAT recommendations 06-02 for North Atlantic swordfish and 06-03 for South Atlantic swordfish. Under ATCA, the United States may promulgate regulations as necessary and appropriate to implement binding recommendations of ICCAT.
        At the 2010 ICCAT meeting, recommendation 10-02 was adopted for North Atlantic Swordfish for one year. Recommendation 10-02 maintains the U.S. previous years' quota allocation of 2,937.6 mt dw as well as an 18.8 mt dw annual transfer to Canada. As such, the proposed 2011 adjusted quota is 4,406.4 mt dw for North Atlantic swordfish.

        This proposed rule would also adjust the 2011 baseline quota for the South Atlantic swordfish fisheries for the 2011 fishing year (January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2011) to account for 2010 underharvests per § 635.27(c) based on ICCAT recommendation 09-03. The ICCAT South Atlantic swordfish measure, recommendation 09-03, is a 3-year measure that maintains the U.S. quota share of 75.2 mt dw (100 mt whole weight (ww)). Recommendation 09-03 also states that a total of 75.2 mt dw (100 mt ww) of the U.S. South Atlantic swordfish quota be transferred to other countries. These transfers have been drawn from underharvests rolled over from the previous year. Due to 2010 landings of 0.2 mt dw, the United States can only transfer 75.0 mt dw of underharvest in 2011; the remaining 0.2 mt must be transferred from the baseline quota. These transfers are 37.6 mt dw (50 mt ww) to Namibia, 18.8 mt dw (25 mt ww) to Cote d'Ivore, and 18.8 mt dw (25 mt ww) to Belize. Therefore, the proposed 2011 adjusted quota is 75.0 mt dw for South Atlantic swordfish (Table 1).
        The commercial swordfish fishery is comprised of fishermen who hold a swordfish directed, incidental, or handgear limited access permit (LAP) and the related industries, including processors, bait houses, and equipment suppliers, all of which NMFS considers to be small entities according to the size standards set by the Small Business Administration. As of October 2010, there were approximately 177 fishermen with a directed swordfish LAP, 72 fishermen with an incidental swordfish LAP, and 75 fishermen with a handgear LAP for swordfish. Based on the 2009 swordfish ex-vessel price per pound of $3.49, the 2011 North and South Atlantic swordfish baseline quotas could result in gross revenues of $22,602,050 (6,476,232 lbs dw * $3.49) and $577,054 (165,345 lbs dw * $3.49), respectively, if the quotas were fully utilized. Under the adjusted quotas, the gross revenues could be $33,903,080 and $577,054, respectively, for fully utilized quotas. Potential revenues on a per vessel basis, considering a total of 324 swordfish permit holders, could be $104,639 for the North Atlantic swordfish fishery and $1,781 for the South Atlantic swordfish fishery.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 635
          Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels, Foreign relations, Imports, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Treaties.

          Dated: June 17, 2011.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 635 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 635—ATLANTIC HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES
          1. The authority citation for part 635 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
             16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

            2. In § 635.27, paragraph (c)(1)(i)(B) is revised to read as follows:

            § 635.27
            Quotas.

            (c) * * *
            (1) * * *
            (i) * * *
            (B) A swordfish from the North Atlantic swordfish stock landed by a vessel for which an incidental catch permit for swordfish or an HMS Angling or Charter/Headboat permit has been issued, or caught after the effective date of a closure of the directed fishery from a vessel for which a directed fishery permit or a handgear permit for swordfish has been issued, is counted against the incidental catch quota. The annual incidental category quota is 300 mt dw for each fishing year.

      [FR Doc. 2011-15641 Filed 6-17-11; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 52
        [EPA-R01-OAR-2015-0306; A-1-FRL-9949-31-Region 1]
        Air Plan Approval; Rhode Island; Correction, Administrative and Miscellaneous Revisions

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Rhode Island. This SIP revision includes fifteen revised Rhode Island Air Pollution Control Regulations. These regulations have been previously approved into the Rhode Island SIP and the revisions to these regulations are mainly administrative in nature, but also include technical corrections and a few substantive changes to several of the rules. In addition, EPA is proposing a correction to the Rhode Island SIP to remove Rhode Island's odor regulation because it was previously erroneously approved into the SIP. The intended effect of this action is to propose to approve Rhode Island's fifteen revised regulations into the Rhode Island SIP and correct the Rhode Island SIP by removing Rhode Island's odor regulation. This action is being taken in accordance with the Clean Air Act.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received on or before August 22, 2016.

          ADDRESSES:

          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-2015-0306 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to mcdonnell.ida@epa.gov. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the “For Further Information Contact” section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Susan Lancey, Air Permits, Toxics and Indoor Programs Unit, Office of Ecosystem Protection, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912, telephone 617-918-1656, fax 617-918-0656, email lancey.susan@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        In the Rules and Regulations section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this action rule, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of the rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

        For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules and Regulations section of this Federal Register.

          Dated: July 5, 2016.
          H. Curtis Spalding,
          Regional Administrator, EPA New England.

      [FR Doc. 2016-17183 Filed 7-21-16; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No. 190207082-9233-01]
        RIN 0648-XG800
        Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Spiny Dogfish Fishery; 2019 and Projected 2020-2021 Specifications

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes specifications for the 2019 spiny dogfish fishery and projected specifications for fishing years 2020 and 2021. The specifications are necessary to establish allowable harvest levels and other management measures to prevent overfishing while allowing optimum yield. This action is also intended to inform and provide an opportunity for comment to the public on these proposed specifications for the 2019 fishing year and projected specifications for 2020 and 2021.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before April 15, 2019.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2019-0008, by either of the following methods:

            Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal.
          1. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2019-0008,

          2. Click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and
          3. Enter or attach your comments.

          - OR -

            Mail: Submit written comments to Michael Pentony, Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope: “Comments on the Proposed Rule for Spiny Dogfish Specifications.”

            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 NMFS. All comments received are 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, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

          A draft environmental assessment (EA) has been prepared for this action that describes the proposed measures and other considered alternatives, as well as provides an analysis of the impacts of the proposed measures and alternatives. Copies of the specifications document, including the EA and the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), are available on request from Dr. Christopher M. Moore, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Suite 201, 800 North State Street, Dover, DE 19901. These documents are also accessible via the internet at http://www.mafmc.org.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Cynthia Ferrio, Fishery Management Specialist, (978) 281-9180.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Background

        The Atlantic spiny dogfish fishery is jointly managed in Federal waters by the New England and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Councils. Additionally, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission manages the spiny dogfish fishery in state waters from Maine to North Carolina through an interstate fishery management plan. The Spiny Dogfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) requires the specification of an annual catch limit (ACL), annual catch target (ACT), and the total allowable landings (TAL). These limits and other management measures may be set for up to five fishing years at a time, with each fishing year running from May 1 through April 30. This action proposes specifications for fishing year 2019 and projected specifications for fishing years 2020-2021.
        In 2018, the Northeast Fisheries Science Center completed an assessment update for the spiny dogfish stock, using the most recent and best available catch and biomass estimates from spring trawl surveys. This update indicates that the spiny dogfish stock is not currently overfished or experiencing overfishing. However, general biomass (specifically female spawning stock biomass) has been declining due to a combination of poor pup production and recruitment. Complications with several spring trawl surveys in recent years have also resulted in some data deficiencies for the stock. The Mid-Atlantic Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) reviewed the assessment update and recommended reducing the acceptable biological catch (ABC) in fishing years 2019-2021. The recommended ABC for 2019 would be a 43-percent decrease from the current 2018 ABC of 22,635 mt, followed by increases to the ABC in 2020 and 2021. This recommendation is based on the Mid-Atlantic Council's Risk Policy to prevent overfishing from occurring. The quota increases in the later years of the cycle are due to a projected growth in biomass and subsequent reduced risk of overfishing.
        The joint New England and Mid-Atlantic Council Spiny Dogfish Monitoring Committee (MC) derived an adjusted overfishing limit (OFL), ABC, ACL, ACT, and TAL from the SSC's recommended ABC and expected fishery data. The SSC only provided an OFL recommendation for 2019 that will be revisited as specifications are developed in the subsequent years. To calculate the portion of the total ABC available for the U.S. commercial quota each year, the MC followed the FMP's process in their recommendations and made deductions from the ABC to account for expected Canadian landings (49 mt), U.S. discards (3,475 mt), and U.S. recreational harvest (81 mt). The SSC and MC made these recommendations to the Mid-Atlantic and New England Councils and the Commission, which all reviewed them and submitted their own consistent recommended specifications. The recommended ABC and resulting commercial quota for 2019 are substantially reduced to decrease the risk of spiny dogfish becoming overfished. However, the assessment update projects an increase in the spiny dogfish stock over the next several years. Thus, there is an allowance for quota increases in the recommendations for 2020 and 2021.
        Proposed Specifications
        This action proposes the Councils' recommended spiny dogfish specifications for 2019-2021. The specifications are consistent with the SSC, Monitoring Committee, and Commission's recommended catch and landings limits. These recommendations are a substantial reduction in coastwide commercial quota from fishing year 2018 to 2019 in order to ensure overfishing does not occur. However, quotas are projected to increase in 2020 and 2021 as the spiny dogfish biomass is projected to increase, and the risk of overfishing declines. Table 1 provides a summary of the proposed specifications.

          Table 1—Summary of Proposed 2019, and Projected 2020 and 2021 Spiny Dogfish Fishery Specifications

            2019(mt)

            2019(lb)

            2020(mt)

            2020(lb)

            2021(mt)

            2021(lb)

            OFL
            21,549
            47,507,413
            N/A
            N/A
            N/A
            N/A

            ABC
            12,914
            28,470,497
            14,126
            31,142,499
            16,043
            35,368,761

            ACL = ACT
            12,865
            28,362,470
            14,077
            31,034,473
            15,994
            35,260,734

            TAL
            9,390
            20,701,000
            10,602
            23,373,409
            12,519
            27,599,671

            Commercial Quota
            9,309
            20,522,832
            10,521
            23,194,835
            12,438
            27,421,096

            Percent Change in Quota from Previous Year
            −46
            −46
            +13
            +13
            +18
            +18

        The recommended decrease in commercial quota is not expected to result in catch overages or revenue losses in the spiny dogfish fishery, as the fishery caught less than 42 percent of the 39,099,717-lb (17,735-mt) quota in 2017, and current reported landings for fishing year 2018 are behind those of 2017 at this time.
        The Councils did not recommend changes to any other regulations for the spiny dogfish fishery. All other fishery management measures, including the 6,000-lb (2,722-kg) federal trip limit, remain unchanged for fishing years 2019-2021. Changes to the trip limit were discussed and may be pursued in a future action. The Councils and NMFS will review the specifications for fishing years 2020 and 2021 to determine if any changes need to be made prior to their implementation. NMFS will publish a notice prior to each fishing year to confirm the projected specifications are effective unchanged or announce any necessary changes for those years.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Spiny Dogfish FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This proposed rule is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866 because this action contains no implementing regulations.

        The Mid-Atlantic Council prepared a draft EA for this action that analyzes the impacts of this proposed rule. The EA includes an IRFA, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), which is supplemented by information contained in the preamble of this proposed rule. The IRFA was prepared to examine the economic impacts of this proposed rule, if adopted, on small business entities, as well as the possible economic impacts of the other alternatives presented in this EA/specifications document. A copy of the detailed RFA analysis is available from the Council (see ADDRESSES). A summary of the 2019-2021 spiny dogfish specifications IRFA analysis follows.
        Description of the Reasons Why Action by the Agency Is Being Considered
        This action proposes 2019 catch limits and projects 2020-2021 specifications for the spiny dogfish fishery. A complete description of the action, why it is being considered, and its legal basis are contained in the draft EA and in this rule's preamble, and are not repeated here.
        Statement of the Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, This Proposed Rule
        This action is taken under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and regulations at 50 CFR part 648. A complete description of the action, why it is being considered, and its legal basis are contained in the specifications document, and elsewhere in the preamble to this proposed rule, and are not repeated here.
        Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which This Proposed Rule Would Apply
        This proposed rule affects small entities engaged in commercial fishing operations in the spiny dogfish fishery. For the purposes of the RFA analysis, the ownership entities (or firms), not the individual vessels, are considered to be the regulated entities. Ownership entities are defined as those entities or firms with common ownership personnel as listed on the permit application. Because of this, some vessels with spiny dogfish permits may be considered to be part of the same firm because they may have the same owners. To identify these small and large firms, vessel ownership data from the permit database were grouped according to common owners and sorted by size. In terms of RFA, a business primarily engaged in commercial fishing is classified as a small business if it has combined annual receipts not in excess of $11 million, for all its affiliated operations worldwide.
        In 2017, there were 2,254 vessels that held a spiny dogfish permit, while 244 of these vessels contributed to overall landings. Cross-referencing those permits with vessel ownership database revealed that 1,695 entities owned those vessels. 1,685 were classified as small entities, with the remaining 10 classified as large businesses. Of the 1,685 small entities, 374 had no revenue in 2017, 1,104 were commercial fishing entities, and 207 were for-hire entities. For those small businesses with revenues, their average revenues were $0.5 million in 2017. Overall, there were 227 entities with spiny dogfish permits that reported revenue from spiny dogfish during 2017. Of those entities, 1 was large and 226 were small and their average revenues in 2017 were $0.4 million.
        Description of the Projected Reporting, Record-Keeping, and Other Compliance Requirements of This Proposed Rule
        There is no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements contained in this proposed rule, or any of the alternatives considered for this action.
        Federal Rules Which May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With This Proposed Rule
        NMFS is not aware of any relevant Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this proposed rule.
        Description of Significant Alternatives to the Proposed Action Which Accomplish the Stated Objectives of Applicable Statutes and Which Minimize Any Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities
        This action (the preferred alternative) proposes 2019 commercial catch specifications and projected 2020-2021 specifications for the spiny dogfish fishery based on the most recent stock assessment update and the application of the Council's Risk Policy to prevent overfishing. These proposed specifications would decrease the commercial quota by 46 percent to 9,309 mt in 2019, followed by modest increases to 10,521 mt and 12,438 mt, in 2020 and 2021 as the biomass is projected to increase and the risk of overfishing declines. Although 46 percent is a substantial quota reduction, landings reports from the most recent available full fishing year (2017) show that only 7,439 mt of spiny dogfish were landed. Available landing information for fishing year 2018 is around 23 percent lower than in 2017. Given this data, it is possible that even the large 46-percent reduction in quota for 2019 will not be constraining to the spiny dogfish industry and small entities. If the fishery were to reverse the recent landing trends and fully achieve the proposed 2019 quota, it would still generate more landings and likely more revenues than the most recent year (2017) of full fishery information. Therefore, it is expected that the proposed action will have minimal impact on small entities. There is the potential for slight negative economic impact in the short term if landings and effort drastically increase and the lowered quotas become restrictive. However, there is also possible slight positive long term impacts due to maintaining sustainability of the spiny dogfish resource.
        The Council also considered a no action alternative, where the same catch limits and specifications from 2018 would continue into 2019 and beyond. This no action alternative may have a higher potential of minimizing short-term economic impacts on small entities, as it keeps the quotas higher and provides the potential for greater revenues and economic gain. However, as previously stated, effort and landings in the spiny dogfish fishery have been low in recent years, and higher quotas increase the risk of overfishing without addressing the issues in the market that may be keeping landings low.
        The Council recommended these proposed specifications (preferred alternative) over the no action alternative to satisfy the Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements to ensure fish stocks are not subject to overfishing, while allowing the greatest opportunity to achieve sustainable yield. This also increases the likelihood that the fishery will remain a viable source of fishing revenues for spiny dogfish fishing entities in the long term, and makes it the better lasting economic choice. Alternative 2 (no action) was not recommended by the Council because it would exceed the catch level recommendations of the Council's SSC, put the spiny dogfish stock at an unnecessary risk of overfishing, and would be inconsistent with the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. As explained in the EA, “[g]iven the status of the spiny dogfish stock and the requirements of the MSA, alternatives that would allow catches higher than the no action alternative would risk overfishing even more than no action. Alternatives that would limit catches to less than the alternative recommended by the Councils would be unnecessarily restrictive and hamper achievement of optimum yield” (MAFMC 2019, p.11). NMFS agrees with the Council's IRFA analysis and rationale for recommending these catch limits. As such, NMFS is proposing to implement the Council's preferred specifications, as presented in Table 1 of this proposed rule's preamble.

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

          Dated: March 25, 2019.
          Chris Oliver,
          Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2019-06030 Filed 3-28-19; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17

        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised 12-Month Finding for the Greater Adams Cave Beetle (Pseudanophthalmus pholeter) and the Lesser Adams Cave Beetle (Pseudanophthalmus cataryctos)

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Notice of revised 12-month petition finding.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce our revised 12-month finding for a petition to list the greater Adams Cave beetle (Pseudanophthalmus pholeter) and the lesser Adams Cave beetle (Pseudanophthalmus cataryctos) under the Endangered Species Act (Act). After a review of the best available scientific and commercial information, we conclude that these species are not likely to become endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of their range. Therefore, we find that proposing a rule to list these species is not warranted, and we no longer consider them to be candidate species for listing. The Service will continue to seek new information on the taxonomy, biology, and ecology of these species, as well as potential threats to their continued existence.

          DATES:

          This finding was made on November 15, 2005. Although no further action will result from this finding, we request that you submit new information concerning the taxonomy, biology, ecology, and status of the greater and lesser Adams Cave beetles, as well as potential threats to their continued existence, whenever such information becomes available.

          ADDRESSES:
          The complete file for this finding is available for inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 3761 Georgetown Road, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601. Submit new information, materials, comments, or questions concerning this species to us at the above address.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Michael A. Floyd, Kentucky Ecological Services Field Office at the address listed above, by telephone at 502-695-0468, by facsimile at 502-695-1024, or by e-mail at mike_floyd@fws.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        The Act provides two mechanisms for considering species for listing. One method allows the Secretary, on her own initiative, to identify species for listing under the standards of section 4(a)(1). We implement this through an assessment process to identify species that are candidates for listing, which means we have on file sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threats to support a proposal to list the species as endangered or threatened, but for which preparation and publication of a proposal is precluded by higher-priority listing actions. Using this process we identified the greater and lesser Adams Cave beetles as candidates for listing in 2001 and included them in the Candidate Notice of Review (CNOR) published in the Federal Register on October 30, 2001 (66 FR 54808). In subsequent CNORs that we published June 13, 2002 (67 FR 40657) and May 4, 2004 (69 FR 24875), we continued to recognize these two species as candidates for listing based on updated assessments of their status.
        A second mechanism that the Act provides for considering species for listing is for the public to petition us to add a species to the Lists of threatened or endangered species. Under section 4(b)(3)(A), when we receive such a petition, we must determine within 90 days, to the extent practicable, whether the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information that listing may be warranted (a “90-day” finding). If we make a positive 90-day finding, we must promptly commence a status review of the species and under section 4(b)(3)(B), we must make and publish one of three possible findings within 12 months of receipt of such a petition (a “12-month finding”):
        1. The petitioned action is not warranted;
        2. The petitioned action is warranted (in which case we are to promptly publish a proposed regulation to implement the petitioned action); or
        3. The petitioned action is warranted but (a) the immediate proposal of a regulation and final promulgation of a regulation implementing the petitioned action is precluded by pending proposals, and (b) expeditious progress is being made to add qualified species to the Lists.
        On May 11, 2004, the Service received a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity to list 225 species we previously had identified as candidates for listing, including the greater and lesser Adams Cave beetles. Our standard for making a species a candidate through our own initiative is identical to the standard for making a warranted-but-precluded 12-month petition finding. Pursuant to requirements in section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act, the CNOR and Notice of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions published by the Service on May 11, 2005 (70 FR 24870), included a finding that the immediate issuance of a proposed listing rule and the timely promulgation of a final rule for each of these petitioned species, including the greater and lesser Adams Cave beetles, was warranted but precluded by higher priority listing actions, and we described those actions as well as the expeditious progress being made to add qualified species to the Lists.
        Section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the ESA directs that when we make a “warranted but precluded” finding on a petition, we are to treat the petition as being one that is resubmitted annually on the date of the finding; thus the ESA requires us to reassess the petitioned actions and to publish a finding on the resubmitted petition on an annual basis. Although we typically make the annual finding for petitioned candidate species through the CNOR, we need not wait a full year to reassess the status of such a species and may publish a revised petition finding separately from the CNOR. That is what we are doing in this situation.

        As a result of new information regarding conservation efforts for the greater and lesser Adams Cave beetles, we completed a reassessment of their status in September 2005 (FWS 2005a). The updated assessment document is available from our Kentucky Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES, above). This resubmitted 12-month finding evaluates new information, as described in the species assessment and related documents referenced in it, and re-evaluates previously-acquired information.
        Species Information
        The greater Adams Cave beetle (Pseudanopthalmus pholeter) and lesser Adams Cave beetle (Pseudanopthalmus cataryctos) were described by Krekeler (1973) based upon specimens collected in Adams Cave by T.C. Barr and S.B. Peck in 1964. The two beetles are eyeless, reddish-brown insects that range in length from 3 to 5 mm. Both species are predatory, feeding upon small cave invertebrates such as spiders, mites, springtails, and millipedes. More detailed information on the taxonomy, biology, and habitat of these species can be found in FWS (2005a).
        Both the greater and lesser Adams Cave beetle are restricted to Adams Cave, a large, limestone cave located in the Bluegrass region of central Kentucky. The passageways of Adams Cave vary in height from approximately 5 to 60 feet and extend over 1,500 feet in length. The only known entrance to the cave and part of its underground passages lie within a 1-acre lot of a rapidly developing residential subdivision (Adams Place) located southwest of Richmond, Kentucky.
        Conservation Efforts

        The Service secured a commitment from the prior landowner to donate the enrolled property to a conservation organization or other non-profit organization to further ensure adequate, long-term protection and conservation of the cave and species inhabiting it. In 2002, the Southern Conservation Corporation (SCC), a non-profit land trust, accepted ownership of 1 acre of land that includes the only known entrance to the cave and a small portion of the 215-acre groundwater basin for Adams Cave. The Service worked with SCC to develop a Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances (CCAA) for the greater and lesser Adams Cave beetles (SCC and Service 2005). This CCAA, signed in March 2005, covers the 1-acre area owned by SCC, including the cave entrance. Through the CCAA, SCC committed to implement three conservation efforts specifically designed to further address the primary threats to the species: (1) SCC will maintain the Adams Cave property in a natural state by implementing provisions that ensure an adequate, natural energy flow into the cave is maintained and that development impacts and the probability of a contaminants spill that might impact the cave habitat are minimized; (2) SCC will maintain the metal gate at the entrance to Adams Cave; and (3) SCC will control/limit access to Adams Cave. Additional information regarding the details of these three efforts is provided in the species assessment and in the CCAA.
        Many aspects of the conservation efforts identified in the CCAA are on-going, such as maintenance of the gate and control of access into the cave, and others are planned. Based on our evaluation of each of the three conservation efforts using the criteria provided in the Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When Making Listing Decisions (PECE) (68 FR 15100), we have determined that each of the three efforts is sufficiently certain to be implemented and effective so as to have contributed to the elimination or reduction of threats to the species (FWS 2005b). Therefore, the Service can consider these conservation efforts in making a determination as to whether either the greater or lesser Adams cave beetle meets the Service's definition of a threatened or endangered species.
        Discussion of Listing Factors
        Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 424 set forth procedures for adding species to the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. A species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1). These factors and their application to greater and lesser Adams Cave beetles are summarized below. Additional information that provides the basis for this summary is available in the species assessment and is incorporated by reference.
        A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
        In our initial assessment of the greater and lesser Adams cave beetles in 2001, we identified these species candidates for listing due to the present and threatened destruction and modification of their habitat (66 FR 54800). The activities contributing to this threat factor have now been addressed, as summarized below.
        One of the identified threats was debris and trash in the cave and around the cave entrance. The debris and trash have been removed.
        In our 2001 assessment we identified a potential risk of destruction or modification of the cave environment, including the cave food chain, which could occur as a result of polluted runoff from the surrounding residential development or spills of toxic materials in the watershed in which the cave occurs. We now have determined that the potential risk of polluted stormwater runoff is quite limited because the majority of stormwater flows, the principal means by which pollutants could enter the cave, are diverted away from Adams Cave by a stormwater collection system for Adams Place subdivision. Also, native vegetation plantings now surrounding the cave entrance serve as natural filters for any potential non-point source pollutants that could potentially enter the cave during storm events. Toxic material spills from external sources are improbable because the Adams Cave watershed is not a commercial area where toxic chemicals are produced or stored, nor is there likely to be transport of any significant amounts of toxic materials in the area. Further, one of the conservation efforts in the CCAA prohibits the use of pesticides on the property, and under the CCAA the property cannot be used as a chemical, waste, or debris storage site or facility, and the dumping of debris or potential contaminants on the property is prohibited.
        Adams Cave was utilized for camping and other activities for several decades. In an attempt to control access to the cave, the prior owner placed a concrete block wall at the cave entrance. However, this blocked the normal flow of organic material and air that are important components of maintaining the cave ecosystem and food chain. The Service funded and oversaw the removal of the concrete block wall from the cave entrance and the installation of a locked metal gate just inside the entrance of Adams Cave. The metal gate now controls access without limiting the flow of air and various nutrients needed to maintain the cave habitat.
        Continued maintenance of the metal gate SCC, coupled with strict control of access to the cave, ensures that human entry into the cave is tightly controlled and restricted. This prevents vandalism and the deposition of trash or other debris that could destroy or modify habitat of the beetles. Routine inspection and maintenance of the cave gate prevents the gate from becoming blocked by fallen rock or other debris, thereby maintaining the natural flow of organic matter from the surface to the cave ecosystem.
        We note also that SCC is a non-profit land trust that acquired the site for the purpose of protecting it. As such, no development or other activities that could directly impact the cave habitat are likely to occur under their ownership, as they have committed to, and have been implementing, the conservation efforts in the CCAA.
        Based on the information summarized above, the greater and lesser Adams Cave beetles are not threatened by the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of their habitat or range.
        B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes
        We have no evidence of overutilization of the greater and lesser Adams Cave beetles in the past for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes, and have no information that suggests such a threat exists in the foreseeable future. Under the CCAA, collection for scientific purposes would be allowed only with the permission of the Service. The cave has been used for recreational purposes by spelunkers and by passive recreationists in the past, but placement of the locked metal gate across the cave entrance a few years ago has effectively eliminated such uses. Further, through maintenance of the metal gate at the cave entrance, as required by the CCAA, all unauthorized access to the cave is prevented. Based on these considerations, overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes is not a threat to the species.
        C. Disease or Predation
        Disease and predation are not known to be threats for either of these species and are, instead, a normal part of their life history. Mortality from disease or predation likely occurs but has not eliminated these species in the past and we have no reason to expect disease or predation to pose a substantial risk to the species in the future.
        D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

        Although the greater and lesser Adams Cave beetles are listed as endangered in Kentucky by the Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission, they are not protected under State law. However, there are no foreseeable reasons why specific regulatory mechanisms would be necessary to ensure the survival of these species because the landowner, SCC, is committed to and is implementing various conservation efforts to protect the cave and the greater and lesser Adams Cave beetles. This includes, but is not limited to, strictly controlling access to the cave and the property surrounding the cave opening. The metal gate is effective in preventing unauthorized entry into the cave, and as described above, SCC has committed to and is implementing measures to strictly control access to the cave.
        E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
        Populations of each of these two cave beetle species are restricted to Adams Cave and are generally believed to be represented by a small number of individuals. Although this is a natural situation, their limited distribution and numbers make these species vulnerable to extirpation due to effects from various manmade factors, such as spills of toxic substances, non-point source pollutants, and habitat-related damage, as described above under Factor A. As described above, the conservation efforts taken prior to the CCAA, as well as the efforts included in the CCAA, have removed or substantially reduced these habitat-related risks. Small population sizes for these species may also limit the natural interchange of genetic material within the population, which could affect long-term genetic and population viability. However, these are endemic species that have persisted over time despite the risks of limited genetic interchange. For the reasons described above, the greater and lesser Adams Cave beetles are not threatened by other natural or human-caused factors.
        Revised Petition Finding
        We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial information available regarding the past, present, and future threats faced by the greater and lesser Adams Cave beetles.
        We have evaluated the threats to the greater Adams cave beetle and the lesser Adams cave beetle and considered factors that, individually and in combination, presently or potentially could pose a risk to these species and their habitat. We conclude that listing these species under the Endangered Species Act is not warranted because the species are not likely to become endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of their range. These species no longer meet our definition of a candidate and are removed from candidate status.
        We will continue to monitor the status of the greater and lesser Adams Cave beetles, and to accept additional information and comments from all concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested party concerning this finding. We will reconsider this determination in the event that new information indicates that the threats to these species are of a considerably greater magnitude or imminence than identified here.
        References

        A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon request from the Kentucky Ecological Services Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see
          ADDRESSES).
        Author

        The primary author of this finding is Michael A. Floyd, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see
          ADDRESSES).
        Authority

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

          Dated: November 15, 2005.
          Richard E. Sayers, Jr.,
          Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

      [FR Doc. 05-23762 Filed 12-7-05; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P