Sea Turtle Requirements; Petition for Rulemaking, 72099-72100 [05-23537]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 230 / Thursday, December 1, 2005 / Proposed Rules
Commercial Boilers, steam Generators,
and Process Heaters(Adopted 5/13/94)
Rule 1146.2—Emissions of Oxides of
Nitrogen from Large Water Heaters and
Small Boilers (Amended 1/17/05)
Rule 1148—Thermally Enhanced Oil
Recovery Wells (Adopted 11/5/82)
Rule 1149—Storage Tank Degassing
(Adopted 7/14/95)
Rule 1162—Polyester Resin Operations
(Amended 7/9/04)
Rule 1168—Adhesive and Sealant
Applications (Amended 1/7/05)
Rule 1171—Solvent Cleaning Operations
(Amended 5/6/05)
Rule 1173—Fugitive Emissions of Volatile
Organic Compounds (Adopted 12/06/02)
Rule 1176—VOC Emissions from Wastewater
Systems (Adopted 9/13/96)
Rule 1178—Further Reductions of VOC
Emissions from Storage Tanks at
Petroleum Facilities (Adopted 12/21/01)
Rule 1301—General (Adopted 12/7/95)
Rule 1302—Definitions (Adopted 12/06/02)
Rule 1303—Requirements (Adopted 12/06/
02)
Rule 1304—Exemptions (Adopted 6/14/96)
Rule 1306—Emission Calculations (Adopted
12/06/02)
Rule 1313—Permits to Operate (Adopted 12/
7/95)
Rule 1403—Asbestos Emissions from
Demolition/Renovation Activities
(Adopted 4/8/94)
Rule 1470—Requirements for Stationary
Diesel-Fueled Internal Combustion and
Other Compression Ignition Engines
(Adopted 3/4/05)
Rule 1605—Credits for the Voluntary Repair
of On-Road Vehicles Identified Through
Remote Sensing Devices (Adopted 10/
11/96)
Rule 1610—Old-Vehicle Scrapping (Adopted
2/12/99)
Rule 1612—Credits for Clean On-Road
Vehicles (Adopted 7/10/98)
Rule 1612.1—Mobile Source Credit
Generation Pilot Program (Adopted 3/16/
01)
Rule 1620—Credits for Clean Off-Road
Mobile Equipment (Adopted 7/10/98)
Rule 1701—General (Adopted 8/13/99)
Rule 1702—Definitions (Adopted 8/13/99)
Rule 1703—PSD Analysis (Adopted 10/7/88)
Rule 1704—Exemptions (Adopted 8/13/99)
Rule 1706—Emission Calculations (Adopted
8/13/99)
Rule 1713—Source Obligation (Adopted 10/
7/88)
Regulation XVII—Appendix (effective 1977)
Rule 1901—General Conformity (Adopted 9/
9/94)
Rule 2000—General (Amended 5/6/05)
Rule 2001—Applicability (Amended 5/6/05)
Rule 2002—Allocations for Oxides of
Nitrogen (NOX) and Oxides of Sulfur
(SOX) Emissions (Amended 1/7/05)
Rule 2004—Requirements (Adopted 5/11/01)
except (l)
Rule 2005—New Source Review for
RECLAIM (Amended 4/20/01) except (i)
Rule 2006—Permits (Adopted 5/11/01)
Rule 2007—Trading Requirements (Amended
5/6/05)
Rule 2008—Mobile Source Credits (Adopted
10/15/93)
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:46 Nov 30, 2005
Jkt 208001
Rule 2009—Compliance Plan for Power
Producing Facilities (Adopted 1/7/05)
Rule 2010—Administrative Remedies and
Sanctions (Amended 1/7/05)
Rule 2011—Requirements for Monitoring,
Reporting, and Recordkeeping for Oxides
of Sulfur (SOX) Emissions (Amended 5/
6/05)
Appendix A Volume IV—(Protocol for oxides
of sulfur) (Adopted 5/6/05)
Rule 2012—Requirements for Monitoring,
Reporting, and Recordkeeping for Oxides
of Nitrogen (NOX) Emissions (Amended
5/6/05)
Appendix A Volume V—(Protocol for oxides
of nitrogen) (Adopted 5/6/05)
Rule 2015—Backstop Provisions (Amended
6/4/04) except (b)(1)(G) and (b)(3)(B)
Rule 2020—RECLAIM Reserve (Adopted 5/
11/01)
Rule 2100—Registration of Portable
Equipment (Adopted 7/11/97)
Rule 2506—Area Source Credits for NOX and
SOX (Adopted 12/10/99)
XXX—Title V Permits
Rule 3000—General (Adopted 11/14/97)
Rule 3001—Applicability (Adopted 11/14/
97)
Rule 3002—Requirements (Adopted 11/14/
97)
Rule 3003—Applications (Adopted 3/16/01)
Rule 3004—Permit Types and Content
(Adopted 12/12/97)
Rule 3005—Permit Revisions (Adopted 3/16/
01)
Rule 3006—Public Participation (Adopted
11/14/97)
Rule 3007—Effect of Permit (Adopted 10/8/
93)
Rule 3008—Potential To Emit Limitations (3/
16/01)
XXXI—Acid Rain Permit Program (Adopted
2/10/95)
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 05–23275 Filed 11–30–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 223
[I.D. 111805A]
Sea Turtle Requirements; Petition for
Rulemaking
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of decision on petition.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS), National
Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), Department of
Commerce, announces its denial of a
petition for rulemaking submitted by
Oceana. Oceana failed to request
specific and discrete actions that are
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
72099
properly within the scope of a
rulemaking petition pursuant to the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA);
instead the petitioner challenged the
agency’s general pattern, practice, or
policy. NMFS is denying the petition
because the agency is already
addressing aspects of the petition and
has determined that additional
regulations dictating the choice of
method used to achieve agency goals are
unwarranted at this time.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Barbara Schroeder (ph. 301–713–1401,
fax 301–713–0376, e-mail
barbara.schroeder@noaa.gov).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Petition Request
On August 4, 2005, Oceana submitted
a petition requesting NMFS to
promulgate the following regulations:
(1) Conduct in-water population level
assessments. The petition requests that
NMFS use in-water survey techniques,
such as trawl or aerial surveys to obtain
supplemental population assessment
information for those species for which
nesting beach survey data are available
among other things, Oceana cites the
Turtle Expert Working Group (TEWG
2000) recommendations to improve
datasets and data-gathering methods in
order to support its petition;
(2) Increase observer coverage to
obtain accurate information on the
number of sea turtles caught in all
fisheries. The petition requests that
NMFS promulgate regulations that
increase coverage. The petition cites the
TEWG statement that observer coverage
over a statistically valid portion of the
fishing effort throughout the range of sea
turtles is necessary to accurately
estimate catch and mortality; and
(3) Establish a quantitative method for
determining take limits for biological
opinions. The petition claims that
NMFS fails to provide a quantitative
rationale for incidental take specified in
its biological opinions. The petition
mentions several NMFS’ evaluations of
quantitative models for sea turtles,
including the Potential Biological
Removal (PBR) model used for marine
mammals. Finally, the petition refers to
the August 2004 workshop convened by
NMFS to develop an analytical
framework for conducting jeopardy
analyses under the Endangered Species
Act (ESA) and identify options for
assessing species’ risk when data are
limited. The petition requests that
NMFS adopt regulations immediately to
insure that biological opinions use a
standardized method to make decisions.
E:\FR\FM\01DEP1.SGM
01DEP1
72100
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 230 / Thursday, December 1, 2005 / Proposed Rules
Analysis of Petition and Decision
NMFS carefully considered the
information contained in the petition
and supporting documents, and made
the final determinations for each portion
of the petition as follows.
Petition Component (1): Conduct Inwater Population Level Assessments
The petition fails to provide any new
information that justifies the need for
regulations that would change the
agency’s general pattern or practice
regarding data collection and analytical
methodologies. NMFS is aware of the
TEWG’s assessments of the current
datasets and is already working to
improve the empirical data that define
where, how many, and at what life stage
and condition sea turtles may be
encountered. NMFS is also conducting
and supporting in-water research in
many Atlantic states, as well as
conducting aerial surveys in the midAtlantic to better assess sea turtle
distribution and abundance. NMFS has
built upon the TEWG recommendations
by developing a requirements plan
(NOAA 2004) to improve our
understanding of the status of U.S. sea
turtle populations. The requirements
plan reviews the current sea turtle
population assessment program in terms
of present research capability and
capacity, and delineates the resources
necessary to acquire reliable assessment
information to fully address identified
data requirements. NMFS has
addressed, and will continue to address,
both the substance of this petitioned
action and the TEWG recommendations
through existing research planning
documents and programs. Improvement
of NMFS’ research program is a matter
left to the agency’s discretion; it is not
a specific and discrete action that is
properly within the scope of a petition
for rulemaking pursuant to APA 5
U.S.C. 553(e). Accordingly, NMFS
denies this component of the petition.
Petition Component (2): Increase
Observer Coverage to Obtain Accurate
Information on the Number of Sea
Turtles Caught in All Fisheries
Oceana has previously petitioned
NMFS to develop and implement a
workplan for placing observers on
enough fishing trips to provide
statistically reliable bycatch estimates in
all fisheries (67 FR 19154; April 18,
2002). In its response to that petition,
NMFS explained that even though
observers are effective in many fisheries,
they may not be appropriate for all
fisheries (68 FR 11501, March 11, 2003).
NMFS is continuing to expand and
modernize observer programs for
Federal commercial fisheries. NMFS
recognizes that improving monitoring
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:46 Nov 30, 2005
Jkt 208001
programs should increase our
understanding of sea turtle interactions,
but constraints on agency resources and
logistical difficulties (e.g., small boats)
make it difficult to monitor the extent of
sea turtle interactions in state-managed
and recreational fisheries. NMFS is
exploring various observer options that
could allow for more comprehensive,
longer term monitoring of sea turtlefishery interactions across fishing
sectors and jurisdictional boundaries,
but this on going effort is still in its
early stages. Options may include
placing observers in fisheries of concern
pursuant to authority under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA). In light
of NMFS’ previous denial of a
substantially similar petitioned action
and the agency’s ongoing efforts to
improve observer coverage, granting this
petitioned action is unwarranted at this
time.
Petition Component (3): Establish a
New, Uniform Quantitative Method for
Determining Take Limits for Biological
Opinions
NMFS is interested in maintaining
consist ESA section 7 jeopardy analyses
in its biological opinions, while taking
into account the wide variability in
listed species’ biology, as well as the
wide variability in available information
on them. To this end, NMFS convened
a workshop in August 2004 as a first
step in vetting the ESA section 7
biological opinion assessment
framework. NMFS is still in the process
of adding features such as identifying a
suite of quantitative and qualitative
methods for use in both data-sparse and
data-rich situations, as well as testing
and refining the applicability of the
methods using information typical to
section 7 consultations.
Any structured decision approach
adopted by NMFS must, in the overall
jeopardy evaluation, weigh such
qualitative factors as severity of injury,
significance of behavioral responses,
and extent and severity of habitat
disturbance. Approaches for evaluating
take levels for biological opinions
should contain options suitable to the
varied species, available data sets, and
actions under consideration. Use of any
particular quantitative model such as
PBR for every evaluation is
inappropriate. Moreover, section 7 of
the ESA and its implementing
regulations do not require NMFS to
estimate incidental take quantitatively.
When promulgating the section 7
regulations in 1986, NMFS and the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service explicitly
declined to endorse the use of
numerical estimates of incidental take
in all cases. In many biological
opinions, a description of the extent of
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
take is used because the loss of habitat
resulting in death or injury of
individuals may have more significant
adverse consequences than the direct
loss of a certain number of individuals
(51 FR 19953, June 3, 1986). Where
Federal actions ’take’ threatened or
endangered species by altering the
species’ habitat, it is often impossible to
translate the habitat lost into numerical
estimates of the number of individuals
taken. Consequently, numerical
estimates are not appropriate to every
consultation, and requiring them
through rulemaking could reduce the
protections listed species currently
receive.
The analytical framework for
evaluating take levels in biological
opinions is not yet completed and has
not been fully tested. NMFS has
determined that it is premature to
consider rulemaking to adopt the
framework, or any other uniform
decision approach, at this time. Thus,
NMFS denies this component of the
petition.
References Cited
Turtle Expert Working Group. 2000.
Assessment update for the Kemp’s
ridley and loggerhead sea turtle
populations in the western North
Atlantic. U.S. Dep. Commer. NOAA
Tech. Mem. NMFS-SEFSC–444, 115 pp.
NOAA Fisheries National Task Force
for Improving Marine Mammal and
Turtles Stock Assessment. September
2004. A Requirements Plan for
Improving Understanding of the Status
of U.S. Protected Species.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.
Dated: November 28, 2005.
Donna Wieting,
Deputy Director, Office of Protected
Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 05–23537 Filed 11–30–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
[Docket No. 051104291–5291–01; I.D.
100405F]
50 CFR Part 648
RIN 0648–AT29
Fisheries of the Northeastern United
States; Spiny Dogfish; Framework
Adjustment 1
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\01DEP1.SGM
01DEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 230 (Thursday, December 1, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 72099-72100]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-23537]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 223
[I.D. 111805A]
Sea Turtle Requirements; Petition for Rulemaking
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of decision on petition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce,
announces its denial of a petition for rulemaking submitted by Oceana.
Oceana failed to request specific and discrete actions that are
properly within the scope of a rulemaking petition pursuant to the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA); instead the petitioner challenged
the agency's general pattern, practice, or policy. NMFS is denying the
petition because the agency is already addressing aspects of the
petition and has determined that additional regulations dictating the
choice of method used to achieve agency goals are unwarranted at this
time.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Schroeder (ph. 301-713-1401,
fax 301-713-0376, e-mail barbara.schroeder@noaa.gov).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Petition Request
On August 4, 2005, Oceana submitted a petition requesting NMFS to
promulgate the following regulations:
(1) Conduct in-water population level assessments. The petition
requests that NMFS use in-water survey techniques, such as trawl or
aerial surveys to obtain supplemental population assessment information
for those species for which nesting beach survey data are available
among other things, Oceana cites the Turtle Expert Working Group (TEWG
2000) recommendations to improve datasets and data-gathering methods in
order to support its petition;
(2) Increase observer coverage to obtain accurate information on
the number of sea turtles caught in all fisheries. The petition
requests that NMFS promulgate regulations that increase coverage. The
petition cites the TEWG statement that observer coverage over a
statistically valid portion of the fishing effort throughout the range
of sea turtles is necessary to accurately estimate catch and mortality;
and
(3) Establish a quantitative method for determining take limits for
biological opinions. The petition claims that NMFS fails to provide a
quantitative rationale for incidental take specified in its biological
opinions. The petition mentions several NMFS' evaluations of
quantitative models for sea turtles, including the Potential Biological
Removal (PBR) model used for marine mammals. Finally, the petition
refers to the August 2004 workshop convened by NMFS to develop an
analytical framework for conducting jeopardy analyses under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) and identify options for assessing
species' risk when data are limited. The petition requests that NMFS
adopt regulations immediately to insure that biological opinions use a
standardized method to make decisions.
[[Page 72100]]
Analysis of Petition and Decision
NMFS carefully considered the information contained in the petition
and supporting documents, and made the final determinations for each
portion of the petition as follows.
Petition Component (1): Conduct In-water Population Level
Assessments
The petition fails to provide any new information that justifies
the need for regulations that would change the agency's general pattern
or practice regarding data collection and analytical methodologies.
NMFS is aware of the TEWG's assessments of the current datasets and is
already working to improve the empirical data that define where, how
many, and at what life stage and condition sea turtles may be
encountered. NMFS is also conducting and supporting in-water research
in many Atlantic states, as well as conducting aerial surveys in the
mid-Atlantic to better assess sea turtle distribution and abundance.
NMFS has built upon the TEWG recommendations by developing a
requirements plan (NOAA 2004) to improve our understanding of the
status of U.S. sea turtle populations. The requirements plan reviews
the current sea turtle population assessment program in terms of
present research capability and capacity, and delineates the resources
necessary to acquire reliable assessment information to fully address
identified data requirements. NMFS has addressed, and will continue to
address, both the substance of this petitioned action and the TEWG
recommendations through existing research planning documents and
programs. Improvement of NMFS' research program is a matter left to the
agency's discretion; it is not a specific and discrete action that is
properly within the scope of a petition for rulemaking pursuant to APA
5 U.S.C. 553(e). Accordingly, NMFS denies this component of the
petition.
Petition Component (2): Increase Observer Coverage to Obtain
Accurate Information on the Number of Sea Turtles Caught in All
Fisheries
Oceana has previously petitioned NMFS to develop and implement a
workplan for placing observers on enough fishing trips to provide
statistically reliable bycatch estimates in all fisheries (67 FR 19154;
April 18, 2002). In its response to that petition, NMFS explained that
even though observers are effective in many fisheries, they may not be
appropriate for all fisheries (68 FR 11501, March 11, 2003). NMFS is
continuing to expand and modernize observer programs for Federal
commercial fisheries. NMFS recognizes that improving monitoring
programs should increase our understanding of sea turtle interactions,
but constraints on agency resources and logistical difficulties (e.g.,
small boats) make it difficult to monitor the extent of sea turtle
interactions in state-managed and recreational fisheries. NMFS is
exploring various observer options that could allow for more
comprehensive, longer term monitoring of sea turtle-fishery
interactions across fishing sectors and jurisdictional boundaries, but
this on going effort is still in its early stages. Options may include
placing observers in fisheries of concern pursuant to authority under
the Endangered Species Act (ESA). In light of NMFS' previous denial of
a substantially similar petitioned action and the agency's ongoing
efforts to improve observer coverage, granting this petitioned action
is unwarranted at this time.
Petition Component (3): Establish a New, Uniform Quantitative
Method for Determining Take Limits for Biological Opinions
NMFS is interested in maintaining consist ESA section 7 jeopardy
analyses in its biological opinions, while taking into account the wide
variability in listed species' biology, as well as the wide variability
in available information on them. To this end, NMFS convened a workshop
in August 2004 as a first step in vetting the ESA section 7 biological
opinion assessment framework. NMFS is still in the process of adding
features such as identifying a suite of quantitative and qualitative
methods for use in both data-sparse and data-rich situations, as well
as testing and refining the applicability of the methods using
information typical to section 7 consultations.
Any structured decision approach adopted by NMFS must, in the
overall jeopardy evaluation, weigh such qualitative factors as severity
of injury, significance of behavioral responses, and extent and
severity of habitat disturbance. Approaches for evaluating take levels
for biological opinions should contain options suitable to the varied
species, available data sets, and actions under consideration. Use of
any particular quantitative model such as PBR for every evaluation is
inappropriate. Moreover, section 7 of the ESA and its implementing
regulations do not require NMFS to estimate incidental take
quantitatively. When promulgating the section 7 regulations in 1986,
NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service explicitly declined to
endorse the use of numerical estimates of incidental take in all cases.
In many biological opinions, a description of the extent of take is
used because the loss of habitat resulting in death or injury of
individuals may have more significant adverse consequences than the
direct loss of a certain number of individuals (51 FR 19953, June 3,
1986). Where Federal actions 'take' threatened or endangered species by
altering the species' habitat, it is often impossible to translate the
habitat lost into numerical estimates of the number of individuals
taken. Consequently, numerical estimates are not appropriate to every
consultation, and requiring them through rulemaking could reduce the
protections listed species currently receive.
The analytical framework for evaluating take levels in biological
opinions is not yet completed and has not been fully tested. NMFS has
determined that it is premature to consider rulemaking to adopt the
framework, or any other uniform decision approach, at this time. Thus,
NMFS denies this component of the petition.
References Cited
Turtle Expert Working Group. 2000. Assessment update for the Kemp's
ridley and loggerhead sea turtle populations in the western North
Atlantic. U.S. Dep. Commer. NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFS-SEFSC-444, 115 pp.
NOAA Fisheries National Task Force for Improving Marine Mammal and
Turtles Stock Assessment. September 2004. A Requirements Plan for
Improving Understanding of the Status of U.S. Protected Species.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.
Dated: November 28, 2005.
Donna Wieting,
Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 05-23537 Filed 11-30-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S