Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Proposed Rules 37671 

243.204–70–5 Exceptions. 

(a) The limitations in 243.204–70–2, 

243.204–70–3, and 243.204–70–4 do not 

apply to unpriced change orders for the 

purchase of initial spares. 

(b) The head of the agency may waive 

the limitations in 243.204–70–2, 

243.204–70–3, and 243.204–70–4 for 

unpriced change orders if the head of 

the agency determines that the waiver is 

necessary to support— 

(1) A contingency operation; or 

(2) A humanitarian or peacekeeping 

operation. 

243.204–70–6 Allowable profit. 

When the final price of an unpriced 

change order is negotiated after a 

substantial portion of the required 

performance has been completed, the 

head of the contracting activity shall 

ensure the profit allowed reflects— 

(a) Any reduced cost risk to the 

contractor for costs incurred during 

contract performance before negotiation 

of the final price; 

(b) The contractor’s reduced cost risk 

for costs incurred during performance of 

the remainder of the contract; and 

(c) The extent to which costs have 

been incurred prior to definitization of 

the contract action (see 215.404–71– 

3(d)(2)). The risk assessment shall be 

documented in the contract file. 

243.204–70–7 Plans and reports. 

To provide for enhanced management 

and oversight of unpriced change 

orders, departments and agencies 

shall— 

(a) Include in the Consolidated 

Undefinitized Contract Action (UCA) 

Management Plan required by 217.7405, 

the actions planned and taken to ensure 

that unpriced change orders are 

definitized in accordance with this 

subsection; and 

(b) Include in the Consolidated UCA 

Management Report required by 

217.7405, each unpriced change order 

with an estimated value exceeding $5 

million. 

[FR Doc. E9–17955 Filed 7–28–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–08–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Parts 223 and 224 

[Docket No. 0906221082–91083–01] 

RIN 0648–XQ03 

Listing Endangered and Threatened 

Species and Designating Critical 

Habitat: Notice of Finding on a Petition 

To List the Largetooth Sawfish (Pristis 

perotteti) as an Endangered or 

Threatened Species Under the 

Endangered Species Act 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce 

ACTION: Notice of finding, request for 

information, and initiation of status 

review 

SUMMARY: We, NMFS, announce a 90 

day finding on a petition to list 

largetooth sawfish (Pristis perotteti) as 

endangered or threatened under the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA). We find 

that the petition presents substantial 

scientific and commercial information 

indicating the petitioned action may be 

warranted. We will conduct a status 

review of largetooth sawfish to 

determine if the petitioned action is 

warranted. To ensure that the status 

review is comprehensive, we are 

soliciting scientific and commercial data 

regarding this species (see below). 

DATES: Information and comments on 

the subject action must be received by 

September 28, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by the code 0648–XQ03, 

addressed to: Shelley Norton, Natural 

Resource Specialist, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Electronic Submissions: Submit all 

electronic comments via the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal http:// 

www.regulations.gov 

• Facsimile (fax): 727–824–5309 

• Mail: NMFS, Southeast Regional 

Office, 263 13th Avenue South, St 

Petersburg, FL 33701 

• Hand delivery: You may hand 

deliver written comments to our office 

during normal business hours at the 

street address given above. 

Instructions: All comments received 

are a part of the public record and may 

be posted to http://www.regulations.gov 

without change. All personally 

identifiable 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, Corel WordPerfect, or 

Adobe PDF file formats only. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Shelley Norton, NMFS, Southeast 

Region, (727) 824–5312; or Sean 

Ledwin, NMFS, Office of Protected 

Resources, (301) 713–1401. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On April 24th, 2009, we received a 

petition from WildEarth Guardians 

requesting that the Secretary of 

Commerce (Secretary) list largetooth 

sawfish (P. perotteti) as endangered or 

threatened throughout its range and 

designate critical habitat concurrent 

with listing. We identified largetooth 

sawfish as a candidate species under the 

ESA on June 23, 1999 (64 FR 33466). On 

November 30, 1999, we received a 

petition from the Center for Marine 

Conservation (now the Ocean 

Conservancy) requesting that we list the 

North American populations of 

largetooth and smalltooth sawfish (P. 

pectinata) as endangered. On March 10, 

2000 (65 FR 12959), we found that there 

was not substantial evidence to warrant 

initiation of a status review of North 

American populations of largetooth 

sawfish, on the basis that the petition 

did not contain substantial scientific or 

commercial information to indicate the 

present existence of such a population 

eligible for listing. WildEarth Guardians’ 

current petition also requests that the 

Secretary re-examine and reverse the 

March 10, 2000, negative 90–day 

finding to list the North American 

population of largetooth sawfish as 

endangered. We will consider the 

petitioner’s request as a request to 

consider a North American Distinct 

Population Segment (DPS), should we 

determine that a 90–day ‘‘may be 

warranted’’ finding regarding the 

species throughout its range is not 

warranted. 

ESA Statutory Provisions and Policy 

Considerations 

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

U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)) requires that we 

make a finding as to whether a petition 

to list, delist, or reclassify a species 

‘‘presents substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating the 

petitioned action may be warranted.’’ 

ESA implementing regulations define 

substantial information as the ‘‘amount 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

37672 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

of information that would lead a 

reasonable person to believe the 

measure proposed in the petition may 

be warranted’’ (50 CFR 424.14(b)(1)). In 

determining whether substantial 

information exists to support a petition 

to list a species, we take into account 

several factors, including information 

submitted with, and referenced in, the 

petition and all other information 

readily available in our files. To the 

maximum extent practicable, this 

finding is to be made within 90 days of 

the receipt of the petition (16 U.S.C. 

1533(b)(3)(A)), and the finding is to be 

published promptly in the Federal 

Register. If we find that a petition 

presents substantial information 

indicating that the requested action may 

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

ESA requires that the Secretary conduct 

a status review of the species. Section 4 

(b)(3)(B) requires the Secretary to make 

a finding as to whether or not the 

petitioned action is warranted within 12 

months of the receipt of the petition. 

The Secretary has delegated the 

authority for these actions to the NOAA 

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries. 

Under the ESA, a listing determination 

can address a species, subspecies, or a 

DPS of a vertebrate species (16 U.S.C. 

1532 (16)). In 1996, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and NMFS published 

the Policy on the Recognition of a 

Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments 

under the Endangered Species Act (61 

FR 4722; February 7, 1996). 

The ESA defines an endangered 

species as ’’any species which is in 

danger of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range’’ (ESA 

Section 3(6)). A threatened species is 

defined as a species that is ’’likely to 

become an endangered species within 

the foreseeable future throughout all or 

a significant portion of its range’’ (ESA 

Section 3(19)). Under section 4(a)(1) of 

the ESA, a species may be determined 

to be threatened or endangered as a 

result of any one of the following 

factors: (1) present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

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

scientific, or educational purposes; (3) 

disease or predation; (4) inadequacy of 

existing regulatory mechanisms; or (5) 

other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. Listing 

determinations are made solely on the 

basis of the best scientific and 

commercial data available, after 

conducting a review of the status of the 

species and taking into account efforts 

made by any state or foreign nation to 

protect such species. 

Distribution and Life History of 

Largetooth Sawfish 

Largetooth sawfish historically 

inhabited warm temperate to tropical 

marine waters in the Atlantic, 

Caribbean, and eastern Pacific. In the 

western Atlantic the species occurred 

from the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico 

south through Brazil. In the United 

States, largetooth sawfish were reported 

in the Gulf of Mexico mainly along the 

Texas coast and east into Florida waters 

(Burgess and Curtis, 2003). In the 

eastern Atlantic largetooth sawfish 

historically occurred from Spain 

through Angola. The eastern Pacific 

historic range of the species was from 

Mazatlan, Mexico to Guayaquil, Ecuador 

(Cook et al., 2005) or possibly Tumbes, 

Peru (Chirichigo and Cornejo, 2001). 

Largetooth and smalltooth sawfish 

occur in many of the same areas in the 

Atlantic and may be morphologically 

distinguished from each other by the 

number of pairs of rostral teeth, the 

placement of the pectoral fins relative to 

the pelvic fins, and the shape of their 

caudal fin (Bigelow and Schroeder, 

1953). Despite these differences there 

were problems differentiating the 

species in a few early accounts, so some 

records of distribution and abundance 

are uncertain. To confuse matters 

further, the current species P. perotteti 

has been variously referred to in the 

literature over part or all of its range as 

P. antiquorum (Visschen, 1919; as cited 

in Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953), P. 

zephyreus (Beebe and Tee-Van, 1941; 

Compango and Last, 1999), P. pristis 

(McEachran and Fechhelm, 1998), or P. 

microdon (Garman, 1913; Fowler, 1941; 

Compango and Last, 1999; Chirichigo 

and Cornejo, 2001; Vakily et al., 2002). 

Pristis microdon is still considered valid 

taxa; some authors consider the eastern 

Pacific populations to be part of the 

species P. microdon (Garman, 1913; 

Fowler, 1941; Chirichigo and Cornejo, 

2001) while others consider the eastern 

Pacific populations to be P. perotteti 

(Jordan and Evermann, 1896; refs. in 

Beebe and Tee-Van, 1941; Compagno 

and Cook, 1995; Camhi et al., 1998; 

Cook et al., 2005). The International 

Union for the Conservation of Nature 

(IUCN) ‘‘Red List’’ notes the 

controversy, but bases its assessment 

only on the Atlantic populations 

(Charvet-Almeida et al., 2007). We 

tentatively regard the eastern Pacific 

populations as being included in P. 

perotteti for the purposes of this 

analysis. The taxonomic relationships of 

largetooth sawfish and related sawfishes 

clearly need further examination 

(Compagno and Cook, 1995; Cook et al., 

2005; Wueringer et al., 2009). 

Largetooth sawfish are thought to 

presently occur in freshwater habitats in 

Central and South America and Africa. 

In Atlantic drainages, largetooth 

sawtooth have been found in freshwater 

at least 833 miles (1,340 km) from the 

ocean in the Amazon River system 

(Manacapuru, Brazil), as well as in Lake 

Nicaragua and the San Juan River and 

other east coast Nicaraguan rivers; the 

Rio Coco, on the border of Nicaragua 

and Honduras; Rio Patuca, Honduras; 

Lago de Izabal, Rio Motagua, and Rio 

Dulce, Guatemala; the Belize River, 

Belize; Mexican streams that flow into 

the Gulf of Mexico; Las Lagunas Del 

Tortuguero, Rio Parismina, Rio Pacuare, 

and Rio Matina, Costa Rica; Rio San 

Juan and the Magdalena River, 

Columbia; the Falm River in Mali and 

Senegal; the Saloum River, Senegal; 

coastal rivers in Gambia; and the Geba 

River, Guinea-Bissau (Thorson, 1974; 

1982b; Castro-Augiree, 1978 as cited in 

Thorson, 1982b; Compagno and Cook, 

1995; C. Scharpf and M. McDavitt, pers. 

comm., as cited in Cook et al., 2005). In 

the eastern Pacific the species has been 

reported in freshwater in the Tuyra, 

Culebra, Tilapa, Chucunaque, Bayeno, 

and Rio Sambu Rivers, and at the Balboa 

and Miraflores locks in the Panama 

Canal, Panama; Rio San Juan, Columbia; 

and in the Rio Goascoran, along the 

border of El Salvador and Honduras 

(Boulenger, 1909; Fowler, 1936; 1941; 

Beebe and Tee-Van, 1941; Bigelow and 

Schroeder, 1953; Gunter, 1957; Thorson 

et al., 1966; Dahl, 1971; Thorson, 1974; 

1976; 1980; 1982a; 1982b, 1987; 

Vasquez-Montoya and Thorson 1982a, 

1982b; Daget, 1984; Compagno and 

Cook, 1995; all as cited in Cook et al., 

2005). 

Largetooth sawfish, like other 

members of their family, are 

characterized by a toothy snout 

projecting well forward of the head and 

mouth. Approximately 2.5 ft (0.76m) 

long at birth, largetooth sawfish can 

reach lengths of up to 21.3 feet (6.5m) 

and weights of up to 1300 pounds (600 

kg) (Thorson, 1976). Studies of 

largetooth sawfish in Lake Nicaragua 

report litter sizes of 1 to 13 individuals, 

with an average of 7.3 individuals 

(Thorson, 1976). The gestation period 

for largetooth sawfish is approximately 

5 months, and females likely produce 

litters every second year. Given that 

largetooth sawfish are long lived, slow 

growing, late maturing, ovoviviparous, 

and produce few young, the species has 

a very low intrinsic rate of increase. 

Simpfendorfer (2000) estimated the 

intrinsic rate of increase for largetooth 

sawfish was from 0.05 to 0.07 per year, 

and population doubling time was 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Proposed Rules 37673 

between 10.3 and 13.6 years. Musick et 

al. (2000) noted that intrinsic rates of 

increase less than ten percent (0.1) were 

low and make a species particularly 

vulnerable to excessive mortalities and 

rapid population declines, after which 

recovery may take decades. 

Largetooth sawfish are generally 

restricted to shallow (<33 feet or 10 m) 

coastal, estuarine, and fresh waters, 

although they have been found at 

depths of up to 400 ft (122 m) in Lake 

Nicaragua. Largetooth sawfish are often 

found in brackish water near river 

mouths and large embayments, 

preferring partially enclosed waters, 

lying in deeper holes and on bottoms of 

mud or muddy sand (Bigelow and 

Schroeder, 1953). While it is thought 

that they spend most of their time on 

the bottom, they are commonly 

observed swimming near the surface in 

the wild and in aquaria (Cook et al., 

2005). Largetooth sawfish move among 

salinity gradients freely and appear to 

have more physiological tolerance of 

freshwater than smalltooth sawfish 

(Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953; Dahl, 

1971; Thorson, 1974; 1976; all as cited 

in Thorson, 1982b). The rostral ‘‘saw’’ is 

used in feeding to stir up prey items in 

the benthos and may be used to stun 

schooling fish. 

Analysis of Petition 

We evaluated the information 

referenced in the petition and all other 

information readily available in our files 

to determine if the petition presents 

substantial scientific and/or commercial 

information indicating that the species 

may be ‘‘threatened’’ or ‘‘endangered’’ 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

their range. The current petition differs 

from the 1999 petition by seeking the 

listing of the entire species wherever it 

is found. The petition resubmits 

biological, distributional, and historical 

information from the 1999 petition and 

2000 finding and provides additional 

information including the International 

Union for the Conservation of Nature 

(IUCN) ‘‘Red List’’ assessment (CharvetAlmeida et al., 2007), reports on the 

Brazilian population (Menni and 

Stehmann, 2000; Charvet-Almeida, 

2002), a report on the international 

sawfish trade (McDavitt and CharvetAlmeida, 2004), and a summary paper 

on the global population of largetooth 

sawfish (Cook et al., 2005). The petition 

also addresses the five factors in section 

4(a)(1) of the ESA as they pertain to 

listing of the species. The petitioner 

stresses information related to range 

contraction and local extirpations, 

declines in abundance, and specific 

details about threats to the species. We 

summarize our analysis regarding 

specific factors affecting the species’ 

risk of extinction below. 

Range Contraction 

There is evidence from throughout the 

species range that largetooth sawfish 

have been extirpated and/or no longer 

occur in some locations. These locations 

include the U. S. portion of the Gulf of 

Mexico and the southeastern coast of 

Brazil (Menni and Stehmann, 2000). 

The last known U.S. sightings were in 

1941 in Florida and 1943 in Texas 

(Burgess and Curtis, 2003). In addition, 

the IUCN considers populations in 

Benin, Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea, 

Gabon, Ghana, Gibraltar, Guinea, Mali, 

Mauritania, Morocco, Nigeria, Spain, 

Togo, Western Sahara, and the U. S. as 

‘‘possibly extinct’’ (i.e., locally 

extirpated) (Charvet-Almeida et al., 

2007). The IUCN provides contradictory 

information on whether largetooth 

sawfish currently occur in Angola, The 

Democratic Republic of Congo, Cote 

d’Ivoire, Gambia, Liberia, Senegal, and 

Sierra Leone (Charvet-Almeida et al., 

2007). 

Declines in Abundance 

Quantitative data on largetooth 

sawfish population trends are lacking in 

the petition and our files. The best 

available information from scientific 

reports and anecdotal information from 

fisherpeople and others suggests large 

declines in abundance have occurred on 

the north coast of Brazil (CharvetAlmeida, 2002) and in other areas where 

the species still occurs (CharvetAlmeida et al., 2007). Thorson’s 

detailed studies (Thorson, 1976; 1982a; 

1982b; 1987) document significant 

declines of largetooth sawfish in Lake 

Nicaragua, and others report that these 

low abundance levels continue (Tanaka, 

1994; McDavitt, 2002). The IUCN 

reports ongoing declines in artisanal 

and commercial landings (CharvetAlmeida et al., 2007), but they provide 

no direct citations or data. Based on the 

local extirpations and declines in 

abundance the IUCN has placed 

largetooth sawfish on the IUCN ‘‘Red 

List’’ as ‘‘critically endangered’’ in the 

Atlantic (Charvet-Almeida et al., 2007). 

Population Structure 

There is little information in the 

petition or our files related to genetic, 

morphological, or other population 

structure differences within the species 

beyond the unique freshwater 

population of Lake Nicaragua discussed 

above. 

Threats 

The petitioner believes the most 

immediate threat to the species is the 

reduction in abundance and density 

caused by overharvest and bycatch. 

Direct and incidental commercial catch 

and artisanal and recreational fisheries 

occur throughout the species’ range 

(Thorson, 1987; Taniuchi, 1992; Tanaka, 

1994; Camhi et al., 1998; CharvetAlmeida, 2002). The species is valued 

for its flesh, fins that are used in the 

‘‘shark’’ fin trade, skins that are used for 

leather, the live aquarium trade, the 

curio value of the rostral saw, and the 

rostral teeth, which are used for a 

variety of purposes including as spurs 

for roosters used in cockfighting 

(Charvet-Almeida, 2002; McDavitt and 

Charvet-Almeida, 2004; Cook et al., 

2005). These values have created an 

international market for sawfish 

products (McDavitt and CharvetAlmeida, 2004); however largetooth 

sawfish were added to Appendix I of the 

Convention on International Trade in 

Endangered Species in 2007. On his 

initial visits to Lake Nicaragua, Thorson 

(pers. comm.; as cited in Cook et al., 

2005) noted large catches of largetooth 

sawfish. Direct fisheries in Lake 

Nicaragua removed an estimated 60,000 

to 100,000 sawfishes between 1970 and 

1975 (Thorson, 1976); sawfish are now 

extremely rare in the lake (Thorson, 

1987; Tanaka, 1994; McDavitt, 2002). In 

Brazil, largetooth sawfish extirpation 

from the southeastern coast and decline 

on the north coast is attributed to direct 

fisheries that continue today (CharvetAlmeida, 2002). 

Habitat degradation and loss are also 

likely contributors to the species’ 

decline. Specific threats to largetooth 

sawfish habitat include destruction of 

mangrove forests and coastal 

development throughout its range 

(Charvet-Almeida et al., 2007). The 

petitioner also identified weak or nonexistent regulatory or management 

mechanisms throughout the species 

range. 

Petition Finding 

After reviewing the information 

submitted with, and referenced in, the 

petition and all other information 

readily available in our files, the 

evidence suggests that largetooth 

sawfish have undergone severe range 

contractions and local extirpations in 

their distribution at both the northern 

and southern extremes of their range; 

have experienced severe population 

declines in areas where they still exist; 

and are subject to ongoing threats of 

overharvest, habitat loss and 

degradation, and inadequate 

management and/or regulation in many 

parts of their range. Therefore, we 

determine that the petition presents 

substantial scientific or commercial 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

37674 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

information indicating the petitioned 

action may be warranted with respect to 

the species throughout its entire range. 

In accordance with section 4(b)(3)(B) of 

the ESA and NMFS’ implementing 

regulations (50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)), we 

will commence a review of the status of 

the species and make a determination 

within 12 months of receiving the 

petition (i.e., April 24, 2010) as to 

whether the petitioned action is 

warranted. If warranted, we will publish 

a proposed rule and solicit public 

comments before developing and 

publishing a final rule. 

Information Solicited 

To ensure the status review is based 

on the best available scientific and 

commercial data, we are soliciting 

information on whether largetooth 

sawfish are endangered or threatened. 

Specifically, we are soliciting 

information in the following areas: (1) 

historical and current distribution and 

abundance of this species throughout its 

range; (2) historical and current 

population trends; (3) information on 

life history in marine environments, (4) 

curio, meat, ‘‘shark’’ fin or other trade 

data; (5) information related to 

taxonomy of the species and closely 

related forms (e.g., P. microdon); (6) 

information on any current or planned 

activities that may adversely impact the 

species; (7) ongoing efforts to protect 

and restore the species and its habitat; 

and (8) information identifying a North 

American Distinct Population Segment. 

We request that all information be 

accompanied by: (1) supporting 

documentation such as maps, 

bibliographic references, or reprints of 

pertinent publications; and (2) the 

submitter’s name, address, and any 

association, institution, or business that 

the person represents. 

Critical Habitat 

The petitioner also requested that we 

designate critical habitat concurrently 

with listing the species as threatened or 

endangered. Under our regulations for 

designating critical habitat, we are only 

able to designate critical habitat within 

areas of U.S. jurisdiction (50 CFR 

424.12). Critical habitat is defined in the 

ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) as: 

‘‘(i) the specific areas within the 

geographical area currently occupied by 

the species, at the time it is listed... on 

which are found those physical or 

biological features (I) essential to the 

conservation of the species and (II) 

which may require special management 

considerations or protection; and (ii) 

specific areas outside the geographical 

area occupied by the species at the time 

it is listed upon a determination by the 

Secretary that such areas are essential 

for the conservation of the species.’’ 

Our implementing regulations (50 

CFR 424.12) describe those essential 

physical and biological features to 

include: (1) space for individual and 

population growth, and normal 

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

minerals, or other nutritional or 

physiological requirements; (3) cover or 

shelter; (4) sites for breeding, 

reproduction, rearing of offspring; and 

(5) habitats that are protected from 

disturbance or are representative of the 

historic geographical and ecological 

distribution of a species. We are 

required to focus on the primary 

constituent elements (PCEs) which best 

represent the principal biological or 

physical features. PCEs may include: 

spawning sites, feeding sites, water 

quality and quantity. Our implementing 

regulations (50 CFR 424.02) define 

‘‘special management considerations or 

protection’’ as ‘‘any methods or 

procedures useful in protecting physical 

and biological features of the 

environment for the conservation of 

listed species.’’ 

Section 4(b)(2) of the ESA requires us 

to designate critical habitat for listed 

species based on the best scientific data 

available and after taking into 

consideration the economic impact, the 

impact on national security, and any 

other relevant impact, of specifying any 

particular area as critical habitat. The 

Secretary may exclude any particular 

area from critical habitat if he 

determines that the benefits of such 

exclusion outweigh the benefits of 

specifying such area as part of the 

critical habitat, unless he determines 

that the failure to designate such area as 

critical habitat will result in the 

extinction of the species concerned. 

To ensure that our review of critical 

habitat is complete and based on the 

best available data, we solicit 

information and comments on whether 

the petitioned area in U.S. waters 

including the Exclusive Economic Zone, 

or some subset thereof, qualifies as 

critical habitat. Areas that include the 

physical and biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species and that may require special 

management considerations or 

protection should be identified. 

Essential features include, but are not 

limited to, space for individual growth 

and for normal behavior, food, water, 

air, light, minerals, or other nutritional 

or physiological requirements, cover or 

shelter, sites for reproduction and 

development of offspring, and habitats 

that are protected from disturbance or 

are representative of the historical, 

geographical, and ecological 

distributions of the species (50 CFR 

424.12). 

Peer Review 

On July 1, 1994, NMFS, jointly with 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

published a series of policies regarding 

listings under the ESA, including a 

policy for peer review of scientific data 

(59 FR 34270). The intent of the peer 

review policy is to ensure listings are 

based on the best scientific and 

commercial data available. We are 

soliciting the names of recognized 

experts in the field who could take part 

in the peer review process for this status 

review. 

Independent peer reviewers will be 

selected from the academic and 

scientific community, tribal and other 

Native American groups, Federal and 

state agencies, the private sector, and 

public interest groups. 

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

Dated: July 24, 2009. 

James W. Balsiger, 

Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–18079 Filed 7–28–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 224 

[Docket No. 070821475–81493–01] 

RIN 0648–AV15 

Protective Regulations for Killer 

Whales in the Northwest Region Under 

the Endangered Species Act and 

Marine Mammal Protection Act 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments, and availability of Draft 

Environmental Assessment on 

regulations to protect killer whales from 

vessel effects. 

SUMMARY: We, the National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS), propose 

regulations under the Endangered 

Species Act and Marine Mammal 

Protection Act to prohibit vessels from 

approaching killer whales within 200 

yards and from parking in the path of 

whales for vessels in inland waters of 

Washington State. The proposed 

regulations would also prohibit vessels 

from entering a conservation area during 

a defined season. Certain vessels would 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS