Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 7 / Thursday, January 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 2239 

Where: 

W = Breaking energy in inch-pounds (in-lb), 

F = Force in pounds (lb), and 

P = Penetration in inches (in). 

* * * * * 

TABLE II—MINIMUM STATIC BREAKING ENERGY

[Joules (J) and Inch-Pounds (in-lb)] 

Tire characteristic Motorcycle All 12 rim 

diameter 

code or 

smaller 

except 

motorcycle 

Tubeless 17.5 

rim diameter 

code or 

smaller and 

light 

truck 

Tires other than light truck, motorcycle, 12 rim diameter 

code or smaller 

Plunger diameter 

(mm and inches) 

7.94 

mm 5⁄16′′ 

19.05 

mm 3⁄4′′ 19.05 mm 3⁄4′′ 

Tube type greater 

than 12 rim 

diameter code 

Tubeless greater 

than 17.5 rim 

diameter code 

31.75 

mm 11⁄4′′ 38.10 

mm 11⁄2′′ 31.75 mm 11⁄4′′ 38.10 mm 11⁄2′′ 

Breaking energy J in-lb J in-lb J in-lb J in-lb J in-lb J in-lb J in-lb 

Load Range: 

A ..................................................... 16 150 67 600 225 2,000 .......... ............ .......... ............ .......... ............ .......... ............

B ..................................................... 33 300 135 1,200 293 2,600 .......... ............ .......... ............ .......... ............ .......... ............

C ..................................................... 45 400 203 1,800 361 3,200 768 6,800 .......... ............ 576 5,100 .......... ............

D ..................................................... .......... .......... 271 2,400 514 4,550 892 7,900 .......... ............ 734 6,500 .......... ............

E ..................................................... .......... .......... 338 3,000 576 5,100 1,412 12,500 .......... ............ 971 8,600 .......... ............

F ..................................................... .......... .......... 406 3,600 644 5,700 1,785 15,800 .......... ............ 1,412 12,500 .......... ............

G .................................................... .......... .......... .......... .......... 711 6,300 .......... ............ 2,282 20,200 .......... ............ 1,694 15,000 

H ..................................................... .......... .......... .......... .......... 768 6,800 .......... ............ 2,598 23,000 .......... ............ 2,090 18,500 

J ..................................................... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ............ 2,824 25,000 .......... ............ 2,203 19,500 

L ..................................................... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ............ 3,050 27,000 .......... ............ .......... ............

M .................................................... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ............ 3,220 28,500 .......... ............ .......... ............

N ..................................................... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ............ 3,389 30,000 .......... ............ .......... ............

Note: For rayon cord tires, applicable energy values are 60 percent of those in table. 

* * * * * 

Issued on: January 2, 2013. 

Christopher J. Bonanti, 

Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. 2013–00315 Filed 1–9–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R9–ES–2012–0034; 450 

003 0115] 

RIN 1018–AY68 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Listing the Blue-Throated 

Macaw 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 

list the blue-throated macaw (Ara 

glaucogularis) as endangered under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). This species is endemic 

to a small area in Bolivia, and there are 

estimated to be fewer than 150 

individuals remaining in the wild. Its 

population continues to decrease 

despite intense conservation efforts. The 

primary threat to the species is lack of 

reproductive success (loss of nestlings) 

due to nest failure, which primarily is 

caused by competition for nest sites and 

predation by larger avian species, in 

addition to diminished availability of 

suitable habitat. We seek information 

from the public on the proposed listing 

for this species. 

DATES: We will consider comments and 

information received or postmarked on 

or before March 11, 2013. We must 

receive requests for a public hearing by 

February 25, 2013. See Public Hearing 

section under SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION for more information. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit 

information by one of the following 

methods: 

• Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. In the Search 

field, enter FWS–R9–ES–2012–0034, 

which is the docket number for this 

action. Then click on the Search button. 

You may submit a comment by clicking 

on ‘‘Comment Now.’’ If your comments 

will fit in the provided comment box, 

please use this feature of http:// 

www.regulations.gov, as it is most 

compatible with our comment review 

procedures. If you attach your 

comments as a separate document, our 

preferred file format is Microsoft Word. 

If you attach multiple comments (such 

as form letters), our preferred format is 

a spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel. 

• By hard copy: U.S. mail or handdelivery: Public Comments Processing, 

Attn: FWS–R9–ES–2012–0034, Division 

of Policy and Directives Management; 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. 

Fairfax Drive, MS 2042–PDM; 

Arlington, VA 22203. 

We will not accept comments by email 

or fax. We will post all comments on 

http://www.regulations.gov. This 

generally means that we will post any 

personal information you provide us 

(see the Information Requested section, 

below, for more information). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Janine Van Norman, Chief, Branch of 

Foreign Species, Endangered Species 

Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 420, 

Arlington, VA 22203; telephone 703– 

358–2171. If you use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD), call the Federal Information 

Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Information Requested 

We intend that any final actions 

resulting from this proposed rule be 

based on the best scientific and 

commercial data available. Therefore, 

we request comments or information 

from the Government of Bolivia, the 

scientific community, or any other 

interested parties concerning this 

proposed rule. We particularly seek 

clarifying information concerning: 

(1) Information on taxonomy, 

distribution, habitat selection and 

trends (especially breeding and foraging 

habitats), diet, and population 

abundance and trends (especially 

current recruitment data) of this species. 

(2) Information on the effects of 

habitat loss and changing land uses on 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
2240 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 7 / Thursday, January 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

the distribution and abundance of this 

species and its principal food sources 

over the short and long term. 

(3) Information on whether changing 

climatic conditions (i.e., increasing 

intensity of storms or drought) are 

affecting the species, its habitat, or its 

food sources. 

(4) Information on the effects of other 

potential threat factors, including live 

capture and collection, predation by 

other animals, and diseases of this 

species or its principal food sources 

over the short and long term. 

(5) Information on management 

programs for its conservation, including 

mitigation measures related to 

conservation programs, and any other 

private or governmental conservation 

programs that benefit this species. 

(6) Genetics and taxonomy. 

(7) The factors that are the basis for 

making a listing determination for a 

species under section 4(a) of the Act (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), which are: 

(a) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; 

(b) Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; 

(c) Disease or predation; 

(d) The inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms; or 

(e) Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. 

Please include sufficient information 

with your submission (such as full 

references) to allow us to verify any 

scientific or commercial information 

you include. Submissions merely stating 

support for or opposition to the action 

under consideration without providing 

supporting information, although noted, 

will not be considered in making a 

determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the 

Act directs that determinations as to 

whether any species is an endangered or 

threatened species must be made 

‘‘solely on the basis of the best scientific 

and commercial data available.’’ 

Public Hearing 

At this time, we do not have a public 

hearing scheduled for this proposed 

rule. The main purpose of most public 

hearings is to obtain public testimony or 

comment. In most cases, it is sufficient 

to submit comments through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal, described above in 

the ADDRESSES section. If you would like 

to request a public hearing for this 

proposed rule, you must submit your 

request, in writing, to the person listed 

in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section by the date specified 

above in DATES. 

Previous Federal Actions 

On May 6, 1991, we received a 

petition (1991 petition) from Alison 

Stattersfield, of the International 

Council for Bird Preservation (ICBP), to 

list 53 foreign birds under the Act, 

including the blue-throated macaw, 

which is the subject of this proposed 

rule. We took several actions on this 

petition. On December 16, 1991, we 

made a positive 90-day finding and 

announced the initiation of a status 

review of the species included in the 

1991 petition (56 FR 65207, published 

December 16, 1991). On March 28, 1994 

(59 FR 14496), we published a 12-month 

finding on the 1991 petition. In that 

document, we announced our finding 

that listing 38 species from the 1991 

petition, including the blue-throated 

macaw, was warranted but precluded 

because of other listing actions. The 

blue-throated macaw was assigned a 

listing priority number (LPN) of 2. 

Species are assigned LPNs based on the 

magnitude and immediacy of threats, as 

well as their taxonomic status. The 

lower the LPN, the higher priority that 

species is for us to determine 

appropriate action using our available 

resources. An LPN of 2 reflects threats 

that are both imminent and high in 

magnitude, as well as the taxonomic 

classification of the blue-throated 

macaw as a full species. 

Previously published petition 

findings, listing rules, status reviews, 

and petition finding reviews that 

included foreign species are listed in the 

Annual Notice of Review (ANOR) that 

published on May 3, 2011 (76 FR 

25150). In our ANORs, we announce our 

annual petition findings for foreign 

species, as required under section 

4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Act. When, in 

response to a petition, we find that 

listing a species is warranted but 

precluded by higher priority listing 

actions, we must review the status of the 

species each year until we publish a 

proposed rule or make a determination 

that listing is not warranted. These 

subsequent status reviews and the 

accompanying 12-month findings are 

referred to as ‘‘resubmitted’’ petition 

findings. In the May 3, 2011, ANOR, we 

announced that listing was warranted 

but precluded for 20 foreign species, 

including the blue-throated macaw, 

which is the subject of this proposed 

rule. Additional information on this 

species may be found in that ANOR. 

Background 

Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs 

that determinations as to whether any 

species is an endangered or threatened 

species must be made ‘‘solely on the 

basis of the best scientific and 

commercial data available.’’ 

In this document, we propose to add 

this species as endangered to the 

Federal List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife. Prior to issuing a 

final determination on this proposed 

action, we will take into consideration 

all comments and any additional 

information we receive. Such 

information may lead to a final rule that 

differs from this proposal. All comments 

and recommendations, including names 

and addresses of commenters, will 

become part of the administrative 

record. 

Species Information 

Taxonomy 

The taxonomic status of this species 

was disputed until fairly recently. The 

blue-throated macaw was previously 

considered an aberrant form of the blueand-yellow macaw (A. ararauna), but 

these two species are known to occur 

sympatrically (in the same location) 

without interbreeding (Kyle 2007a; del 

Hoyo et al. 1997). Common names in 

Spanish for the blue-throated macaw 

include guacamayo barba azul and 

guacamayo caninde. Both BirdLife 

International (BLI) and the Integrated 

Taxonomic Information System (ITIS) 

recognize the blue-throated macaw as 

Ara glaucogularis. ITIS (www.itis.gov) is 

a database maintained by a partnership 

of U.S., Canadian, and Mexican federal 

government agencies, other 

organizations, and taxonomic specialists 

to provide taxonomic information. 

Therefore, we accept the species as Ara 

glaucogularis. 

Population 

When the blue-throated macaw 

population was investigated as of 1998, 

the species was located in eight 

locations and the population was 

believed to be 100–150 individuals 

(Loro Parque Fundacio ́n (LPF) 2002, p. 

13). The estimate provided by BirdLife 

International indicates that the total 

wild population is estimated to be 73– 

87 mature individuals (BLI 2012), which 

is a decrease from an estimate of 

between 50 and 300 birds when our 

previous ANOR was published. In 

October 2004, a small new population 

was found at Santa Rosa, 100 km (62 mi) 

west of locations believed to be the 

western-most edge of its range (LPF 

2012; Herrera et al. 2007, p. 18). 

Biologists surveying for this species in 

2004 found more birds than in previous 

surveys by searching specific habitat 

types (palm groves and forested islands) 

(Herrera et al. 2007, p. 18). In 2007, a 

population of approximately 25 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 7 / Thursday, January 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 2241 

individuals was found one hour south 

of Trinidad (Kyle 2007a, p. 6). Also in 

2007, a flock of approximately 70 birds 

was observed near the Rio Mamore ́

(Asociacio ́n Armonı ́a), in the vicinity of 

where the Barba Azul Nature Reserve is 

now. 

In and around the Barba Azul Nature 

Reserve, there are believed to be 

approximately 100 individuals (Herrera 

2012, pers. comm.; Kingsbury et al. 

2010, p. 70). Currently, experts working 

locally with this species estimate that 

there are between 115 and 250 birds 

known to remain in the wild (Herrera 

2012, pers. comm.; Gilardi 2012 pers. 

comm.). LPF’s 2010 annual report (p. 

15), stated that approximately 300 

individuals were believed to remain in 

the wild. However, this may be an 

overestimate—the population found at 

the Barba Azul Nature Reserve may be 

the same birds that are monitored in the 

southern and eastern parts of its range 

during the breeding season; it is likely 

the population is nearer to 115 

individuals (Gilardi 2012 pers. comm.). 

In captivity, more than over 1,000 

individual blue-throated macaws are 

likely held worldwide according to the 

2011 North American Regional 

Studbook (Anderson 2011, p. 4). 

Species Description 

Blue-throated macaws have a blue 

throat, a bare, white face containing 

identifiable blue-streaks, dark grey 

irises, and a large black bill (Anderson 

2011, p. 4; Kyle 2007b, p. 16). Its 

forehead is also blue and there is a lack 

of contrast between its remiges (large 

flight feathers on the wing) and 

upperwing coverts. This species is 

approximately the same size (85 cm or 

33 inches) as the blue-and-yellow 

macaw. However, blue-throated macaws 

are not as competitive as the blue-andyellow macaw in obtaining nesting 

cavities (Kyle 2007a). Male bluethroated macaws are larger than females 

at about 800 grams (1.76 pounds), and 

females weigh approximately 600 grams 

(1.32 pounds) (Kyle 2007b, p. 16). 

Blue-throated macaws, like other 

parrot species, are monogamous and 

tend to mate for life. There is also a 

significant investment in the care for 

their young—blue-throated macaws are 

not fully independent of their parents 

for a full year (Berkunsky 2010, p. 5). 

Therefore, some breeding pairs may not 

produce nestlings every breeding 

season. The blue-throated macaw forms 

its nests in large tree cavities; its 

preferred nesting tree is the motacu ́

palm (Attalea phalerata), which is 

native to Bolivia, Brazil, and Peru. The 

northern population of blue-throated 

macaws breeds between August to 

November, and the southern population 

breeds between November to March 

(Berkunsky 2012 pers. comm.; Kyle 

2007a). The southern population, an 

hour south of Trinidad, tends to breed 

around the same time as the more 

commonly found blue-and-gold macaw. 

This overlap of breeding seasons adds to 

competition for nest sites. Blue-throated 

macaws are sexually mature between 6 

and 8 years (Strem 2008; Kyle 2007a, p. 

6). Females lay one to three eggs per 

clutch and incubate for 26 days. One to 

three hatchlings are raised, depending 

on food availability (BLI 2010; Kyle 

2007a). Nestlings fledge between 13 and 

14 weeks. Blue-throated macaws are 

seen traveling mostly in pairs but also 

have been seen in a large flock of 

between 70 and 100 individuals 

(Herrera 2012, pers. comm.; Macleod et 

al. 2009, p. 15; Waugh 2007a, p. 53). 

Diet 

This species seeks areas where palm 

fruits and suitable nesting cavities are 

readily available (Herrera et al. 2007, 

pp. 18–24). It feeds on fruits of 

approximately 12 species of trees (Kyle 

2007a, pp. 1–10). There are 84 species 

of palms in Bolivia (Moraes et al. 2001, 

p. 234) and approximately 11 palm 

species within the blue-throated 

macaw’s range. Blue-throated macaws 

prefer the fleshy part of the fruit, or 

mesocarp, of motacu ́, Mauritia flexuosa 

(royal palms or carandai-guazu ́), and 

Acrocomia aculeata (common names 

include: Coyoli palm, gru-gru palm, 

macaw palm, acrocome, Coyolipalme, 

amankayo, corojo, corozo, baboso, 

tucuma, and totai) (Herrera 2007, p. 20; 

Yamashita and M. de Barros 1997, p. 

144; Jordan and Munn 1993; www.arsgrin.gov, www.pacsoa.org.au). The 

macaws first puncture the apex of the 

mesocarp and remove the outer layer 

(Yamashita and M. de Barros 1997, p. 

144). The motacu ́ continually produces 

fruit throughout the year. Between 80 

and 90 percent of motacu ́ palms 

produce fruits all year, but its peak is 

between July and December (LPF 2003, 

p. 21; Moraes et al. 1996, p. 424). 

Motacu ́ is believed to be pollinated by 

beetles in the Mystrops genus (Moraes et 

al. 1996, p. 425). The same palm tree 

may produce at any one time between 

three and five racemes (flowering stalks, 

each with fruits in a different stage of 

development ripeness) (Yamashita and 

M. de Barros 1997, p. 144). 

The species has also been observed at 

clay licks (Kyle 2007a, p. 2), which are 

clay banks where they consume soil or 

minerals; however, the reason for the 

clay consumption remains unclear. 

Range and Habitat Description 

The blue-throated macaw is endemic 

to the tropical savanna ecoregion of 

north-central Bolivia in the Department 

of Beni (LPF 2010; Kingsbury 2010, p. 

8). This ecoregion is approximately 

160,000 square kilometers (km2) (61,776 

square miles (mi2)). (See Appendix A in 

Docket no. FWS–R9–ES–2012–0034 at 

http://www.regulations.gov for a map of 

the region (hereinafter referred to as 

‘‘Appendix A’’)). Within this region, the 

blue-throated macaw is found mostly in 

widely dispersed isolated pairs within 

an area estimated to be between 8,000 

and 12,900 km2 (3,089 and 4,981 mi2), 

(LPF 2012; BLI 2012; Hesse 2000, p. 

104). The species is found at elevations 

between 200 and 300 m (656 and 984 ft) 

(Yamashita and M. de Barros 1997, p. 

144; Brace et al. 1995). The bluethroated macaw’s habitat was occupied 

by humans for thousands of years before 

European colonization (Erickson 2000, 

p. 2). Its habitat consists of lowlands in 

an area known as Llanos (plains) de 

Mojos, also known as Llanos de Moxos 

(LPF 2010; Mayle et al. 2007, p. 301; 

Yamashita and M. de Barros 1997, p. 

141). See Appendix A for a photo 

representing the flooded habitat. The 

Llanos de Mojos is a wide savannah 

plain with poor drainage and in the wet 

season is extremely susceptible to 

flooding. The floods cover large areas of 

the plains and the area may remain 

flooded for 5 to 7 months in some areas. 

These plains include parts of the river 

basins of the Ite ́nez, Mamore ́, Beni, and 

Madre de Dios Rivers (see Appendix A 

for a map; Yamashita and M. de Barros 

1997, p. 144). 

The blue-throated macaw’s habitat 

has progressively diminished over 

thousands of years and its habitat is 

now primarily restricted to small 

‘‘islands’’ of suitable habitat within 

privately-owned cattle pastures (see 

Appendix A in Docket no. FWS–R9–ES– 

2012–0034 at http:// 

www.regulations.gov for a photo 

illustrating these islands; Milpacher 

2012 personal communication; 

Kingsbury 2010, p. 72; Berkunsky 2008, 

p. 4; Kyle 2007a, p. 4; Kyle 2006, p. 7; 

LPF 2003, p. 6). The species has been 

observed in the Barba Azul Nature 

Reserve. The blue-throated macaw is 

believed to occur on ranches adjacent to 

the Barba Azul Nature Reserve, Ranches 

Las Gamas, Los Patos, Pelotal, and Juan 

Latino, but the status of the species is 

unclear in these areas (Kingsbury 2010, 

p. 89). In other parts of the species’ 

range, the species is believed to occur 

on the ranches Elsner with Espı ́ritu, San 

Rafael, and the Estancia El Dorado, 

however, to the best of our knowledge, 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
2242 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 7 / Thursday, January 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

these are privately managed and the 

species is not being monitored on the 

ranches. 

Palm Islands 

Palm-dominated forest islands form 

the blue-throated macaw’s primary 

habitat. These ‘‘islands’’ are on elevated 

terrain and are sometimes referred to as 

‘‘alturas’’ (high ground). The islands 

were primarily formed as mounds 

resulting from prehistoric human 

existence in this region (Erickson 2008, 

pp. 168–169). The lowlands are 

frequently inundated by water due to 

the flooding of nearby rivers (see 

Appendix A). Historically, human 

cultures manipulated the water flow to 

create plains that were higher and 

subsequently drier (Erickson 2008, pp. 

168–169). The mounds are common 

throughout the savannas and wetlands 

of Bolivia; there may be as many as 

10,000 of these mounds or islands in 

Bolivia (Erickson 2008, p. 169). They 

have been found to vary in size from a 

few hectares to many square kilometers 

(Erickson 2008, pp. 168–169; Yamashita 

and M. de Barros 1997, p. 144). Most are 

raised less than one meter and are often 

surrounded by ponds or moat-like 

ditches (Erickson 2008, pp. 168–169). 

Typically, these islands are surrounded 

by seasonally-flooded grasslands. These 

islands are between 0.2–1.0 ha (0.49– 

2.47 ac) in size and are approximately 

130–235 meters (426–771 feet) above sea 

level (Kingsbury et al. 2010, p. 71; 

Yamashita and M. de Barros 1997, p. 

144). 

Besides motacu ́, palm species found 

on these islands are typically Syagrus 

botriophora (sumuque ́), and 

Astrocaryum vulgare (chontilla), 

interspersed with semi-deciduous 

emergent trees such as Enterolobium 

cortisiliqun (parota or orejo ́n), Sterculia 

striata (no common name (NCN)) and 

Tabebuia heptaphilla (Lapacho negro), 

and the Curupau tree (Anadenanthera 

colubrina) (also known as yopo, vilca, 

huilco, wilco, cebil, or angico) (Kyle 

2005, p. 7). Some trees such as Ceiba 

pentandra (mapajo or kapok tree) and 

Hura crepitans (common names include 

catahua, Ochoo, arbol del diablo, acacu, 

monkey’s dinner-bell, habillo, ceiba de 

leche, sandbox tree, possum wood, 

dynamite tree, ceiba blanca, assacu, and 

posentri) can reach more than 40 m (131 

ft) in height. 

The motacu ́ palms may have survived 

on the mound islands for various 

reasons—their value to human cultures, 

their resistance to burning, and their 

ecological suitability to the 

microclimate. Motacu ́ is not only vital 

to the life history of blue-throated 

macaws; it also has local, commercial, 

and ecosystem importance (Kyle 2005, 

p. 3; Moraes et al. 1996, pp. 424–425). 

This species of palm is used in the local 

community as thatch for housing which 

can last up to seven years. Its fruit is 

consumed by humans and various other 

species, and parts of the palm tree are 

used to make baskets, brooms, and is 

sold commercially as palm oil 

(Zambrana et al. 2007, p. 2785; Moraes 

et al. 1996, pp. 425–426). 

Significance of Palm Islands to BlueThroated Macaws 

Habitat favored by blue-throated 

macaws contains tall, mature trees in 

areas with continuous motacu ́ palm 

fruit production (Yamashita and M. de 

Barros 1997, p. 145). Densities of 

motacu ́, the blue-throated macaw’s 

preferred nesting and feeding source, 

vary greatly. In the 1997 Yamashita and 

M. de Barros study, macaws were only 

observed in areas where motacu ́

represented more than 60 percent of the 

trees. 

Natural cavities in dead or decaying 

trees (usually motacu ́ palms) are the 

primary source of nesting sites for this 

species. Blue-throated macaws prefer 

dead trees that have cavities with a 

minimum internal diameter of 30 cm 

(11.8 in) for nesting, and, therefore, the 

tree must have a diameter at breast 

height of 60 cm (23.6 in) or greater (see 

Appendix A for a picture representing a 

tree cavity; Yamashita and M. de Barros 

1997, p. 145). 

Factors Affecting the Species 

Section 4 of the Act, and its 

implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 

424, set forth the procedures for adding 

species to the Federal Lists of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the 

Act, we may list a species based on any 

of the following five factors: (A) The 

present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat or range; (B) overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes; (C) disease or 

predation; (D) the inadequacy of 

existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) 

other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. Listing 

actions may be warranted based on any 

of the above factors, singly or in 

combination. Each of these factors is 

evaluated and a summary is presented 

in this document. 

Loss of Palm Islands Due to Habitat 

Conversion 

Within the past few hundred years, 

the blue-throated macaw lost much of 

its remaining habitat due to conversion 

of palm forests to pasture for cattle 

grazing. Cattle are not native to Bolivia; 

they were introduced to Bolivia in the 

1600s. After the Second World War, 

cattle ranching and the associated 

burning of pastures began to have a 

significant impact on the landscape 

(Robison et al. 2000, p. 61). The 

macaw’s preferred habitat is now 

limited to a few small, isolated islands 

of suitable habitat which are surrounded 

by these cattle ranches (Gilardi 2012 

pers. comm.). During the flooding 

season which can occur up to six 

months of a year, cattle take refuge on 

the motacu ́ palm islands because the 

islands are drier due to their higher 

elevation (LPF 2003, p. 33). Adding to 

habitat loss, in the preferred habitat of 

the blue-throated macaw where these 

motacu ́ palms remain (within privatelyowned cattle ranches), local ranchers 

typically burn the pastures annually 

(Berkunsky 2008, p. 4; del Hoyo 1997). 

This type of burning results in almost 

no recruitment of native palm trees, 

which are vital to the ecological needs 

of the blue-throated macaw (Yamashita 

and M. de Barros 1997, p. 144). The 

reduction in habitat (reduced 

availability of motacu ́ palms) and lack 

of recruitment of motacu ́ palms is a 

concern for the future because it takes 

several years for motacu ́ palms to be 

able to produce fruit and to develop into 

a size suitable for nesting cavities. As 

mitigation, there are local conservation 

efforts to attempt to not only plant trees 

that provide food for blue-throated 

macaws, as well as education efforts 

directed towards land-owners within 

the range of the blue-throated macaws. 

The lack of nesting cavities (suitable 

habitat) is often a limiting factor for bird 

species that depend on these cavities for 

nesting (Sandoval and Barrantes 2009, 

p. 75; Kyle 2006, p. 8). Blue-throated 

macaws requires specific nesting 

cavities for raising their young which 

provide an environment where they are 

safe from predation and flooding. 

Additionally, many different species 

compete for nest sites because there is 

a lack of suitable nest sites in the Llanos 

de Mojos due to habitat loss. This loss 

of suitable trees has resulted in 

increased competition from other 

species for these nesting cavities as 

well. The loss of habitat has contributed 

to other factors that affect blue-throated 

macaws such as an increase in 

vulnerability to predation, extreme 

weather events, and competition for 

nests, which are discussed below. 

Nest Failure 

Nest failure (the failure of nestlings to 

survive to fledgling stage) continues for 

various reasons, despite intensive 

conservation efforts (Berkunsky 2010, p. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 7 / Thursday, January 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 2243 

4; Kyle 2006, p. 8). Some of the primary 

causes of nest failure have been 

predation, infestation by botflies 

(parasites in the Philornis genus), 

exposure to severe weather events such 

as flooding, and competition with other 

species such as bees (Berkunsky 2010, 

pp. 4–5). Many nestlings die in early 

developmental stages, often due to 

starvation (due to lack of food and 

parental neglect), exposure to cold 

temperatures, or flooding (Kyle 2007a, 

pp. 1–10). If parents do not have access 

to enough nutritional food sources, 

some nestlings are neglected so that 

their other nestlings will survive. 

Sometimes nestlings can also fall out of 

collapsed trees before they have fledged. 

During five field seasons of closely 

observing nest sites, often 50 percent of 

nestlings died (Berkunsky 2008, p. 5; 

Kyle 2007a, pp. 7–8). See additional 

discussion below under Exposure to 

extreme weather events section. 

Predation 

Predation stands out as one of the 

main reasons why this species’ 

population is not increasing (Kyle 

2007a, pp. 3, 6–7; Kyle 2006, p. 8). As 

an example, during one season, of the 

seven active blue-throated macaw nests 

found, all of the nestlings within three 

nests were lost to predation (Kyle 2007a, 

pp. 6–8). Because the species has such 

a small population size with likely 

fewer than 150 remaining in the wild), 

losses such as this have a significant 

effect. Predators of the blue-throated 

macaw include: 

Toco toucan (Ramphastos toco), 

Crane hawk (Geranospiza 

caerulescens), 

Great-horned owl (Bubo virginianus), 

and 

Southern crested caracara (Caracara 

plancus, a bird of prey). 

The blue-throated macaws’ habitat of 

sparse, palm-forested islands scattered 

among natural grasslands, is especially 

vulnerable to nest predation (Kyle 

2007a, pp. 6–7). Tree nest cavities 

chosen by blue-throated macaws tend to 

be very visible to other avian species 

flying overhead. In addition to choosing 

nests in palm islands, blue-throated 

macaws are also known to nest in 

isolated palms in open fields, which are 

even more exposed than nesting in palm 

islands (Herrera et al. 2007, p. 20). All 

of the species that predate on adult 

blue-throated macaws, eggs, or nestlings 

have large distributions and are 

commonly found at the habitat islands 

used by blue-throated macaws (Kyle 

2007a, pp. 6–7). Great horned owls have 

been seen at almost every site where 

blue-throated macaws are nesting and 

monitored (Kyle 2007a, p. 6). These 

owls, native to South America, have a 

vast range, are the most widely 

distributed owl in South America, and 

occupy a variety of habitats including 

open forest, farmland, and grassland. 

Because blue-throated macaw nests 

are concentrated in these small 

‘‘islands’’ of trees within cattle pastures, 

they are more easily located by 

predators than species that nest in a 

continuous forest setting. To discourage 

and mitigate the effects of predation, 

some conservation activities being 

conducted include the monitoring and 

discouragement of predators from 

attacking blue-throated macaw nests. 

These efforts are extremely intensive for 

each nest. In one case, where it 

appeared the nest tree was collapsing, 

the tree was monitored all night by 

conservation staff (Kyle 2007a, p. 9). 

Often trees containing active nests are 

monitored in this way if persistent 

predation has been observed. The 

mitigation efforts are helpful—if 

nestlings can survive until they are at 

least 300 grams (0.66 pounds), they have 

a greater chance of survival (Kyle 2007a, 

p. 7). 

Botfly parasites can also cause 

mortality of nestlings and have been 

observed in blue-throated macaw 

nestlings. Botflies live subcutaneously, 

and feed on macaws before pupating 

(Wunderle Jr. and Arendt 2011, p. 39). 

Botflies significantly reduce the energy 

available for nestling growth and 

development (Uhazy and Arendt 1986 

in Wunderle Jr. and Arendt 2011, p. 39) 

and can cause high death rates of 

nestlings. In one study of avian 

nestlings, botfly parasitism caused 56 

percent of mortalities while egg and 

chick losses from nest predators and 

competitors accounted for less than 10 

percent of reproductive failures (Arendt 

2000 in Wunderle Jr. and Arendt 2011, 

p. 39). 

Exposure to Extreme Weather Events 

Due to their preferred nesting 

location, blue-throated macaws are also 

vulnerable to natural catastrophic 

events such as flooding, drought, and 

other stochastic disturbances (Kyle 

2006, pp. 5–6). Bolivia is described as 

a ‘‘climatically volatile region’’ and is 

one of the countries in the world most 

affected by natural disasters in recent 

years (Oxfam International 2009, p. 5). 

This species’ habitat experiences radical 

changes over the course of a year. 

For many months of the year its 

habitat is flooded, and other times 

during the year, its habitat suffers from 

severe drought. High rainfall occurs 

during the summer months; the wet 

season is between September and May. 

Annual precipitation is between 1,100– 

2,500 millimeters (43–98 inches) (Haase 

& Beck 1989 in Kingsbury 2010, p. 9). 

Very heavy periods of rainfall in this 

region can continue for long periods of 

time (Kyle 2006, pp. 5–6; Hanagarth and 

Sarmiento 1990 in Beck and Moraes, 

undated). Every 6–12 years, 80–90 

percent of the region is inundated (Beck 

and Moraes, undated). This cyclical 

flooding may be an El Nin ̃ o event, but 

there has been no study correlating the 

phenomena (Mayle et al. 2007, p. 294, 

Beck and Moraes, undated). Although 

these areas are seasonally-flooded, they 

are also prone to periods of drought 

(Kyle 2007a, p. 3, Mayle et al. 2007, p. 

294; Yamashita and M. de Barros 1997, 

p. 144). 

Severe storms, such as one that 

occurred in 2005 are described as ‘‘nest 

killers.’’ These severe storms cause the 

dead palm trees in which the nests have 

been constructed to collapse or flood 

(Kyle 2007b, p. 15) which causes nest 

failure for the season and subsequently 

no recruitment. During periods of 

drought, nestlings are sometimes 

neglected and starve. Heavy storms and 

rain contribute to nest failure; if 

nestlings are exposed to cold weather 

and rain, they may die. 

Dead palm trees often collapse in 

these storms. During the 2006–2007 

season, this phenomenon was observed 

when the nest of one blue-throated 

macaw pair in a motacu ́ dead palm tree 

collapsed due to strong winds (Kyle 

2007a, p. 4). Although the reason is 

unclear, these dead palm trees are 

currently the preferred sites for nest 

construction by the blue-throated 

macaw and they have strong nest site 

fidelity (Berkunsky 2012 pers. comm.). 

The extent this behavior is learned and 

modified is also unclear. However, 

researchers are working with this 

species to introduce nest sites that are 

safer and less prone to predation and 

nest failure due to extreme weather 

events such as flooding (Berkunsky 

2010, pp. 4–5). Flooding, a significant 

cause of nest failure in the recent past, 

is reported not to have occurred in nests 

that have been intensely monitored and 

human-manipulated since 2008. This is 

due to one of the conservation measures 

in place: drilling drain holes in the nests 

and at the bottom of the dead palm trees 

in order to prevent nest flooding. 

However, flooding can still occur if 

nests are not monitored and 

manipulated. 

Competition for Nest Sites 

In addition to nest failure, there is a 

shortage of nests. As described above, 

there is little remaining of the preferred 

habitat of motacu palms. The species 

appears to ‘‘learn’’ nesting sites, and 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
2244 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 7 / Thursday, January 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

will re-use nesting locations that they 

had used in the past (Berkunsky 2010; 

Kyle 2007a, p. 4). Although it is unclear 

why blue-throated macaws choose to 

nest in the top of dead motacu ́ palms 

and are subsequently exposed to 

predation, competition from other 

species for nests, drought, excessive 

rainfall and nest flooding, it is their 

preferred nesting tree because it 

provides easy access to their preferred 

food source. Many species, in addition 

to the blue-throated macaw, use the 

motacu ́ palm for feeding and nesting. In 

the Llanos de Mojos, there are 21 

species of parrots which may compete 

for nest sites (Kingsbury et. al. 2010, p. 

83; Yamashita and M. de Barros 1997, 

p. 144). Some species known to compete 

for nest sites with the blue-throated 

macaw include the blue and gold 

macaw, woodpeckers, and bees (Kyle 

2007a, p. 6; LPF 2003, p. 33). 

In order to provide more choices for 

nesting habitat, conservation 

organizations are installing nest boxes. n 

2009, in the Barba Azul Nature Reserve, 

46 artificial nests were monitored, in 

part by video cameras; however, the 

majority of them (24 nests) were 

occupied by blue and gold macaws (LPF 

2010, p. 15). Likely due to the larger size 

of the blue and gold macaw or perhaps 

their more aggressive nature, the blue 

and gold macaws usually win most 

confrontations for nests (Kyle 2007a, p. 

6). During the 2010 field study at the 

Barba Azul Nature Reserve, researchers 

also observed that there were a greater 

number of blue and gold macaws using 

the Barba Azul Nature Reserve than 

blue-throated macaws (Kingsbury 2010, 

p. 83). At an area where both species 

were drinking water, researchers noted 

that the blue-throated macaws exhibited 

agitated behavior when blue and yellow 

macaws were nearby (Kingsbury 2010, 

p. 83). Although the Barba Azul Nature 

Reserve was established specifically for 

the blue-throated macaws, other species 

use the reserve and compete for nesting 

sites. 

To mitigate this problem, at least two 

conservation organizations are installing 

nest boxes to create more available sites 

for nesting, but despite the past 10 years 

of conservation efforts and 

experimentation with nest boxes, nest 

failure still occurs. In addition to 

predation, other reasons for nest failure 

are numerous, which has instigated the 

experimentation and installation of 

these nest boxes. Bees and other species 

continue to compete with blue-throated 

macaws for these nest boxes. After many 

years of experimentation, the nest boxes 

are slowly becoming more effective at 

providing suitable nesting sites. The 

blue-throated macaws seem to habituate 

to certain nesting sites and locations 

likely based on food availability and 

learned behavior. 

Although blue-throated macaws have 

begun to use some of the nest boxes, it 

has been a slow and tedious process to 

encourage blue-throated macaws to use 

these boxes, and the population 

continues to suffer losses, particularly 

due to nest failure, which the 

installation of suitable nest boxes is 

attempting to alleviate. When nests fail 

(no nestlings survive that season), a 

significant amount of effort has been 

expended by that breeding pair. Because 

this species has such a small population 

(likely there are less than 150 

individuals remaining), each time a 

nestling survives to become an adult, it 

is extremely significant to the 

population. Macaws tend to mate for 

life, so each individual blue-throated 

macaw is extremely valuable to the 

population, particularly. The species 

also cares for its young over two 

seasons, so each pair of macaws invests 

a significant amount of energy into its 

young. The effect of the death of each 

new nestling on the population of bluethroated macaws is devastating to the 

viability of the population. If the 

nestlings survive the first season to the 

point they fledge, their chances of 

survival are much greater than when 

they are new nestlings when they are 

entirely dependent on their parents for 

survival. 

Bees can also make both natural 

nesting cavities and man-made nest 

boxes inhospitable for blue-throated 

macaws (Berkunsky 2008, p. 5). At the 

beginning of one breeding season, 67 

percent of nest boxes monitored were 

occupied by bees (Berkunsky 2008, p. 

5). After being removed, bees had 

returned within 2 weeks. Most naturally 

occurring nest sites, because there are so 

few of them and they are in demand by 

numerous species, require intense 

monitoring and manipulation in order 

to maintain an attractive, suitable 

environment for the blue-throated 

macaws for nesting. 

Disease 

Macaws are susceptible to many 

bacterial, parasitic, and viral diseases, 

particularly in captive environments 

(Kistler et al. 2009, p. 2,176; Portaels et 

al. 1996, p. 319; Bennett et al. 1991). 

Macaws are prone to many viral 

infections such as retrovirus, pox virus, 

and paramyxo virus which can cause 

weakened immune systems and 

subsequent death (Gaskin 1989, pp. 249, 

251, 252). Recently, histopathological 

examination revealed the likely 

presence of the pox virus in dead bluethroated macaw nestlings, indicating 

that close contact between blue-throated 

macaws and domestic poultry may be 

facilitating pathogen transmission to 

this highly vulnerable species (Wildlife 

Conservation Society (WCS) in litt. 

2011). In one location within the very 

limited range of the blue-throated 

macaw, blue-throated macaws share 

water sources with chickens, ducks, and 

other avian species (WCS in litt. 2011; 

Kingsbury 2010, p. 83). Blue-throated 

macaws in this area are being closely 

monitored to decrease the possibility of 

transmission of the pox virus; however, 

it is still a concern. 

Proventricular dilatation disease 

(PDD) is one of the worst diseases 

known to affect parrots (Kistler et al. 

2008, p. 2). PDD, also known as avian 

bornavirus (ABV) or macaw wasting 

disease, is a fatal disease that poses a 

serious threat to all domesticated and 

wild parrots worldwide, particularly 

those with very small populations 

(Kistler et al. 2008, p. 1; Abramson et al. 

1995, p. 288). This contagious disease 

causes damage to the nerves of the 

upper digestive tract, so that food 

digestion and absorption are negatively 

affected. The disease has a 100-percent 

mortality rate in affected birds, although 

the exact manner of transmission 

between birds is unclear (Kistler et al. 

2008, p. 1). PDD has been documented 

in several continents in more than 50 

different parrot species and in freeranging species in at least five other 

orders of birds (Kistler et al. 2008, p. 2). 

This disease is somewhat concerning 

because blue-throated macaws share 

water sources with other species of 

birds, and this disease could be 

transmitted between individuals that are 

within close range. 

This species is closely monitored in 

the wild; conservationists working with 

this species are taking precautions so 

that diseases are not introduced into the 

wild population. Despite close 

monitoring and precautions, disease is 

likely to affect this extremely small 

population; therefore, we are concerned 

that diseases will become problematic to 

this species in the wild. 

Small Population Size 

An additional factor that affects the 

continued existence of this species is its 

small, declining population of likely 

less than 150 individuals. Recently, two 

disturbing observations have been 

made: Malformations in chicks and 

reduced fertility in many reproductive 

pairs (WCS in litt. 2011). Small, rapidly 

declining populations of species, 

combined with other threats such as 

reduced reproductive success, leads to 

an increased risk of extinction (Harris 

and Pimm 2008, p. 169). This species 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 7 / Thursday, January 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 2245 

faces many challenges—it has many 

predators, limited suitable habitat, and 

competition from other species for nest 

sites, in addition to its small population 

size. Any loss of potentially reproducing 

individuals could have a devastating 

effect on the ability of the population to 

increase. Small populations have a 

higher risk of extinction due to random 

environmental events (Shaffer 1981, p. 

131; Gilpin and Soule 1986, pp. 24–28; 

Shaffer 1987, pp. 69–75). Because of its 

small population and restricted range, 

the blue throated macaw is vulnerable 

to random environmental events; in 

particular, it is threatened by extreme 

precipitation events and nest flooding. 

Removal From the Wild 

Removal of parrots from the wild over 

the past few hundred years contributed 

to this species’ small population size 

((LPF 2012; Herrera and Hennessey 

2009, p. 233; Kyle 2007a). Macaws, both 

live and dead, have been a significant 

part of Bolivian culture for thousands of 

years. Evidence of this exists in preColombian Andean feather art 

(American Museum of Natural History 

2012). Feathers have been used 

historically in headdresses; and parrots 

have been used in ceremonial sacrifices 

(American Museum of Natural History 

2012; Berdan 2004, p. 4; Creel and 

McKusick 1994, pp. 510–511). Feathers 

of blue-throated macaws would still be 

used for headdresses today if it were not 

for intervention and education programs 

implemented by nongovernmental 

conservation organizations (NGOs) (BLI 

2012; LPF 2010; LPF 2003, p. 29). In 

addition to being used in ceremonies 

and costumes, there is evidence that 

parrots have been household pets since 

at least A.D. 1000 (Creel and McKusick 

1994, pp. 513–515) as evidenced in 

burial remains; and live macaws very 

likely had commercial value even 

during that time period. Parrots were 

traded over long distances; 

archeological remains indicate that 

parrots were found well outside their 

native range (Creel and McKusick 1994, 

pp. 515–516). 

The most significant impact to the 

decline of this species’ population was 

likely due to collection for museums 

during the late 1800s and early 1900s 

(Yamashita and M. de Barros 1997, p. 

144). During this time period, bird-skin 

traders of European descent sold 

thousands of bird skins, especially to 

museums in the United States for at 

least three generations (Smithsonian 

National Museum of Natural History 

2012; Yamashita and M. de Barros 1997, 

p. 144; Trimble 1936, pp. 41–43). 

The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

Under the Act, we are required to 

evaluate the whether the existing 

regulatory mechanisms are adequate. 

There are limited legal mechanisms in 

place to protect this species (de la Torre 

et. al. 2011, p. 334; Herrera and 

Hennessey 2007, p. 295; LPF 2003, p. 6– 

7). This species is considered critically 

endangered by the International Union 

for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) (BLI 

2012; LPF 2012). However, IUCN 

rankings do not confer any actual 

protection or management. This species 

is listed in Appendix I of CITES (CITES 

2012), which, along with the ban by the 

Bolivian Government in 1984 to export 

this species, effectively limits 

international trade (LPF 2012; Herrera 

and Hennessey 2009, p. 233–234; LPF 

Recovery Plan 2003, p. 7). CITES 

Appendix I includes species that are 

‘‘threatened with extinction which are 

or may be affected by trade.’’ Species 

listed under Appendix I may not be 

traded for primarily commercial 

purposes. These protections were put in 

place because the species had suffered 

substantial population declines 

throughout its range due to habitat 

destruction and overexploitation. 

Within Bolivia, the government of 

Bolivia has enacted various laws and 

regulatory mechanisms to protect and 

manage wildlife and their habitats. For 

example, the Bolivian Government 

prohibits and takes sanctions against the 

possession and the traffic of any 

protected species such as the bluethroated macaw (LPF Recovery Plan 

2003, p. 7). Further, a study published 

in 2011 noted that many institutional 

changes have occurred in recent years in 

Bolivia (de la Torre et al. 2011, p. 332). 

However, even after the export of this 

species was prohibited in the 1980s and 

despite the laws in place and the 

intense conservation efforts ongoing for 

this species, the species’ population has 

not recovered and some localized illegal 

trade is still occurring. 

International trade in this species is 

now negligible (http://www.unepwcmc.org, accessed June 4, 2012). 

International trade of the blue-throated 

macaw was initially restricted by the 

listing of the species in Appendix II of 

the Convention on International Trade 

in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna 

and Flora (CITES) in 1981, and in 1983, 

the species was transferred from 

Appendix II to Appendix I. CITES 

regulates international trade in animal 

and plant species listed under the 

Convention. For additional information 

on CITES, visit http://www.cites.org/. 

Between 1981 and 1985, 134 Bluethroated Macaws were reported to have 

been exported to the United States 

(TRAFFIC 1987 in Herrera and 

Hennessey 2007, p. 296). However, no 

specimens of blue-throated macaws 

have been exported from Bolivia since 

1984 when Bolivia banned the export of 

this species (http://www.unepwcmc.org, accessed June 4, 2012). 

Although international trade is not a 

concern, poaching for local sale 

continues to occur (LPF 2012; Herrera 

and Hennessey 2009, p. 233; Kyle 

2007a). Although Bolivia banned the 

export of live parrots in 1984 (Brace et 

al. 1995, pp. 27–28), localized illegal 

trade within South America continued 

to occur, although it became less 

frequent (Herrera and Hennessey 2009, 

p. 233). For example, in 1993, 

investigators reported that an 

Argentinean bird dealer was offering 

Bolivian dealers a ‘‘high price’’ for bluethroated macaws (Jordan and Munn 

1993, p. 695). 

More recently, a study of markets in 

Santa Cruz, Bolivia estimated that over 

22,000 individuals of 31 parrot species 

were illegally traded during 2004–2005 

despite Bolivian laws (Herrera and 

Hennessey 2007, p. 298). Bolivian Law 

1333 (Ministerio de Desarrollo 

Sostenible y Planificacion 1999), Article 

111 states that all persons involved in 

trade, capture, and transportation 

without authorization of wild animals 

will suffer a two-year prison sentence 

together with a fine equivalent to 100 

percent of the value of the animal. This 

law is supported by an addendum that 

states that all threatened species are of 

national importance and must be 

protected (Herrera and Hennessey 2007, 

p. 295). Asociacio ́n Armonı ́a (a 

nonprofit organization in Bolivia) 

monitored the trade of wild birds that 

passed through a pet market in Santa 

Cruz, Bolivia, from periods between July 

2004 to December 2007 (Herrera and 

Hennessey 2009, p. 233; Herrera and 

Hennessey 2007, p. 295). During the 

2004–2005 study period, none of the 

parrots found were blue-throated 

macaws. In 2006, two blue-throated 

macaws were found for sale (Herrera 

and Hennessey 2009, p. 233). However, 

the blue-throated macaw was absent in 

the market during the monitoring period 

prior to 2006 and no blue-throated 

macaws were found for sale in this 

market in 2007 (Herrera and Hennessey 

2009, p. 233; Herrera and Hennessey 

2007, p. 295). This absence of the 

species in the market may be due either 

to the effectiveness of the ongoing 

conservation programs and laws in 

Bolivia, or it may be indicative of the 

scarcity of blue-throated macaws in the 

wild. Ninety-four percent of the birds 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
2246 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 7 / Thursday, January 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

documented were believed to be wildcaught. This illegal activity occurs 

despite the national laws that ban 

unauthorized trade (Herrera and 

Hennessey 2007, p. 298). 

The high value of this species could 

lead to continued illegal trade. An 

Internet search indicated that captivebred specimens of this species sell for 

between $1,500 and $3,000 in the 

United States (www.hoobly.com, 

accessed September 13, 2010). One 

search advertised that this is a ‘‘very 

rare species and there are only 300 left 

in the wild.’’ However, alternatively, 

because these birds are not difficult to 

breed in captivity, the supply of captivebred birds has increased which some 

experts believe may be alleviating illegal 

collection of wild birds (Waugh 2007a). 

Removal of blue-throated macaws 

from the wild can have a particularly 

devastating effect given their low 

reproductive rate, and slow recovery 

from various environmental pressures 

(Lee 2010, p. 3; Wright et al. 2001, p. 

711). In situations where the population 

is very small and the species is adding 

new individuals to the population at 

such a slow rate (due to high nestling 

mortality), any unauthorized removal 

from the wild will have a significant 

effect on the species’ population. Some 

blue-throated macaws have even been 

used for fish bait (Kyle 2007a, p. 7). The 

remains of a blue-throated macaw were 

found near a lake stuffed into a tree 

cavity with a bag of salt (Kyle 2007a, p. 

7). Because this species has so few 

individuals remaining, any removal 

from the wild is extremely detrimental 

to the survival of the species when 

taken into consideration with all of the 

other factors acting upon the species. 

In-Situ Conservation 

This species is considered by many 

organizations to be the most endangered 

macaw remaining in the wild (BLI 2012; 

World Parrot Trust (WPT) 2012; LPF 

2010, LPF 2003, p. 4). Several NGCOs 

are working intensely on various 

conservation projects to protect this 

species and its habitat. Various NGCOs 

have been involved in the conservation 

of this species since 1995 with 

authorization from the Bolivian 

Government (Gilardi 2012, pers. comm.; 

LPF 2002, p. 10). NGCOs involved 

include Asociacio ́n Armonı ́a (Bolivia’s 

BirdLife International partner); the Loro 

Parque Fundacio ́n (LPF), and WPT. A 

Species Recovery Plan that provides the 

basis for the Blue-throated Macaw 

Conservation Program was approved by 

Bolivia’s Ministry for Sustainable 

Development in 2004 and has been in 

place since then (LPF 2003, pp. 6–7). 

Within its breeding range, a multitude 

of efforts are in progress to conserve the 

species (Gilardi 2012 personal 

communication; Berkunsky 2010, p. 5, 

Kyle 2007, pp. 1–11). Conservation 

measures include constant monitoring, 

protection, and manipulation of nests, 

supplementing nestlings’ diet when 

food sources are scarce, agreements with 

private landowners, patrolling existing 

macaw habitat by foot and motorbike, 

and monitoring the Beni lowlands for 

additional populations (LPF 2012; Kyle 

2007a; Snyder et al. 2000). 

Nongovernmental conservation 

organizations (NGCOs) have 

implemented cooperation agreements 

with the federation of cattle farmers of 

the Beni (FEGABENI) and the local 

authorities in Trinidad (LPF et al. 2003, 

p. 6). 

Land acquisition to expand protected 

habitat for this species has been funded 

by the World Land Trust. In 2008, 

Asociacio ́n Armonı ́a and LPF purchased 

a 3,555-ha (8,785-ac) reserve for the 

purpose of establishing a protected area 

for the blue-throated macaw 

(WorldLand Trust 2010, accessed July 

16, 2010; BLI 2008). In 2010, the Barba 

Azul Nature Reserve was expanded by 

1,123 hectares (ha) (2,775 acres (ac)), 

creating a total protected area for the 

blue-throated macaws of 4,664 ha 

(11,525 ac) (Asociacio ́n Armonı ́a 2012). 

Currently, this Reserve is the only 

protected area designated for the bluethroated macaw. Legal protections that 

apply fall under Bolivian Law 1333 

(Ministerio de Desarrollo Sostenible y 

Planificacion 1999), Article 111. This 

Reserve protects savanna habitat; and 

habitat restoration is occurring in the 

Reserve, although it is unclear the 

extent the Reserve is used by bluethroated macaws. The actual protections 

in place include monitoring of habitat, 

local education and awareness programs 

about the species, establishment of 

suitable nesting sites. Approximately 70 

blue-throated macaws have been 

observed in or around this Reserve 

(Herrera 2012, pers. comm.); however, 

these macaws may be some of the same 

macaws that are observed in other parts 

of its range during the breeding season 

(Berkunsky 2012, pers. comm.). 

Despite the existence of the reserve, 

there are no nests in the Reserve that are 

occupied by the blue-throated macaws 

(Herrera 2012, personal 

communication). Although bluethroated macaws do not use this area for 

breeding, there is evidence that they use 

the Reserve for feeding (Herrera 2012, 

personal communication; Kingsbury 

2010, pp. 69–82). It appears that bluethroated macaws use the Reserve and 

adjacent ranches during the nonbreeding season while their breedingseason habitat is seasonally-flooded (see 

Appendix A for a map of its range; 

Milpacher 2012, personal 

communication; Herrera 2012, personal 

communication). Other than the Barba 

Azul Nature Reserve, there are no 

protected areas in the Llanos de Mojos 

except the Beni Biosphere Reserve, 

which has been in existence since 1986. 

However, to our knowledge, the bluethroated macaw does not use the Beni 

Biosphere Reserve (Hesse and Duffield 

2000, p. 258). 

In addition to conservation efforts, the 

NGCOs working in Bolivia are 

conducting field research to better 

understand the current state of this 

species. However, the conservation 

work is extremely difficult due to the 

various factors that affect the species. 

Because the species’ habitat is flooded 

for 6 months of the year, monitoring its 

habitat is impossible during certain 

seasons (Berkunsky 2010, p. 5). There 

have also been discussions of 

reintroducing captive-raised birds into 

the wild; however, this practice could 

inadvertently introduce disease into the 

wild population if precautions are not 

taken to minimize the transmission of 

disease to other blue-throated macaws. 

Another conservation measure in 

place is research on the motacu ́ palm 

(Milpacher 2012, personal 

communication) because the number of 

motacu ́ palms is decreasing. This palm 

species plays a significant role in the 

life cycle of the blue-throated macaw. 

One study found that the old and 

senescent motacu ́ palms significantly 

exceed the younger palms (LPF 2003, p. 

21). Based on their findings, researchers 

concluded that the islands containing 

motacu ́ are not regenerating motacu ́

palms sufficiently. It is likely that the 

lack of regeneration is due to overgrazing by cattle and excessive use of 

fire over centuries (Kyle 2006, p. 5). 

WPT has recently attempted several 

small scale palm germination 

experiments to assess reestablishing 

palm habitat (Milpacher 2012, pers. 

comm.). The motacu ́ palm has 

commercial value in addition to its 

ecological role. Palm trees are used for 

a multitude of purposes such as thatch 

for housing, fruit, and palm oil (de la 

Torre et al. 2011, pp. 327–369; 

Zambrana et al. 2007, pp. 2771–2778). 

Motacu ́ palm-dominated islands may 

have persisted in part due to their 

various ecological and commercial 

values, but they certainly persist in part 

because the islands are raised areas 

within the lowlands areas that are prone 

to flooding. With respect to the shortterm, local researchers believe that there 

will be adequate motacu ́ fruits in the 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 7 / Thursday, January 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 2247 

region for a few more decades (LPF 

2003, p. 21); however, research on the 

motacu ́ is vital to the conservation of 

the blue-throated macaw. 

Educational awareness programs are 

in place in addition to research and 

monitoring. The Asociacio ́n Armonı ́a is 

involved in an awareness campaign to 

ensure that the protection and 

conservation of these birds occurs at a 

local level (e.g., protection of macaws 

from trappers and the sustainable 

management of key habitats such as 

palm groves and forest islands, on their 

property) (Llampa 2007; BLI 2008a; 

Snyder et al. 2000). Two educational 

awareness centers have been established 

in the towns of Santa Ana del Yacuma 

and Santa Rosa del Yacuma (LPF 2010, 

p. 16). In response to the limited but 

continued poaching that occurs in the 

wild, LPF initiated a travelling 

exhibition, ‘‘Extinction is Forever,’’ 

which visited 17 urban localities in 

Bolivia in 2010 (LPF 2010, p. 15). The 

exhibition includes 21 photographs that 

explain the ancestral and present day 

relationship between people and birds, 

and highlights the effects of illegal trade 

of wild birds in Bolivia currently. An 

estimated 1,000 visitors attended each 

showing in the main cities (LPF 2010, 

p. 15). 

In summary, the conservation efforts 

underway are abundant, but require 

significant effort. Reproductive success 

is vital to the blue-throated macaw 

recovery and this species faces many 

challenges to successfully reproducing. 

This species’ nest often has an open 

crown (i.e. no roof) and is prone to 

flooding (Berkunsky 2010, p. 4; Kyle 

2007a, p. 3). During many seasons, 

nests, eggs, and nestlings are destroyed 

due to flooding. Both WBT and 

Asociacio ́n Armonı ́a have been 

conducting conservation activities such 

as installation of artificial nest boxes 

that provide safe habitat, manipulating 

nests so that they do not flood, and 

discouraging predators and nest 

competitors. The installation of a 

multitude and variety of nest boxes is a 

way to boost breeding success. Because 

many other species compete for these 

nest boxes, and blue-throated macaws 

tend to re-use previously-used nesting 

sites, the process of introducing nest 

boxes and encouraging blue-throated 

macaws to use them while discouraging 

other species from using them is a very 

time-intensive process. Despite all of 

these conservation efforts, fewer than 

150 individuals of this species are 

believed to remain in the wild. 

Other Factors 

An additional factor that affects the 

nesting success of blue-throated macaws 

is the availability of food sources—not 

only the abundance of food, but the 

timing of its availability. Phenology 

(how the timing of plant life cycle 

events interacts with animal biological 

processes) is influenced by variations in 

climate. The timing of motacu ́ palm 

fruit production is critical for various 

life stages of the blue-throated macaw, 

particularly during the period following 

hatching. The motacu ́ palms, on which 

blue-throated macaws depend for 

nesting as well as feeding, are affected 

by drought, burning, and excessive 

rainfall. In years when there is 

significant drought or excessive rainfall, 

the fruiting abundance and timing of 

fruit production can significantly affect 

the success of nestlings, or it can 

prohibit blue-throated macaws from 

even attempting to nest (Kyle 2007). In 

some seasons when food is not as 

plentiful, breeding pairs may choose not 

to brood and the weakest of the 

nestlings are neglected by its parents 

and die of starvation (Kyle 2007a, pp. 4– 

5). During these times, in some cases, 

the diet is supplemented by these 

conservation organizations; however, it 

is a very intensive process. 

In summary, there are many factors 

that are causing stress to this species’ 

population. It is affected primarily by 

predation, nest flooding, and lack of 

nest sites. Combined with its reduced 

population size, the species lacks 

sufficient redundancy and resiliency to 

recover from present and future threats 

without intervention and intense 

conservation actions. 

Finding (Proposed Listing 

Determination) 

In assessing whether the blue-throated 

macaw meets the definition of a 

threatened or endangered species, we 

considered the five factors in section 

4(a)(1) of the Act. A species is 

‘‘endangered’’ for purposes of the Act if 

it is in danger of extinction throughout 

all or a significant portion of its range 

and is ‘‘threatened’’ if it is likely to 

become endangered within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. In 

considering what factors might 

constitute threats to a species, we must 

look beyond the mere exposure of the 

species to the factor to evaluate whether 

the species may respond to the factor in 

a way that causes actual impacts to the 

species. If there is exposure to a factor 

and the species responds negatively, the 

factor may be a threat and we attempt 

to determine how significant a threat it 

is. The threat is significant if it drives, 

or contributes to, the risk of extinction 

of the species such that the species may 

warrant listing as endangered or 

threatened as those terms are defined in 

the Act. We conducted a review of the 

status of this species and assessed 

whether the blue-throated macaw is 

threatened or endangered throughout all 

of its range. On the basis of the best 

scientific and commercial information, 

we do not find that the factors affecting 

the species are likely to be sufficiently 

ameliorated in the foreseeable future. 

A multitude of factors has contributed 

to the decline of this species’ 

population. In the past, factors that 

significantly reduced the number of 

blue-throated macaws included habitat 

loss and overutilization for the pet trade 

and museum specimens (NMNH 2012; 

Berkunsky 2010, p. 4; Kyle 2005, pp. 6– 

10). Currently, the primary factors that 

impact the blue-throated macaws are: 

• Lack of adequate nest sites (both in 

abundance and effectiveness); 

• Failure to adequately reproduce: 

nest (clutch) failure (when one or all of 

the nestlings fail to survive to fledgling 

stage due to a variety of reasons such as 

starvation, inadequate nutrition, sibling 

competition, or other reasons); 

• Nest flooding (if nests are not 

monitored and manipulated); 

• Botflies; 

• Potential inbreeding which results 

in malformations and reduced fertility 

and loss of genetic variability due to a 

small population size (WCS in litt. 

2011); 

• Competition for nests with more 

competitive species such as bees and 

other avian species such as other macaw 

species; and 

• Predation by numerous species, 

particularly birds of prey such as 

toucans, owls, vultures, other raptors, 

and even other macaw species 

(Berkunsky 2010, p. 4; Kyle 2006, p. 4, 

Loro Parque Fundacio ́n 2003, p. 28). 

All of these factors combined make 

the blue-throated macaw exceptionally 

vulnerable to extinction. The historical, 

current, and ongoing threats to the bluethroated macaw have reduced the 

population such that it is extremely 

small, and the remaining pairs face 

many challenges to successfully 

reproduce offspring. The blue-throated 

macaw is currently at risk throughout 

all of its range due to historical impacts 

of the cumulative habitat loss that 

resulted from manipulation of its habitat 

over time, and the current practice of 

maintaining cattle pastures do not 

adequately allow palm species to 

regenerate. In addition, overutilization 

for the pet trade and museum specimens 

has reduced the status of the species to 

the point that its population is 

vulnerable to permanent extirpation 

from the wild. This species is more 

vulnerable to the effects of disease and 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
2248 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 7 / Thursday, January 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

predation than it would have been 

otherwise. The species is also affected 

by stochastic events such as extreme 

weather events, which cause nest 

flooding and knock down trees where it 

has formed nests; we expect this to 

continue into the future. 

Despite protections in place and 

educational awareness programs, this 

species is still occasionally being 

removed from the wild. A conservation 

plan was finalized in 2003 by several 

NGCOs and has been in place for almost 

10 years. Even though intensive efforts 

to recover and conserve this species and 

its habitat by at least three NGCOs are 

underway, the recovery plan has not 

met its goals: the population of this 

species is still likely less than 150 in the 

wild. This species’ life-history traits 

(such as the long investment time to 

raise nestlings, reproduction does not 

usually occur until age 6; and pairs 

generally mating for life), make it 

particularly susceptible to extinction. 

Additionally, its populations are small, 

its remaining suitable habitat is small, 

the population may lack genetic 

diversity which is causing 

malformations in nestlings, and the 

species is not reproducing sufficiently. 

These threats are currently impacting 

blue-throated macaw throughout its 

range and will likely continue in the 

future. 

This species experienced a sharp 

population decline in the past few 

hundred years because it has been 

removed from the wild for various 

purposes, and now it faces a multitude 

of factors that negatively affect its ability 

to reproduce. Although removal of this 

species from the wild was detrimental 

to this species in the past, we found that 

international trade is no longer a factor 

currently influencing the species’ status 

in the wild; however, limited poaching 

continues to occur. Illegal capture for 

the local pet trade is exacerbated by the 

other factors acting on the species. The 

regulatory mechanisms in place are 

inadequate to mitigate the factors that 

are negatively affecting the species. The 

lack of success of the species to increase 

its population indicates that the laws 

governing wildlife and habitat 

protection in Bolivia are inadequate to 

protect the species or to mitigate these 

threats. 

In conclusion, we have carefully 

assessed the best scientific and 

commercial information available 

regarding the past, present, and future 

threats affecting this species. 

Historically, the blue-throated macaw 

existed in much higher numbers in 

more continuous, connected habitat. As 

described above, there are many obvious 

factors that currently affect the bluethroated macaws. These include: 

inadequate nest sites (both in 

abundance and effectiveness), nest 

(clutch) failure (when one or all of the 

nestlings fail to survive to fledgling 

stage due to a variety of reasons such as 

starvation, inadequate nutrition, sibling 

competition), nest flooding, and botflies; 

competition for nests with more 

competitive species such as bees and 

other avian species such as large 

woodpeckers and other macaw species; 

and predation by numerous species, 

particularly birds of prey such as 

toucans, owls, vultures, other raptors, 

and even other macaw species. 

Our review of the information 

pertaining to the five threat factors 

supports a conclusion that the 

imminence, intensity, and magnitude of 

the factors affecting the species occurs 

to an extent such that the threats to the 

blue-throated macaw, coupled with an 

extremely small population that has 

declined over the past few hundred 

years, place this species at risk of 

extinction throughout all of its range, 

such that a listing of endangered is 

warranted. The species is currently in 

danger of extinction because the species 

is at such low levels that it is vulnerable 

to stochastic environmental events, 

particularly predation and nest flooding. 

Given the species’ low reproductive 

capacity and impaired genetic fitness, it 

is unable to increase to the levels of 

abundance that is able to withstand 

such events. We find that the bluethroated macaw is in danger of 

extinction now and, therefore, is 

appropriately listed as an endangered 

species. Therefore, we propose to list 

the blue-throated macaw as endangered 

under the Act. 

Peer Review 

In accordance with our joint policy 

with the National Marine Fisheries 

Service, ‘‘Notice of Interagency 

Cooperative Policy for Peer Review in 

Endangered Species Act Activities,’’ 

published in the Federal Register on 

July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek 

the expert opinions of at least three 

appropriate independent specialists 

regarding this proposed rule. The 

purpose of peer review is to ensure that 

our final determination is based on 

scientifically sound data, assumptions, 

and analyses. We will send copies of 

this proposed rule to the peer reviewers 

immediately following publication in 

the Federal Register. We will invite 

these peer reviewers to comment during 

the public comment period on our 

specific assumptions and conclusions 

regarding the proposal to list the bluethroated macaw. 

We will consider all comments and 

information we receive during the 

comment period on this proposed rule 

during our preparation of a final 

determination. Accordingly, our final 

decision may differ from this proposal. 

Available Conservation Measures 

Conservation measures provided to 

species listed as endangered under the 

Act include recognition, requirements 

for Federal protection, and prohibitions 

against certain practices. Recognition 

through listing results in public 

awareness, and encourages and results 

in conservation actions by Federal and 

State governments, private agencies and 

interest groups, and individuals. 

The Act and its implementing 

regulations set forth a series of general 

prohibitions and exceptions that apply 

to all endangered wildlife. These 

prohibitions, at 50 CFR 17.21, in part, 

make it illegal for any person subject to 

the jurisdiction of the United States to 

‘‘take’’ (includes harass, harm, pursue, 

hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, 

or to attempt any of these) within the 

United States or upon the high seas; 

import or export; deliver, receive, carry, 

transport, or ship in interstate 

commerce in the course of commercial 

activity; or sell or offer for sale in 

interstate or foreign commerce any 

endangered wildlife species. It also is 

illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, 

transport, or ship any such wildlife that 

has been taken in violation of the Act. 

Certain exceptions apply to agents of the 

Service and State conservation agencies. 

Permits may be issued to carry out 

otherwise prohibited activities 

involving endangered wildlife species 

under certain circumstances. 

Regulations governing permits for 

endangered species are codified at 50 

CFR 17.22. With regard to endangered 

wildlife, a permit may be issued for the 

following purposes: For scientific 

purposes, to enhance the propagation or 

survival of the species, and for 

incidental take in connection with 

otherwise lawful activities. 

Clarity of the Rule 

We are required by Executive Orders 

12866 and 12988 and by the 

Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 

1998, to write all rules in plain 

language. This means that each rule we 

publish must: 

(a) Be logically organized; 

(b) Use the active voice to address 

readers directly; 

(c) Use clear language rather than 

jargon; 

(d) Be divided into short sections and 

sentences; and 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 7 / Thursday, January 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 2249 

(e) Use lists and tables wherever 

possible. 

If you feel that we have not met these 

requirements, send us comments by one 

of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES

section. To better help us revise the 

rule, your comments should be as 

specific as possible. For example, you 

should tell us the names of the sections 

or paragraphs that are unclearly written, 

which sections or sentences are too 

long, the sections where you feel lists or 

tables would be useful, etc. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) 

We have determined that 

environmental assessments and 

environmental impact statements, as 

defined under the authority of the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not 

be prepared in connection with 

regulations adopted under section 4(a) 

of the Act. We published a notice 

outlining our reasons for this 

determination in the Federal Register 

on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

in this proposed rule is available on the 

Internet at http://www.regulations.gov 

or upon request from the Branch of 

Foreign Species, Endangered Species 

Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Author(s) 

The primary author of this proposed 

rule is Amy Brisendine, Branch of 

Foreign Species, Endangered Species 

Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Proposed Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we propose to amend 

part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 

50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 

as set forth below: 

PART 17—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C. 

1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99– 

625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted. 

■ 2. Amend § 17.11(h) by adding a new 

entry for ‘‘Macaw, blue-throated’’ in 

alphabetical order under BIRDS to the 

List of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife to read as follows: 

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

Species 

Historic range 

Vertebrate 

population where 

endangered or 

threatened 

Status When listed Critical 

habitat 

Special 

rules Common name Scientific name 

*******

BIRDS

* * * * * * * 

Macaw, bluethroated.Ara glaucogularis .... Bolivia ..................... Entire ...................... E .................... NA NA 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

Dated: December 31, 2012. 

Rowan W. Gould, 

Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–00291 Filed 1–9–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 648 

[Docket No. 120813331–2562–01] 

RIN 0648–XC164 

Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; 

Fisheries of the Northeastern United 

States; Northeast Multispecies 

Fishery; Proposed Rule To Implement 

a Targeted Acadian Redfish Fishery for 

Sector Vessels; Reopening of 

Comment Period 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; correction and 

reopening of comment period. 

SUMMARY: This action reopens the 

comment period for an Acadian redfishrelated proposed rule that published on 

November 8, 2012. The original 

comment period closed on November 

23, 2012. This action clarifies a bycatch 

threshold incorrectly explained in the 

proposed rule. The public comment 

period is being reopened to solicit 

additional public comment on this 

correction. 

DATES: The comment period for the 

proposed rule published November 8, 

2012 (77 FR 66947), is reopened. 

Written comments must be received on 

or before January 22, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on this document, identified by NOAA– 

NMFS–2012–0183, by any one of the 

following methods: 

• Electronic Submissions: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to 

www.regulations.gov/ 

#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2012- 

0183, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, 

complete the required fields, and enter 

or attach your comments. 

• Fax: (978) 281–9135, Attn: William 

Whitmore. 

• Mail: Paper, disk, or CD–ROM 

comments should be sent to John K. 

Bullard, Regional Administrator, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 55 

Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 

01930. Mark the outside of the 

envelope: ‘‘Comments on Redfish Rule.’’ 

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 a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted for public 

viewing on www.regulations.gov 

without change. All personal identifying 

information (e.g., name, address, 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 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with