25174 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 88 / Friday, May 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

selected. Click on the comments you 

wish to see. You may download the 

comments. Although the comments are 

imaged documents, instead of the word 

processing documents, the ‘‘pdf’’ 

versions of the documents are word 

searchable. Please note that even after 

the comment closing date, we will 

continue to file relevant information in 

the Docket as it becomes available. 

Further, some people may submit late 

comments. Accordingly, we recommend 

that you periodically search the Docket 

for new material. 

L. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) 

The Department of Transportation 

assigns a regulation identifier number 

(RIN) to each regulatory action listed in 

the Unified Agenda of Federal 

Regulations. The Regulatory Information 

Service Center publishes the Unified 

Agenda in April and October of each 

year. You may use the RIN that appears 

in the heading on the first page of this 

document to find this action in the 

Unified Agenda. 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 594 

Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor 

vehicles. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR part 

594 as follows: 

PART 594—SCHEDULE OF FEES 

AUTHORIZED BY 49 U.S.C. 30141 

1. The authority citation for part 594 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30141, 31 U.S.C. 

9701; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50. 

2. Amend § 594.6 by: 

a. Revising the introductory text of 

paragraph (a); 

b. Revising paragraph (b); 

c. Revising the first sentence of 

paragraph (d); 

d. Revising the second sentence of 

paragraph (h); and 

e. Revising paragraph (i) to read as 

follows: 

§ 594.6 Annual fee for administration of 

the registration program. 

(a) Each person filing an application 

to be granted the status of a Registered 

Importer pursuant to part 592 of this 

chapter on or after October 1, 2010, 

must pay an annual fee of $795, as 

calculated below, based upon the direct 

and indirect costs attributable to: 

* * * * * 

(b) That portion of the initial annual 

fee attributable to the processing of the 

application for applications filed on and 

after October 1, 2010, is $320. The sum 

of $320, representing this portion, shall 

not be refundable if the application is 

denied or withdrawn. 

* * * * * 

(d) That portion of the initial annual 

fee attributable to the remaining 

activities of administering the 

registration program on and after 

October 1, 2010, is set forth in 

paragraph (i) of this section. * * * 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * This cost is $20.67 per manhour for the period beginning October 1, 

2010. 

(i) Based upon the elements and 

indirect costs of paragraphs (f), (g), and 

(h) of this section, the component of the 

initial annual fee attributable to 

administration of the registration 

program, covering the period beginning 

October 1, 2010, is $475. When added 

to the costs of registration of $320, as set 

forth in paragraph (b) of this section, the 

costs per applicant to be recovered 

through the annual fee are $795. The 

annual renewal registration fee for the 

period beginning October 1, 2010, is 

$670. 

3. Amend § 594.7 by revising the first 

sentence of paragraph (e) to read as 

follows: 

§ 594.7 Fee for filing petitions for a 

determination whether a vehicle is eligible 

for importation. 

* * * * * 

(e) For petitions filed on and after 

October 1, 2010, the fee payable for 

seeking a determination under 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section is $175. 

* * * 

* * * * * 

4. Amend § 594.8 by revising the first 

sentence of paragraph (b) and the first 

sentence of paragraph (c) to read as 

follows: 

§ 594.8 Fee for importing a vehicle 

pursuant to a determination by the 

Administrator. 

* * * * * 

(b) If a determination has been made 

pursuant to a petition, the fee for each 

vehicle is $158. * * * 

(c) If a determination has been made 

on or after October 1, 2010, pursuant to 

the Administrator’s initiative, the fee for 

each vehicle is $125. * * * 

5. Amend § 594.9 by revising 

paragraphs (c) and (e) to read as follows: 

§ 594.9 Fee for reimbursement of bond 

processing costs and costs for processing 

offers of cash deposits or obligations of the 

United States in lieu of sureties on bonds. 

* * * * * 

(c) The bond processing fee for each 

vehicle imported on and after October 1, 

2010, for which a certificate of 

conformity is furnished, is $9.93. 

* * * * * 

(e) The fee for each vehicle imported 

on and after October 1, 2010, for which 

cash deposits or obligations of the 

United States are furnished in lieu of a 

conformance bond, is $514.00. 

6. Amend § 594.10 by revising the 

first and third sentences of paragraph 

(d) to read as follows: 

§ 594.10 Fee for review and processing of 

conformity certificate. 

* * * * * 

(d) The review and processing fee for 

each certificate of conformity submitted 

on and after October 1, 2010 is $17. 

* * * If NHTSA finds that the 

information in the entry or the 

certificate is incorrect, requiring further 

processing, the processing fee shall be 

$57. 

Issued on: May 5, 2010. 

Joseph Carra, 

Acting Senior Associate Administrator for 

Vehicle Safety. 

[FR Doc. 2010–10816 Filed 5–6–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 224 

Docket No [0906221082–0122–02] 

RIN 0648–XQ03 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Proposed Listing for the 

Largetooth Sawfish 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; 12–month 

petition finding; request for comments. 

SUMMARY: We, NMFS, have determined 

that the largetooth sawfish (Pristis 

perotteti) qualifies as a ‘‘species’’ for 

listing as endangered or threatened 

under the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA), and propose listing the species as 

endangered. This proposed rule also 

constitutes the 12–month finding on the 

petition to list the largetooth sawfish 

throughout its range and designate 

critical habitat for the species. We are 

not proposing to designate critical 

habitat. This proposed rule to list the 

species as endangered is based on the 

status review of the species (NMFS, 

2010), and the best available scientific 

and commercial data. We also solicit 

information that may be relevant to the 

status and conservation of the species. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 88 / Friday, May 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 25175 

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule 

must be received by July 6, 2010. Public 

hearing requests must be requested by 

June 21, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by the RIN 0648–XQ03, by 

any of the following methods: 

• Electronic Submissions: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal http// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail or hand-delivery: Assistant 

Regional Administrator for Protected 

Resources, NMFS, Southeast Regional 

Office, 263 13th Avenue South, St. 

Petersburg, FL 33701–5505. 

• Facsimile (fax): 727 824 5309. 

Instructions: No comments will be 

posted for public viewing until after the 

comment period. All comments 

received are considered part of the 

public record and will generally be 

posted to HTTP://WWW.REGULATIONS.GOV. 

All Personal Identifying Information 

(i.e., name, address, etc.) voluntarily 

submitted may be publicly accessible. 

Do not submit Confidential Business 

Information or otherwise sensitive or 

protected information. We will accept 

anonymous comments (enter ‘‘n/a’’ in 

the required fields if you wish to remain 

anonymous). Please provide electronic 

attachments using Microsoft Word, 

Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file 

formats only. The proposed rule, the list 

of references, and the status review are 

also available electronically on the 

NMFS website at http:// 

sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/ 

Largetoothsawfish.htm. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Shelley Norton, NMFS, Southeast 

Regional Office (727) 824–5312 or 

Dwayne Meadows, NMFS, Office of 

Protected Resources (301) 713–1401. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

NMFS identified the largetooth 

sawfish (Pristis perotteti) as a candidate 

species in 1991 (56 FR 26797). It was 

removed from the list on July 14, 1997 

(62 FR 37560), but was subsequently 

added to the revised list on June 23, 

1999 (64 FR 33466). 

On November 30, 1999, the Center for 

Marine Conservation (currently called 

Ocean Conservancy) petitioned us to list 

North American populations of 

largetooth and smalltooth sawfish as 

endangered under the ESA. The 

largetooth sawfish underwent a formal 

status review; however, we determined 

that the petitioner did not present 

substantial evidence that the petitioned 

action may be warranted for the 

largetooth sawfish (56 FR 12959; March 

10, 2000). Specifically, there was no 

evidence that a North American 

population of largetooth sawfish 

existed. The largetooth sawfish was, 

however, maintained on the candidate 

species list and later transferred to the 

new Species of Concern list on April 15, 

2004 (69 FR 19975). 

On April 21, 2009, WildEarth 

Guardians petitioned the Secretary of 

Commerce to list the largetooth sawfish 

(Pristis perotteti) as endangered or 

threatened throughout its range and to 

designate critical habitat for this 

species. The petitioners also requested 

that we reconsider our previous March 

10, 2000, negative finding on listing the 

North American population. 

On July 29, 2009, we published a 

positive 90–day finding (74 FR 37671) 

announcing that the petition presented 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating the petitioned 

action of listing the species may be 

warranted. We announced the initiation 

of a status review of the species and 

requested information to inform the 

agency’s decision on whether to propose 

the species for ESA listing. Our 

Southeast Regional Office (SERO) issued 

two contracts in 2009 to the Florida 

Museum of Natural History to compile 

all confirmed records of largetooth 

sawfish in the U.S. and internationally. 

The status review (NMFS, 2010) was 

conducted by the Southeast Fisheries 

Science Center (SEFSC) and SERO staff. 

The status review is available 

electronically at http:// 

sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/ 

Largetoothsawfish.htm. 

Listing Determinations Under the 

Endangered Species Act 

We are responsible for determining 

whether the largetooth sawfish (Pristis 

perotteti) is threatened or endangered 

under the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires us 

to make listing determinations based 

solely on the best scientific and 

commercial data available after 

conducting a review of the status of the 

species and after taking into account 

efforts being made by any state or 

foreign nation to protect the species. We 

have followed a stepwise approach in 

making this listing determination for the 

largetooth sawfish (Pristis perotteti). As 

the first of five steps, we determined if 

the largetooth sawfish is a ‘‘species’’ 

under the ESA. To be considered for 

listing under the ESA, a group of 

organisms must constitute a ‘‘species,’’ 

which is defined in section 3 of the ESA 

to include taxonomic species plus ‘‘any 

subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, 

and any distinct population segment of 

any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife 

which interbreeds when mature.’’ 

Next we completed an extinction risk 

assessment to determine the status of 

the species, in particular whether it 

qualified for threatened or endangered 

status. Section 3 of the ESA defines an 

endangered species as ‘‘any species 

which is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range’’ and a threatened species as 

one ‘‘which is likely to become an 

endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range.’’ For our 

extinction risk analysis we follow the 

general procedure of Wainwright and 

Cope (1999). 

In the third step, we assessed the 

threats affecting the species status. We 

did this by following the guidance in 

the ESA that requires us to determine 

whether any species is endangered or 

threatened due to any of the following 

five factors: (A) the present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) 

the inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; or (E) other natural or 

manmade factors affecting its continued 

existence (section 4(a)(1)(A) through 

(E)). After analyzing the threats affecting 

the species, we re-evaluated the 

extinction status for the species to see 

if the status changed after the 

assessment of the five factors. 

The fourth step involves an 

assessment of the efforts being made to 

protect the species to determine if these 

efforts are adequate to mitigate existing 

threats. We evaluated all conservation 

efforts using the criteria outlined in the 

joint NMFS and U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS) Policy for Evaluating 

Conservation Efforts When Making 

Listing Decisions (PECE policy; 68 FR 

15100; March 28, 2003) to determine 

their certainties of implementation and 

effectiveness. In the final step, we 

reassessed the preliminary extinction 

risk assessment conclusion from above 

to determine if the status of the species 

had changed based on the PECE 

analysis. 

To evaluate the petitioner’s request 

that NMFS designate critical habitat for 

the species, we followed the provisions 

in the ESA and in our implementing 

regulations (50 CFR 424). Of particular 

relevance in this case are provisions that 

NMFS cannot designate critical habitat 

in ‘‘foreign countries’’ or areas outside of 

U.S. jurisdiction and that NMFS shall 

not designate as critical habitat areas 

outside of the geographical area 

presently occupied by a species, unless 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
25176 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 88 / Friday, May 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

‘‘a designation limited to its present 

range would be inadequate to ensure the 

conservation of the species’’ (50 CFR 

424.12). 

Largetooth Sawfish Natural History 

Taxonomy 

All sawfishes belong to two Genera 

(Pristis and Anoxypristis) in the Family 

Pristidae of the Order Pristiformes, and 

are classified as rays (Superorder 

Batoidea). Sawfishes are distinguished 

from other rays by the long snout 

(rostrum) with teeth on either side. 

Using molecular phylogeny 

(mitochondrial and nuclear gene 

analysis) paired with morphological 

characters, Faria (2007) distinguished 

seven extant species in the Pristidae. 

Sawfishes are classified into three 

morphological groups based on rostrum 

characteristics: largetooth, smalltooth, 

and knifetooth (Garman, 1913). Three 

species are currently classified in the 

largetooth ‘‘group,’’ namely P. perotteti, 

P. microdon, and P. pristis, though 

difficulties associated with taxonomic 

identification are known (Faria, 2007; 

Wiley et al., 2008, Wueringer et al., 

2009). 

Pristis perotteti has been referred to 

by other names throughout its range. For 

instance, it has been called P. 

antiquorum (as cited in Bigelow and 

Schroeder 1953), P. zephyreus (Beebe 

and Tee-Van, 1941), P. pristis 

(McEachran and Fechhelm, 1998), or P. 

microdon (Garman, 1913; Fowler, 1941; 

Chirichigno and Cornejo, 2001; Vakily 

et al., 2002). Some authors consider the 

eastern Pacific populations to be part of 

the species P. microdon (Garman, 1913; 

Fowler, 1941; Chirichigno 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 species are 

generally classified based upon location 

(i.e., P. perotteti occurs in the Atlantic, 

while P. microdon is in the IndoPacific), and there is some evidence that 

tooth counts may differ (Wueringer et 

al., 2009). The conserved morphology of 

sawfishes makes identification difficult 

in some cases; most species are 

distinguished by the number of teeth on, 

and size of, the rostrum, placement of 

the first dorsal fin in relation to the 

pectoral fins, and shape of the lower 

lobe of the caudal fin. However, Faria 

(2007), used both mitochondrial and 

nuclear genes to investigate the 

population structure for all Pristidae 

species. The results from his study 

indicate that the ‘‘largetooth’’ species P. 

microdon and P. perotteti are separate 

species, and that P. microdon occurs in 

the Pacific, based on their 

mitochondrial deoxyribonucleic acid 

sequencing data and differences in 

external morphology (e.g., rostrum 

length and horizontal length of the eye). 

Based on the available taxonomic 

information on P. perotteti, we have 

determined the species’ range is the 

eastern and western Atlantic Ocean. 

The rostral tooth count per side for P. 

perotteti ranges from 14 to 22, and the 

space between the two most posterior 

teeth is between 4.5 and 8.5 percent of 

rostrum standard length (Faria, 2007). 

The origin of the first dorsal fin is 

forward of the pelvic fin origin, and the 

lower lobe of the caudal fin is distinct 

at all maturity stages. The largest known 

specimen was a 275.6 in (700 cm) total 

length (TL) female captured in northern 

Brazilian waters (Almeida, 1999). The 

only other sawfish species that overlaps 

in range with P. perotteti is the 

smalltooth sawfish, P. pectinata. These 

species are differentiated by the number 

of teeth on the rostrum (24 to 32 for P. 

pectinata, 22 to 29 for P. perotteti (Wiley 

et al., 2008)), and the rostrum length of 

P. pectinata is shorter in relation to its 

body length. 

Habitat Use and Migration 

Largetooth sawfish are generally 

restricted to shallow (< 33 ft (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 bays, preferring 

partially enclosed waters, lying in 

deeper holes and on bottoms of mud or 

muddy sand (Bigelow and Schroeder, 

1953). This species, like the smalltooth 

sawfish, is highly mangrove-associated 

(Burgess et al., 2009). 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 across 

salinity gradients freely and appear to 

have more physiological tolerance of 

freshwater than smalltooth sawfish 

(Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953; Dahl, 

1971; Thorson, 1974; 1976a; all as cited 

in Thorson, 1982a). 

Though their habitats once 

overlapped in the northern Gulf of 

Mexico, the largetooth sawfish 

historically had a more southerly range 

than the smalltooth sawfish, with what 

appears to be a more narrow seasonal 

migration pattern. Mature largetooth 

sawfish seasonally ventured into waters 

as far north as U.S. waters of the Gulf 

of Mexico. 

Age and Growth 

There have been no formal studies 

examining the age and growth of the 

largetooth sawfish, though Thorson’s 

(1982a) study of the Lake Nicaragua 

population estimated size at birth to be 

30 in (75 cm) and an early juvenile 

growth rate of 13.8 to 15.7 in (35 to 40 

cm)/year. Thorson (1982a) also 

estimated age of maturity to be 10 years 

and size at maturity 118 in (300 cm). 

Preliminary vertebral growth ring 

analysis has extrapolated largetooth 

sawfish (P. microdon) lifespan to an 

estimated maximum age of 51 years 

(Peverell, 2006), and we determined this 

to be our best available estimate of 

largetooth sawfish lifespan. 

Reproductive Biology 

The reproductive method of sawfishes 

is most likely lecithotrophic viviparity; 

ova are internally fertilized, developing 

embryos receive nourishment from an 

external yolk sac, and the pups are born 

live after the yolk sac is absorbed. The 

only known reproductive study of 

largetooth sawfish was from Lake 

Nicaragua in the 1970s (Thorson, 

1976a). This study found that litter size 

ranged from one to 13 pups, with an 

average of 7.3 pups per cycle. The 

gestation period was approximately five 

months, with a biennial reproductive 

cycle. After a five-month gestation 

period, young are born between October 

and December (Oetinger, 1978). Thorson 

(1976a) also found that both ovaries 

appeared to be functional, though the 

left seemed to be larger and carry more 

ova. Parturition occurred in October and 

November and size at birth was between 

28.7 and 31.5 in (73 and 80 cm) TL. 

Thorson (1976a) reported that the 

smallest gravid female was 120 in (305 

cm) TL, and based on this and other 

observations, reported the size at 

maturity is estimated to be around 118 

in (300 cm) TL. The life history of 

largetooth sawfish, like most 

elasmobranchs, is characterized by slow 

growth, late maturity, and low 

fecundity, which generally contributes 

to a low intrinsic rate of increase. 

Simpfendorfer (2000) estimated that 

largetooth sawfish in Lake Nicaragua 

had an intrinsic rate of increase (r) of 

0.05 to 0.07 per year, with a population 

doubling time (tx2) of 10.3 to 13.6 years. 

Intrinsic rates of increase below 0.1 are 

considered low, making species 

particularly vulnerable to population 

decline (Musick et al., 2000). The 

results indicated that if effective 

conservation measures are put in place 

for the species and its habitats, recovery 

to levels with little risk of extinction 

will take a few decades. Since Thorson 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 88 / Friday, May 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 25177 

(1973) hypothesized that many Lake 

Nicaraguan sawfish may live their 

whole lives in the lake and Faria (2007) 

reported that the Lake Nicaraguan 

sawfish may be a separate stock, the life 

history parameters estimated by 

Simpfendorfer (2000) may be unique to 

that subpopulation or stock. 

Diet and Feeding 

No published information is available 

that quantitatively describes the diet of 

largetooth sawfish. Bigelow and 

Schroeder (1953) reported that, in 

general, sawfish subsist on the most 

abundant small schooling fishes in the 

area, such as mullets and small 

clupeids. There is also some evidence of 

largetooth sawfish feeding on 

crustaceans and other small benthic 

organisms (Bigelow and Schroeder, 

1953). In these cases, the rostrum may 

be used to stir up the bottom sediments 

to locate prey, and in the case of fish 

predation, the rostrum may be used to 

stun or wound the fish in a slashing 

movement (Bigelow and Schroeder, 

1953). 

Predation 

While there is potential for 

competition between P. perotteti and P. 

pectinata due to their overlap in range 

and habitat types, there is no data to 

support this and differences in patterns 

of habitat use and salinity tolerance may 

adequately partition the niches of these 

species. Thorson (1970) speculated that 

the Lake Nicaragua population may 

have also competed with the bull shark, 

Carcharhinus leucas, as both were quite 

prevalent (Thorson, 1970); however, 

both species have since declined to the 

point of near extirpation. A Pristis sp. 

has been documented within the 

stomach of a bottlenose dolphin near 

Bermuda (Bigelow and Schroeder, 

1953), in the stomach of a bull shark (C. 

leucas) in Australia (Thorburn et al., 

2004), and a juvenile smalltooth sawfish 

was captured with fresh bite marks from 

what appears to be a bull shark (Tonya 

Wiley, pers. comm., 2009). The 

International Union for Conservation of 

Nature (IUCN) Red List for the 

largetooth sawfish also states that 

crocodiles prey on the species (CharvetAlmeida et al., 2007. 

Distribution and Abundance 

Historically, P. perotteti are thought to 

inhabit warm temperate to tropical 

marine waters in the eastern and 

western Atlantic and Caribbean. In the 

western Atlantic, P. perotteti occurred 

from the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico 

south through Brazil, and 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; Burgess et al., 

2009). Burgess et al. (2009) also state 

that, based on the evidence, the species 

rarely occurred in Florida waters and 

that nearly all records of largetooth 

sawfish encountered in U.S. waters 

were limited to the Texas coast. In the 

eastern Atlantic, P. perotteti historically 

occurred from Spain through Angola. 

Currently, P. perotteti are thought to 

primarily occur in freshwater habitats in 

Central (includes Mexico) and South 

America and West Africa. In Atlantic 

drainages, largetooth sawfish 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; 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, 

Colombia; 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-Aguirre, 1978 as cited in 

Thorson, 1982b; Compagno and Cook, 

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

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

The United States 

Although the first confirmed record of 

a U.S. largetooth sawfish was from ‘‘the 

Gulf of Mexico’’ in 1878 (Burgess et al., 

2009), they were likely present prior to 

this time period. Sawfish encounters 

were reported in the entire Gulf of 

Mexico in the early popular literature of 

the late 1800s but the similarities 

between the smalltooth and largetooth 

sawfishes limited the ability of nonspecialists to discriminate between the 

two species. Because of this, there are 

no conclusive data available for 

largetooth sawfish abundance before 

fishing and other anthropogenic 

pressures began to affect their 

distribution. Recreational fishers in 

Texas began targeting prize fishes, 

including large elasmobranchs such as 

sawfishes, in the 1930s. Photographs 

taken of these catches were favored in 

the print media, allowing Burgess et al. 

(2009) to identify 33 largetooth sawfish 

in Texas. 

Though reported in the United States, 

it appears that P. perotteti was never 

abundant, with approximately 39 

confirmed records (33 in Texas) from 

1910 through 1961, and no confirmed 

sightings in the years since (Burgess et 

al., 2009). A 1963 newspaper article 

reporting a shrimp trawler off the coast 

of Texas taking a ‘‘broadbill sawfish’’ 

may refer to a largetooth sawfish 

(Burgess et al., 2009). One specimen 

was reported between 1916 and 1919 in 

Louisiana. The capture location and 

identification as a largetooth sawfish 

species ‘‘presumably from Alabama’’ was 

catalogued at the University of Alabama 

but could not be verified (Burgess et al., 

2009). Four individuals from Florida 

were noted between 1910 and 1960 

(Burgess et al., 2009). Two of the reports 

in Florida were identified by 

elasmobranch researcher Stewart 

Springer by rostral tooth counts: one 

from Key West (1941) and another from 

Port Salerno (Baughman, 1943; Bigelow 

and Schroeder, 1953). Port Salerno is on 

the east coast of Florida, making this 

capture the only reported largetooth 

sawfish outside of the Gulf of Mexico in 

the U.S. Another specimen from south 

Florida was collected by the American 

Museum of Natural History in 1910. The 

final record for P. perotteti in Florida 

was recorded in the Springer and 

Woodburn (1960) study of Tampa Bay 

fishes. The dried specimen was on 

display at the Sea-Orama in the city of 

Clearwater Beach, but the identification 

was not verified, and the size of the 

specimen (Burgess et al., 2009) was 

much smaller than any other individual 

captured in U.S. waters. With this 

exception, all largetooth sawfish 

captured in the U.S. were 14 feet (4.3 m) 

in length or larger. 

In Texas, largetooth sawfish were 

primarily found in three regions: Padre 

Island-Laguna Madre, Corpus ChristiPort Aransas, and Galveston-Freeport 

(Burgess et al., 2009). Most were caught 

from 1929 through 1957, though some 

records may have been duplicated 

(Baughman, 1943). Ten largetooth 

sawfish were encountered in the Corpus 

Christi-Port Aransas region, from 1917 

to 1961, though again duplication of 

records is possible. The highest number 

of records is from the northeast Texas 

coast (Galveston) and the lowest number 

from near the Texas-Mexico border 

(Padre Island), corresponding to the 

historical freshwater inflow patterns of 

the region (Longley, 1994). That is, 

sighting frequency is positively 

correlated with higher freshwater flow 

discharge. While it is likely that the 

freshwater affinity of this species, 

especially in comparison to the 

smalltooth sawfish, attracted the 

largetooth sawfish to these high outflow 

areas, these numbers may also be an 

artifact of higher fishing effort or 

likelihood of reporting in that area. 

Burgess et al. (2009) report captures of 

largetooth sawfish in Texas were 

primarily in shallow inshore waters and 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
25178 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 88 / Friday, May 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

the majority (65 percent) of those 

captures noted were taken from fisheries 

using rod and reel gears. Additionally, 

shrimp nets (reported as shrimp seines, 

shrimp net, and shrimp trawls) are the 

gear type associated with approximately 

25 percent of all captures. Where size 

data could be determined, all largetooth 

sawfish caught in Texas were greater 

than 16 ft (4.88 m) TL. Burgess et al. 

(2009) report all largetooth sawfish 

found in U.S. waters were large (>14 ft 

(4.3 m)) and were primarily encountered 

during periods of warm water (May 

through October), suggesting that adults 

of this species mainly utilized Texas 

waters in the summer (but data on 

month of capture only exist for 10 

records). 

The last confirmed record of P. 

perotteti in U.S. waters was from Port 

Aransas, Texas on June 24, 1961. The 

last records for other Gulf of Mexico 

states include Florida in 1941 and 

Louisiana in 1917. No records of 

largetooth sawfish were found from 

Mississippi, and, as stated previously, 

the one Alabama specimen could not be 

verified. 

The Caribbean, Central America, and 

Northern South America 

Only 33 confirmed records of P. 

perotteti exist for this region outside of 

Costa Rica and Nicaragua (Burgess et al., 

2009). The lack of data likely stems from 

several factors, including confusion or 

ambiguity of identification with 

smalltooth sawfish and the lack of 

scientific surveys and popular reports 

during the time of highest abundance. In 

total, 5 largetooth sawfish records were 

from Mexico, 5 from Guatemala, 1 from 

Honduras, 483 from Nicaragua, 37 from 

Costa Rica, 7 from Colombia, 6 from 

Venezuela, 1 from Guyana, 5 from 

Suriname, 1 from French Guiana, and 1 

from Trinidad. Length data were not 

available for most of these specimens. 

Of the known Mexican largetooth 

sawfish, four were from the 

southwestern Gulf of Mexico 

(Tamaulipas, Veracruz, Tabasco, and 

Campeche), while one was captured at 

the northeastern tip of the Yucatan 

Peninsula (Quintana Roo). The mature 

(17.7 ft (5.4 m in total length), 1764 lbs 

(800 kg)) Yucatan individual was 

captured in 1997, which is the northernmost record in recent history. It appears 

that the last records in the Mexican Gulf 

of Mexico were prior to 1978, and 

Caribbean records are very sparse. 

No encounters could be substantiated 

in Belize (Burgess et al., 2009). All five 

Guatemalan largetooth sawfish were 

from a survey of Lake Izabal between 

1946 and 1947, and sawfishes were 

reported to be important inland fishes 

(Saunders et al., 1950). Though reported 

by Thorson et al. (1966a; 1966b) to be 

common throughout the area, a claim 

which was mirrored by local fishers at 

the time, there are no recent reports of 

encounters with sawfishes in 

Guatemala. The lone largetooth sawfish 

reported from Honduras was acquired 

from that country, but the true origin of 

the rostrum and the date of capture 

could not be confirmed. 

The vast majority of P. perotteti 

records from Costa Rica (34 of 37) and 

Nicaragua (397 of 483) stem from 

Thorson’s (1982a; 1982b) years of work 

on the Lake Nicaragua-Rio San Juan 

system. The San Juan River originates at 

Lake Nicaragua and runs along the 

Nicaragua-Costa Rica border until it 

reaches the Caribbean slightly south of 

the Nicaraguan border; therefore, 

movement between the countries was 

likely. Sawfish were noted in Nicaragua 

as early as 1529 by a Spanish chronicler 

(Gill and Bransford, 1877). This species 

was also reported in Nicaragua by Meek 

(1907), Regan (1908), Marden (1944), 

Bigelow and Schroeder (1953), Hagberg 

(1968), and Baez (1980a; 1980b). A 

commercial fishery for the largetooth 

sawfish that began in earnest around 

1970 quickly decimated the Lake 

Nicaragua population (Thorson, 1982a). 

Low-level sustenance fishing for this 

species was common before this time, 

but the Nicaraguan government helped 

to establish a processing plant in 1970, 

which processed and sold the meat, 

fins, and rostra in an efficient manner. 

In the 1970s, an American supermarket 

chain (A&P) produced advertisements in 

their Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Illinois 

chains which included ‘‘Fish Features’’ 

listing ‘‘Sierra Steaks’’ using the Spanish 

name for sawfish, pez sierra, as a fresh 

fish available in their stores (The Times 

Recorder, 1975). By 1981, Thorson 

(1982a) was unable to locate a single 

live specimen. Thorson (1982a) 

documented that within a decade the 

commercial largetooth sawfish fishery 

had removed the species from shallow 

water habitats within Lake Nicaragua. 

The species was relegated to deep water 

‘‘pockets’’ remaining in Lake Nicaragua. 

Commercial fishing for largetooth 

sawfish in Lake Nicaragua was banned 

in 2006, but the species is still caught 

incidentally by fishers netting for other 

species (McDavitt, 2002). A Lake 

Nicaraguan fisherman reported that he 

encounters a few sawfish annually, 

nowadays (McDavitt, 2002). There are 

no known Nicaraguan records of the 

largetooth sawfish outside of the Lake 

Nicaragua-Rio San Juan-Rio Colorado 

system (Burgess et al., 2009). 

Bussing (2002) indicated that this 

species was known to inhabit the Rio 

Tempisque and tributaries of the San 

Juan basin in Costa Rica. Three 

occurrences in that river were found in 

internet searches, one being a 200 lb 

(90.7–kg) specimen caught 

recreationally (Burgess et al., 2009). In 

Colombia, the Magdalena River estuary 

was the primary source for largetooth 

sawfish encounters from the 1940s 

(Miles, 1945), while other records 

originated from the Bahia de Cartagena 

and Isla de Salamanca (both marine), 

and Rio Sinu (freshwater) from the 

1960s through the 1980s (Dahl, 1964; 

1971; Frank and Rodriguez, 1976; 

Alvarez and Blanco, 1985). Scientists in 

the country reported that there have 

been no sightings of this species in 

Colombia for about 10 years (Burgess et 

al., 2009). 

Though thought to have once been 

abundant in some areas of Venezuela 

(Cervignon, 1966a; 1966b), the last of 

the four confirmed records of P. 

perotteti from that country was from 

1962. The single records from Guyana, 

French Guiana, and Trinidad appear to 

be from the late 1800s and early 1900s. 

Of the five Suriname accounts, the latest 

was collected in 1962. 

Brazil 

The largetooth sawfish was assessed 

as critically endangered in Brazil by 

Charvet-Almeida and Faria (2008). A 

total of 139 reports are available for this 

species (Burgess et al., 2009), some from 

as recently as 2009. Most of the records 

for which location is known originated 

in the state of Amazonas (12), which 

encompasses the middle section of the 

Amazon River basin along with the 

confluence of the Rio Negro and Rio 

Solimoes (in the state of Manaus). The 

other known locations are from the 

states of Rio Grande do Norte, Sergipe, 

Bahia, Espirito Santo, Rio de Janeiro, 

and Sao Paulo (1 record each), Para (7 

records), and Maranhao (3 records). Para 

contains the estuary and lower reaches 

of the Amazon River, and Maranhao is 

just southeast of Para. Anectodal reports 

from fishers indicate that they are also 

caught in Amapa, which is the 

northernmost state in Brazil (CharvetAlmeida and Faria, 2008). 

The Amazon River basin and adjacent 

waters are traditionally the most 

abundant known area for largetooth 

sawfish in Brazil (Bates, 1964; Marlier, 

1967; Furneau, 1969); however, 

scientific collection and fisheries data 

for this region are very limited, both 

historically and recently. Sawfishes are 

captured as bycatch in artisanal and 

commercial fisheries in northern Brazil 

(Charvet-Almeida, 2002). Most historic 

records of largetooth sawfish in the 

Amazon River (Amazonia) predate 1974. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 88 / Friday, May 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 25179 

Known lengths ranged from 4.9 to 8.2 ft 

(1.5 to 2.5 m) in total length. Mathew 

McDavitt (pers. comm., 2010) notes 

there is anecdotal evidence that P. 

perotteti is currently being targeted in 

Brazil for the lucrative Chinese shark fin 

trade. A recent popular guide in China 

for dried seafood products provides 

descriptions of a dozen or so popular 

shark fin categories. Based on 

photographs and descriptions, the 

category huang jiao (literally: ‘‘yellowglue’’) comes from Pristis sawfishes, the 

trade name deriving from its beige color 

and the especially copious gelatine it 

produces when cooked. This Chinese 

dried seafood book gives the current 

sources for huang jiao fin, noting that 

the supply from Brazil is favored 

nowadays due to its comparatively large 

size. 

The Brazilian sawfish populations, 

which include both P. perotteti and P. 

pectinata, are found in this region but 

are almost exclusively of the largetooth 

species, are presumably large and 

abundant, compared to those captured 

in other localities, due to the fact that 

sawfishes have not yet been extirpated 

in Brazilian waters to the extent that 

they have been elsewhere. Presumably 

both species are caught and sold. No 

quantification of the exact species or 

number of captured or sold sawfishes is 

currently available, though CharvetAlmeida and Faria (2008) reported that 

as many as 1500 small and medium 

rostra and 180 large rostra were sold 

each year in Para alone. 

The two most recent largetooth 

encounters in Brazil were from 

Maranhao, one caught by a fisher in 

1998 and another in 2009. The latter 

was a gravid female estimated to be 7 m 

TL (Burgess et al., 2009). Earlier reports 

of largetooth sawfish in Maranhao were 

mostly from the 1980s and 90s (Lessa, 

1986; Martins-Juras et al., 1987; Stride 

and Batista, 1992; Menni and Lessa, 

1998; and Lessa et al., 1999). Sawfish 

are likely caught incidentally by shark 

fishers in this state and landed for their 

saws (Almeida et al., 2006). 

Records of largetooth sawfish in each 

of the states south of Maranhao are 

limited to one each, and the dates of 

capture are largely unknown, though 

most appear to be from the nineteenth 

century. An archeological site in Sao 

Paulo yielded tooled P. perotteti rostral 

teeth, though whether they came from 

locally caught animals, or were traded 

from the north is unknown. CharvetAlmeida and Faria (2008) concluded 

that largetooth sawfish are most likely 

extirpated in most of the states south of 

Maranhao. 

West Coast of Africa 

Historical records indicate that 

largetooth sawfish were once relatively 

common in the coastal estuaries of West 

Africa. Verified records exist from 

Senegal (1841 to 1902), Gambia (1885 to 

1909), Guinea-Bissau (1912), Republic 

of Guinea (1965), Sierra Leone (date 

unknown), Liberia (1927), Cote d’Ivoire 

(1881 to 1923), Congo (1951 to 1958), 

Democratic Republic of the Congo (1951 

to 1959), and Angola (1951) (Burgess et 

al., 2009). Most records, however, 

lacked species identification and 

locality data and may have been 

confused taxonomically with other 

sawfish species that also occur in the 

area. Unpublished notes from a 1950s 

survey detail 12 P. perotteti from 

Mauritania, Senegal, Guinea, Cote 

d’Ivoire, and Nigeria, ranging in size 

from 35 through 276 in (89 through 700 

cm) in total length (Burgess et al., 2009). 

A more recent status review by 

Ballouard et al. (2006) reported that 

sawfishes, including the largetooth 

sawfish, were once common from 

Mauritania to the Republic of Guinea, 

but are now rarely captured or 

encountered. According to this report, 

the range of sawfishes has decreased to 

the Bissagos Archipelago (Guinea 

Bissau). The most recent sawfish 

encounters outside Guinea Bissau were 

in the 1990s in Mauritania, Senegal, 

Gambia, and the Republic of Guinea. 

The most recent documented P. 

perotteti capture was from 2005 in Nord 

de Caravela (Guinea Bissau), along with 

anecdotal accounts from fishers of 

captures off of two islands in the same 

area (Burgess et al., 2009). 

Summary and Abundance 

As we document above, the range of 

the largetooth sawfish has contracted 

significantly on both sides of the 

Atlantic. Although no time-series 

abundance data exists to quantify the 

extent of the decline of the species 

throughout its range, we believe that 

with the substantial number of 

commercial and recreational fisheries 

fishing along our U.S. coast, the 

uniqueness of the species morphology, 

and because media and internet sites are 

easily accessible to the public, 

largetooth sawfish encounters would be 

noteworthy and reported. Additionally, 

outreach efforts along the Gulf of 

Mexico coast in the U.S. for the 

smalltooth sawfish, which includes 

printed brochures and signage in local 

bait shops, marinas, and boat ramps on 

where and how to report sawfish 

encounters, should have increased the 

likelihood of reporting a largetooth 

sawfish encounter. Access to media and 

internet sites for reporting largetooth 

encounters outside the U.S. is most 

likely less common in some of the 

remote areas along the coasts of Central 

America, the Amazonian region of 

Brazil, and West Africa. Nevertheless, 

the apparent decrease of sightings over 

time suggests that the species has 

undergone severe declines in abundance 

throughout its range. Moreover, the 

decline in museum records, negative 

scientific survey results in the U.S. and 

Lake Nicaragua, and anecdotal reports 

from fisher people suggest the trend for 

the species is declining (Burgess et al., 

2009). 

Species Determination 

We first considered whether or not P. 

perotteti met the definition of ‘‘species’’ 

pursuant to section 3 of the ESA as 

described above. As stated in the 

taxonomy section above, after reviewing 

the best available scientific and 

commercial taxonomic data on the 

species, we determined that P. perotteti 

is a ‘‘species’’ and its range is the eastern 

and western Atlantic Ocean. The best 

available scientific and commercial data 

available also suggest P. perotteti has a 

tropical distribution in the eastern and 

western Atlantic Ocean and has been 

rare at latitudes higher than 12° N and 

12° S during historic times. 

Extinction Risk 

We next considered the risk of 

extinction for P. perotteti to determine 

whether the species is threatened or 

endangered as defined above. No 

quantitative estimate of abundance for 

the species is known, so methods such 

as population viability analysis cannot 

be used to determine the risk of 

extinction for the species. Therefore, we 

must use a method to determine the risk 

of extinction using qualitative 

information. 

Wainwright and Kope (1999) 

developed methods to assess the risk of 

extinction for U.S. West Coast salmon. 

Using the definitions of endangered and 

threatened in the ESA, they considered 

a variety of information to assess 

extinction risks, including abundance, 

trends, productivity, variability, genetic 

integrity, and other risks. Wainwright 

and Kope (1999) further consider the 

risk to small populations based on 

potential genetic effects or random 

demographic effects. They also 

considered habitat capacity to answer 

questions about the carrying capacity 

and whether or not the carrying capacity 

can ensure the populations viability. In 

assessing the risk of extinction using 

trends, productivity, and variability, 

Wainwright and Kope (1999) indicate 

that short and long-term trends in 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
25180 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 88 / Friday, May 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

abundance are the primary indicators of 

risk. Wainwright and Kope (1999) also 

assessed the effects of genetic integrity 

(introduced genotypes, interactions with 

hatchery fish, or anthropogenic 

selection) as it relates to evaluating the 

risk of extinction. Loss of fitness and 

loss of diversity can occur from random 

genetic effects and increase the risk of 

extinction for a species. Wainwright and 

Kope (1999) also evaluated other risks 

that are considered for salmonids 

(disease, predation, and changes in life 

history). These ‘‘other risks’’ can affect 

the sustainability of a population. The 

last factor that Wainwright and Kope 

(1999) evaluated is the risks associated 

with recent events. Changes in harvest 

rates, anthropogenic changes in the 

environment (habitat degradation or 

enhancement), or natural events (floods, 

volcanic eruptions) can pose a risk for 

species but may not have been 

adequately considered by looking at the 

other effects above when there is a timelag in seeing the effect of recent events. 

In addition to analyzing factors that 

may affect the risk of extinction for 

salmon, Wainwright and Kope (1999) 

developed a general quantitative 

evaluation method to assess both 

qualitative and quantitative evidence for 

the various risk factors. In this method, 

four of the major categories of extinction 

risk are scored. These four categories 

are: (1) abundance, (2) trend, 

productivity, and variability (TPV), (3) 

genetic integrity, and (4) ‘‘other risks’’. 

The risk categories are scored on a scale 

from 1 to 5. A score of 1 represents a 

very low risk and factors (single or 

multiple factors) scored at this level are 

unlikely to contribute significantly to 

risk of extinction. A score of 2 

represents a low risk and single factors 

are unlikely to contribute to extinction 

alone, but in combination with other 

factors may be a concern. Scores of 3 

represent moderate risk. These factors 

contribute significantly to long-term risk 

of extinction, but do not alone 

constitute a danger of extinction in the 

near future. Score values of 4 represent 

increasing risk. This rating indicates the 

present risk is low or moderate, but is 

likely to increase to high risk in the 

future (reflects the ESA definition of 

threatened). Scores of 5 represent the 

high risk rating. This factor indicates 

danger of extinction in the near future. 

Professional biologists at SERO used 

Wainwright and Kope’s (1999) methods 

to assess extinction risk for P. perotteti. 

For the abundance category the 

following were important 

considerations. Small-population risks 

for the species were considered to assess 

the risk of extinction. As detailed above, 

museum records, negative scientific 

survey results in the U.S. and Lake 

Nicaragua, and anecdotal reports from 

fisher people suggest the trend for the 

species is declining and population size 

is small. This species is also a Kselected animal which indicates they 

are usually successful at maintaining 

relatively small, persistent population 

sizes in relatively constant 

environments. We expect changes from 

random demographic effects are likely 

to be significant for the species since 

they are not able to respond rapidly to 

stochastic events. Information on the 

distribution of the species was also used 

as an indicator of abundance. The 

current distribution for the species is 

significantly reduced from its historic 

range. Thus, the existing population of 

P. perotteti does not adequately 

represent historic patterns of geographic 

distribution and this is considered a risk 

factor for the species. We could not 

determine the habitat capacity for the 

species since most of the habitat within 

the species range is located in foreign 

countries and we have poor data from 

those areas. Based on small population 

risks that could occur from demographic 

effects and the severe range constriction 

that has occurred, we assigned a rating 

of 5 (high-risk) for the abundance factor. 

For the TPV category we considered 

that the data for the species indicates a 

declining trend in abundance. A 

directed fishery existed for the species 

in Lake Nicaragua but no longer exists 

today. Reports of the species in Lake 

Nicaragua are rare. Lack of reports of the 

species occurrence throughout most of 

its range, including the U.S. and 

southern Brazil, also indicates the 

species abundance is declining. 

Productivity rates are not known for the 

species but are expected to be declining 

(Shaffer 1981). Variations in freshwater 

and marine environments within the 

species range are difficult to assess. 

Since reports of the species are rare 

throughout its range, we expect 

productivity is low. 

Genetic integrity was not evaluated 

because we do not have information on 

the loss of fitness and loss of genetic 

diversity for the species. 

Our evaluation of the ‘‘other risk’’ 

factor considered information about the 

species life history characteristics, in 

particular that the species has slow 

growth rates, late maturation, low 

fecundity, and population recovery 

potential is considered limited. Based 

on this information, we scored the other 

risk category as a 3. 

Using Wainwright and Kope (1999) 

methods to determine the risk of 

extinction for P. perotteti, we believe 

that abundance and distribution of P. 

perotteti is likely to continue to decline 

in the near future. Therefore, we have 

determined the current threats affecting 

the species will continue into the future 

and the species is currently in danger of 

extinction throughout all of its range. 

Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Largetooth Sawfish 

In this section, we consider the five 

factors specified in section 4(a)(1) of the 

ESA that we outlined as step XX of our 

listing determination process above. 

The Present or Threatened Destruction, 

Modification, or Curtailment of its 

Habitat or Range 

Coastal habitat loss throughout the 

species’ historical range is a 

contributing factor to the species 

decline. Coastal habitats in the southern 

U. S. Gulf of Mexico region have 

experienced and continue to experience 

losses due to urbanization. Wetland 

losses in the Gulf of Mexico region of 

the U.S. averages annual net losses of 

60,000 acres (242.8 km2) of coastal and 

freshwater habitats from 1998 to 2004 

(Stedman et al., 2008). Although 

wetland restoration activities are 

ongoing in this region of the U.S., the 

losses significantly outweigh the gains 

(Stedman et al., 2008). These losses 

have been attributed to commercial and 

residential development, port 

construction (dredging, blasting, and 

filling activities), construction of water 

control structures, modification to 

freshwater inflows (Rio Grande River in 

Texas), and gas and oil related activities. 

Riverine systems throughout the 

species’ historical range have been 

altered or dammed. NOAA’s Restoration 

Center is involved in ongoing coastal 

restoration activities throughout the 

Gulf of Mexico to restore coastal 

habitats. In spite of ongoing efforts to 

restore coastal habitats, coastal habitat 

losses will continue to occur. 

The status of habitats within the 

current international range of the 

species is not well known, but with 

continued development and human 

population growth, negative effects on 

habitat are likely. Ruiz-Luna et al. 

(2008) acknowledge that deforestation of 

mangrove forests in Mexico has 

occurred from logging practices, 

construction of harbors, tourism, and 

aquaculture activities. In addition to 

deforestation, Ruiz-Luna et al. (2008) 

document that changes in the 

hydrological systems occurred with 

opening of the artificial canal in 

Cuautla, in the state of Nayarit. Valiela 

et al. (2001) report the total area of 

mangrove habitats in Brazil has 

decreased significantly (from 9,653 to 

5,174 mi2 (25,000 to 13,400 km2)) from 

1983 to 1997, with similar trends in 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 88 / Friday, May 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 25181 

Guinnea-Bissau (1,838 to 959 mi2 (4760 

to 2484 km2)) from 1953 to 1995. 

Habitat modification, including 

mangrove forest removal, is also likely 

in northern Brazil (Compagno et al., 

2006). The areas with the most rapid 

mangrove declines in the Americas 

included Venezuela, Mexico, Panama, 

the United States, and Brazil, while 

Senegal, Gambia, Sierra Leone, and 

Guinnea-Bissau showed the largest 

declines in western Africa (Ruiz-Luna et 

al. 2008). World-wide mangrove habitat 

loss was estimated to be 35 percent from 

1980 to 2000 (Valiela et al., 2001). There 

are unconfirmed reports of dam 

building activities on the Rio San Juan 

(Nicaragua) system, which could affect 

the movements of largetooth sawfish in 

that region. These threats cannot be 

directly related to the decline of the 

largetooth sawfish, but habitat loss is a 

known factor contributing to the decline 

of many freshwater and marine species, 

including the endangered U.S. distinct 

population segment (DPS) of smalltooth 

sawfish. 

Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

Commercial Fisheries 

Sawfishes are very vulnerable to most 

fishing gears, and were historically 

caught by gillnets, trawls, seines, and 

lines (Compagno et al., 2006). Most 

targeted catches of largetooth sawfish in 

Texas in the 1930s were from 

recreational hook and line, but they 

were also caught incidentally by shrimp 

trawls and seines (Burgess et al., 2009). 

The Lake Nicaragua commercial fishery 

for largetooth sawfish consisted mostly 

of gillnet boats (Thorson, 1982a), and 

the commercial small coastal shark 

fishery in Brazil mainly utilizes gillnets 

and some handlines (Charvet-Almeida, 

2002). Today the main threat to the 

largetooth sawfish is most likely from 

bycatch mortality, though sawfishes 

may be targeted opportunistically in 

some areas (Brazil) when the occasion 

arises. The current scarcity of sawfish 

may inhibit targeted fisheries that might 

occur in spite of international trade 

bans. However, if caught as bycatch they 

are most likely retained because of the 

value of their parts (e.g., the rostra, 

teeth, and fins). For example McDavitt’s 

(2006) review of eBay sales of rostra is 

estimate a total of 200 rostra per year are 

sold, with a value of more than US 

$25,000. 

Recreational Fisheries 

Historically, recreational hook and 

line fishers targeted large 

elasmobranchs, including sawfishes, as 

trophies in Texas (Burgess et al., 2009). 

Elsewhere in the U.S., abundance was 

likely never high enough for 

recreational fishers to encounter this 

species, much less target it. Because of 

its current distribution, which is mostly 

in developing nations, the largetooth 

sawfish is unlikely to be encountered by 

recreational fishers, with possible rare 

exceptions of tourists in these areas. 

There is no current information on the 

use of sawfish species for subsistence 

fishing, though it was noted in Brazil 

that the meat was often sold in local fish 

markets, while the other products 

(rostra, fins) were sold internationally 

(Charvet-Almeida, 2002). 

Commercial Trade 

There is very little information 

available about the trade of sawfish 

products in general, especially the 

largetooth sawfish. Largetooth sawfish 

were listed under Appendix I of the 

Convention on International Trade in 

Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and 

Flora (CITES) in 2007, which prohibits 

the commercial trade of largetooth 

sawfish parts (see Regulatory 

Mechanisms section below). In 2006, 

eBay banned the sale of smalltooth 

sawfish on their online auction site; 

however, the ban was not established 

for all sawfish species. A survey by 

McDavitt and Charvet-Almeida (2004) of 

sawfish rostra on eBay (before the ban) 

found that large rostra command prices 

of over $1,000 (US). An informal web 

search in November 2009 turned up 

several sawfish rostra for sale online to 

international buyers, some listed as 

‘‘largetooth’’, along with sites selling 

cockfighting spurs made from South 

American sawfish teeth. It is apparent 

that largetooth and smalltooth sawfishes 

are still landed and sold illegally in 

northern Brazil (Charvet-Almeida pers. 

comm., 2009). It was previously 

observed that sawfish rostra from small 

individuals were sold to tourists, while 

damaged or cut rostra were used for 

local folk medicine (McDavitt and 

Charvet-Almeida, 2004). The larger 

rostra were sold in international 

cockfighting markets, as the rostral teeth 

were used as spurs. The larger rostra 

were also purchased by Asian shark fin 

buyers, most likely for medicine or 

curios. The proportion of largetooth 

sawfish in these markets is unknown, 

though as many as 180 large Pristis spp. 

rostra were sold per year at a single 

market in northern Brazil in the early 

2000s (McDavitt and Charvet-Almeida, 

2004). With little enforcement of 

regional and international laws, the 

practice of landing sawfishes may 

continue in Brazil, though the extent of 

any international trade since the CITES 

listing is unknown. No confirmed 

reports of P. perotteti in aquaria exist 

currently. No seizures of largetooth 

sawfish in international trade have 

occurred since its CITES listing (Sharon 

Lynn (USFWS) pers. comm.). 

Scientific Use 

The only published studies on life 

history and movements of the largetooth 

sawfish were conducted by Thorson in 

the 1970s and 1980s in Costa Rica and 

Nicaragua (Thorson, 1970; 1973; 1974; 

1976a; 1976b; 1978; 1982a; 1982b; 1987; 

Thorson et al., 1966a; 1966b). While 

many live largetooth sawfish were 

tagged by Thorson in this time period, 

it seems that most of the biological data 

were obtained from dead specimens that 

were purchased from commercial 

fishers. Most areas where the largetooth 

sawfish now occurs suffer from lack of 

biological sampling due to logistical 

difficulties and most likely low funding 

of research. However, there is some 

scientific information being collected by 

researchers in Brazil, mostly from fish 

markets, where sawfishes are illegally 

landed and sold. 

Disease and Predation 

No commercial or scientific data 

exists on diseases that may affect the 

largetooth sawfish and all information 

related to predation is listed above in 

the Largetooth Sawfish Natural History 

section. There is no evidence that 

unusual levels of disease or predation 

are a threat to the species. 

The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

Protective measures covering trade in 

the largetooth sawfish (Pristis perotteti) 

are implemented internationally under 

Appendix I of CITES, making nondomestic trade of parts illegal. 

Additional Federal, state, and national 

laws in the United States, Nicaragua, 

and Brazil are designed to limit the 

harvest and sale of largetooth sawfish 

locally and internationally. The 

Nicaraguan government officially 

banned commercial fishing for 

largetooth sawfish in Lake Nicaragua in 

2006. The Brazilian Environment 

Ministry listed P. perotteti in Appendix 

I of the ‘‘Instrucao Normativa numero 

05,’’ meaning that the species is 

considered endangered and therefore 

cannot be landed or sold. Enforcement 

of these regulations in Brazil and 

Nicaragua is difficult due to the length 

of the coastline, extensive internal 

waterways, lack of enforcement 

personnel, and the need for more 

efficient tools. Sawfish abundance 

within other parts of their current range 

is depleted so targeted fisheries are 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
25182 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 88 / Friday, May 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

unlikely; however, those caught as 

bycatch are probably kept due to their 

value. Thus, illegal foreign trade of 

sawfish parts may be ongoing in 

Nicaragua and Brazil and elsewhere in 

spite of the CITES listing and national 

laws due to lack of enforcement and the 

high value of sawfish parts. 

The status of largetooth sawfish 

protection in western Africa is mostly 

unknown, though Guinnea-Bissau has 

created six official Protected Areas, 

which were established in 2005 (UNEP, 

2008). Among these areas are several 

island chains and deltas with intertidal 

muddy sand banks and mangroves, 

which are ideal sawfish habitat. 

Nevertheless, existing regulations in this 

part of the world may be inadequate to 

protect and restore populations of 

largetooth sawfish. 

Though not currently found in U.S. 

waters, existing regulations and 

measures put in place to protect the 

smalltooth sawfish could also benefit 

the largetooth sawfish, should it return 

into the northern most extent of its 

historical range in North America. The 

U.S. DPS of smalltooth sawfish (Pristis 

pectinata) was listed as endangered on 

April 1, 2003. Both the smalltooth and 

largetooth sawfish are susceptible to 

similar threats (e.g., bycatch in various 

fisheries and habitat loss) so protections 

for the smalltooth sawfish will benefit 

the largetooth sawfish. In response to 

the listing of the U.S. DPS of smalltooth 

sawfish, Texas implemented a ban on 

harvest of largetooth sawfish because of 

the possibility of misidentification. The 

trading of any largetooth sawfish parts 

is banned by state laws in both Florida 

and Louisiana. Additionally, Florida 

and Texas do not allow gillnet fishing 

in state waters less than 9 miles (14.5 

km) from shore, and Alabama restricts 

gillnet fishing within less than 3.5 miles 

(5.6 km) from shore. 

In summary, the high value of sawfish 

parts, weak enforcement, and lack of 

adequate protections for largetooth 

sawfish habitat mean that existing 

regulations are inadequate to protect the 

species from further declines. 

Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting its Continued Existence 

Largetooth sawfish have slow growth 

rates, late maturity, a long life span, and 

low fecundity rates. The largetooth 

sawfish is a more k-selected type 

species, with an intrinsic rate of 

population increase below 1.0 

(Simpfendorfer, 2000). K-selected 

animals are usually successful at 

maintaining relatively small, persistent 

population sizes in relatively constant 

environments. Conversely, they are not 

able to respond rapidly to additional 

sources of mortality, such as 

overexploitation and habitat 

degradation. Because of this, the risk of 

extinction remains high without 

effective conservation plans put into 

place. 

Red tide may also be a human 

amplified factor that could affect the 

species. Red tide is caused by an 

increase of toxic, naturally occurring 

microscopic blooms of plankton and is 

a coastal phenomenon which is caused 

by environmental conditions. Factors 

that are especially favorable include 

warm surface temperatures, high 

nutrient content, low salinity, and calm 

seas. Rain followed by sunny weather in 

the summer months is often associated 

with red tide blooms. We do not have 

specific information on red tide effects 

to largetooth sawfish but we do have a 

report of a smalltooth sawfish that was 

found dead along the west coast of 

Florida during a red tide event (National 

Sawfish Encounter Database, 2009). 

Summary of Findings 

After considering the 5 factors above 

from Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA we 

determined that the species continues to 

be in danger of extinction throughout all 

of its range. 

Protective Efforts 

As a requirement of the ESA, current 

or future conservation efforts that have 

yet to be implemented or to show 

effectiveness to protect and recover 

largetooth sawfish must be evaluated 

under the PECE Policy (see above). This 

policy is designed to determine whether 

any conservation efforts that have been 

recently adopted or implemented or 

proposed, but not yet proven to be 

successful, will result in recovering the 

species to the point at which listing is 

not warranted or contribute to forming 

a basis for listing a species as threatened 

rather than endangered (68 FR 15101; 

March 28, 2003). The PECE policy 

established two basic criteria to be met 

before an action could be considered to 

help improve the conservation status of 

a species: (1) the certainty that the 

conservation efforts will be 

implemented, and (2) the certainty that 

the efforts will be effective. 

Ongoing conservation efforts for the 

smalltooth sawfish may benefit the 

conservation of the largetooth sawfish if 

it returns to U.S. waters. The Smalltooth 

Sawfish Recovery Plan was finalized in 

2009. The Smalltooth Sawfish Recovery 

Plan lays out specific guidelines for 

federal and state agencies to follow. 

Among the recovery plan’s objectives 

are to minimize harm caused by human 

interactions and to protect and restore 

habitats. Since both species are 

susceptible to similar threats, 

implementation of the Smalltooth 

Sawfish Recovery Plan will provide 

conservation benefits for the largetooth 

sawfish if it returns to U.S. waters. 

Additionally, in 2010, NOAA will fund 

coastal restoration activities in Texas 

and Louisiana using appropriations 

from The American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009, which restore 

habitats used by sawfish. Both of these 

projects meet the criteria of the PECE for 

certainty of implementation and 

effectiveness. However, we have 

determined that these conservation 

efforts will not alter the extinction risk 

of the species. 

Proposed Determination 

NMFS is responsible for determining 

whether the largetooth sawfish (Pristis 

perotteti) is threatened or endangered 

under the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) 

Accordingly, we have followed a 

stepwise approach as outlined above in 

making this listing determination for the 

largetooth sawfish. We determined that 

P. perotteti is a valid species with a 

range in the eastern and western 

Atlantic Ocean. We then reviewed the 

status of the species and the threats to 

its status using the five-factor analysis 

described above. Next, we assessed 

efforts being made to protect the 

species, determining if these efforts are 

adequate to mitigate existing threats. 

In summary, the largetooth sawfish (P. 

perotteti) faces ongoing threats from 

habitat alteration, bycatch, trade, and 

the inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms to address and reduce 

habitat alterations, bycatch, and trade. 

The species range has constricted so 

that it has not been seen in the U.S. 

since 1961. A similar range constriction 

is apparent at the southern extreme of 

the species’ historical range. The species 

has not been reported from southern 

Brazil for almost at century. All of the 

threats attributed to the species decline 

are ongoing, except for the directed 

largetooth sawfish fishery in Lake 

Nicaragua. The Lake Nicaraguan fishery 

collapsed presumably when the sawfish 

population collapsed. These ongoing 

threats exist throughout the species 

current range (Central and South 

America and West Africa) and existing 

regulatory mechanisms in place are 

insufficient to protect the species from 

further decline. No current or proposed 

conservation activities will be enough to 

sufficiently improve the species status. 

Based on our review, therefore, we find 

that the species is in danger of 

extinction throughout all of its range 

and should be listed as endangered. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 88 / Friday, May 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 25183 

Effects of Listing 

Conservation measures provided for 

species listed as endangered or 

threatened under the ESA include 

recovery actions (16 U.S.C. 1533(f)), 

Federal agency consultation 

requirements (16 U.S.C. 1536), and 

critical habitat designations, and 

prohibitions on taking (16 U.S.C. 1538). 

Recognition of the species’ plight 

through listing promotes conservation 

actions by Federal and state agencies, 

foreign entities, private groups, and 

individuals. Should the proposed listing 

be made final, a recovery plan may be 

developed, unless such plan would not 

promote the conservation of the species. 

Identifying Section 7 Consultation 

Requirements 

Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires 

Federal agencies to consult with NMFS 

to ensure that activities authorized, 

funded, or carried out are not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

the species or destroy or adversely 

modify critical habitat. We anticipate 

few section 7 consultation requirements 

for Federal agencies given the species 

current distribution and abundance. 

Critical Habitat 

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 

of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1532(5)) as: (1) the 

specific areas within the geographical 

area occupied by a species, at the time 

it is listed in accordance with the ESA, 

on which are found those physical or 

biological features (a) essential to the 

conservation of the species and (b) that 

may require special management 

considerations or protection; and (2) 

specific areas outside the geographical 

area occupied by a species at the time 

it is listed upon a determination that 

such areas are essential for the 

conservation of the species. 

‘‘Conservation’’ means the use of all 

methods and procedures needed to 

bring the species to the point at which 

listing under the ESA is no longer 

necessary. Regulations require that we 

shall designate critical habitat in areas 

outside the geographical area presently 

occupied by a species only when a 

designation limited to its present range 

would be inadequate to ensure the 

conservation of the species (50 CFR 

424.12 (e)). 

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

U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(A)) requires that, to 

the extent prudent and determinable, 

critical habitat be designated 

concurrently with the listing of a 

species. Critical habitat shall not be 

designated in foreign countries or other 

areas outside U.S. jurisdiction (50 CFR 

424.12 (h)). 

The best available scientific and 

commercial data as discussed above 

identify the geographical area occupied 

by P. perotteti as Central and South 

America and West Africa. Since these 

areas are entirely outside U.S. 

jurisdiction, NMFS cannot designate 

critical habitat in the geographical area 

occupied by the species. NMFS can 

designate critical habitat in unoccupied 

areas if the area(s) are determined by the 

Secretary to be essential for the 

conservation of the species. Regulations 

at 50 CFR 424.12 (e) specify that we 

shall designate as critical habitat areas 

outside the geographical range presently 

occupied by the species only when the 

designation limited to its present range 

would be inadequate to ensure the 

conservation of the species. 

The best available scientific and 

commercial information on the species 

does not indicate that U.S. waters 

provided any specific essential 

biological function other than general 

foraging opportunities for the species. 

All records of P. perotteti were larger 

animals (adults). No records of juveniles 

are documented in U.S. waters, which 

suggest the species was not using the 

area as a nursery. The majority of the 

reports of the species in U.S. waters 

suggest they were in the U.S. during the 

summer months when water 

temperatures were warmer. No reports 

of the species in U.S. waters suggest 

breeding aggregations were present. 

Based on the best available information 

we have not identified unoccupied 

area(s) that are currently essential to the 

conservation of the species. Therefore, 

no critical habitat designation is 

currently being proposed. 

Take Prohibitions 

Because we are proposing to list this 

species as endangered all of the take 

prohibitions of Section 9(a)(10) of the 

ESA of the act will apply. These include 

prohibitions against the import, export, 

use in foreign commerce, or ‘‘take’’ of the 

species. Take is defined as ‘‘to harass, 

harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, 

trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to 

engage in any such conduct.’’ These 

prohibitions apply to all persons subject 

to the jurisdiction of the United States, 

including in the U.S. or on the high 

seas. 

Service Policies on Endangered and 

Threatened Fish and Wildlife 

On July 1, 1994, NMFS and USFWS 

published a series of policies regarding 

listings under the ESA, including a 

policy for peer review of scientific data 

(59 FR 34270; July 1, 1994), the Office 

of Management and Budget (2004) 

Bulletin on Peer Review, and a policy to 

identify, to the maximum extent 

possible, those activities that would or 

would not constitute a violation of 

section 9 of the ESA (59 FR 34272; July 

1, 1994). 

Role of Peer Review 

The intent of the peer review policy 

is to ensure that listings are based on the 

best scientific and commercial data 

available. Prior to a final listing, NMFS 

formally solicits expert opinions and 

analyses on one or more specific 

questions or assumptions. This 

solicitation process may take place 

during a public comment period on any 

proposed rule or draft recovery plan, 

during the status review of a species 

under active consideration for listing, or 

at any other time deemed necessary to 

clarify a scientific question. The status 

review was peer reviewed by two 

elasmobranch experts in the field and 

an elasmobranch trade expert, with their 

substantive comments incorporated in 

the final status review. 

Identification of Those Activities That 

Would Constitute a Violation of Section 

9 of the ESA 

The intent of this policy is to increase 

public awareness of the effect of this 

listing on proposed and ongoing 

activities within the species’ range. 

NMFS will identify, to the extent known 

at the time of the final rule, specific 

activities that will not be considered 

likely to result in violation of section 9, 

as well as activities that will be 

considered likely to result in violation. 

Activities that NMFS believes could 

result in violation of section 9 

prohibitions against ’’take’’ of the 

largetooth sawfish include, but are not 

limited to, the following: (1) 

importation, (2) exportation, (3) take, (4) 

sale, and (5) delivery that directly or 

indirectly affect endangered species, 

and (6) take any such species on the 

high seas. These prohibitions apply to 

all individuals, organizations, and 

agencies subject to U.S. jurisdiction. 

References 

A complete list of the references used 

in this proposed rule is available upon 

request (see ADDRESSES). 

Classification 

National Environmental Policy Act 

The 1982 amendments to the ESA, in 

section 4(b)(1)(A), restrict the 

information that may be considered 

when assessing species for listing. Based 

on this limitation of criteria for a listing 

decision and the opinion in Pacific 

Legal Foundation v. Andrus, 675 F. 2d 

825 (6th Cir. 1981), NMFS has 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
25184 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 88 / Friday, May 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

concluded that ESA listing actions are 

not subject to the environmental 

assessment requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (See 

NOAA Administrative Order 216–6). 

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Flexibility Act and Paperwork 

Reduction Act 

As noted in the Conference Report on 

the 1982 amendments to the ESA, 

economic impacts cannot be considered 

when assessing the status of a species. 

Therefore, the economic analysis 

requirements of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act are not applicable to the 

listing process. In addition, this 

proposed rule is exempt from review 

under Executive Order 12866. This 

proposed rule does not contain a 

collection-of-information requirement 

for the purposes of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act. 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

In keeping with the intent of the 

Administration and Congress to provide 

continuing and meaningful dialogue on 

issues of mutual state and Federal 

interest, this proposed rule will be given 

to the relevant governmental agencies in 

each state in which the subject species 

historically occurred, and these agencies 

will be invited to comment. 

International Relations 

NMFS has conferred with the U.S. 

Department of State to ensure 

appropriate notice is given to foreign 

nations within the range of the species. 

As the process continues, NMFS intends 

to continue engaging in informal and 

formal contacts with the U.S. State 

Department, giving careful 

consideration to all written and oral 

comments received. 

Public Comments Solicited 

NMFS intends that any final action 

resulting from this proposal will be as 

accurate as possible and informed by 

the best available scientific and 

commercial information. Therefore, 

NMFS request comments or information 

from the public, other concerned 

governmental agencies, the scientific 

community, industry, or any other 

interested party concerning this 

proposed rule. NMFS particularly seek 

comments containing: 

(1) Information concerning the 

location(s) of any sightings or captures 

of the species; and 

(2) Information concerning the threats 

to the species; and 

(3) Taxonomic information on the 

species; and 

(4) Efforts being made to protect the 

species throughout its current range. 

Public hearing requests must be 

requested by June 21, 2010. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 224 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Endangered and threatened 

species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

record keeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Dated: April 30, 2010. 

Samuel D. Rauch III, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 50 CFR part 224 is proposed 

to be amended as follows: 

PART 224—ENDANGERED MARINE 

AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES 

1. The authority citation for part 224 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531–1543 and 16 

U.S.C. 1361 et seq. 

2. In § 224.101, the table in paragraph 

(a) is amended by adding an entry for 

‘‘Largetooth Sawfish’’ at the end of the 

table to read as follows: 

§ 224.101 Enumeration of endangered 

marine and threatened anadromous 

species. 

* * * * * 

(a)* * * 

Species 

Where Listed Citation(s) for listing determination(s) 

Citation(s) for critical habitat 

designation(s) Common name Scientific 

name 

* * * * * * * 

Largetooth Sawfish Pristis perotteti Everywhere [Insert FEDERAL REGISTER 

citation and date when 

published as a final rule] 

NA 

* * * * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2010–10874 Filed 5–6–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS