47574 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 158 / Thursday, August 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

Publications, Inc., Master Access 

Television Analyzer Database as of May 

16, 2003, about 814 of the 1,220 

commercial television stations in the 

United States had revenues of $12 

(twelve) million or less. The 

Commission notes, however, that in 

assessing whether a business concern 

qualifies as small under the above 

definition, business (control) affiliations 

must be included. The Commission’s 

estimate, therefore, likely overstates the 

number of small entities that might be 

affected by the Commission’s action, 

because the revenue figure on which it 

is based does not include or aggregate 

revenues from affiliated companies. 

33. In addition, an element of the 

definition of ‘‘small business’’ is that the 

entity not be dominant in its field of 

operation. The Commission is unable at 

this time to define or quantify the 

criteria that would establish whether a 

specific television station is dominant 

in its field of operation. Accordingly, 

the estimate of small businesses to 

which rules may apply do not exclude 

any television station from the 

definition of a small business on this 

basis and are therefore over-inclusive to 

that extent. Also as noted, an additional 

element of the definition of ‘‘small 

business’’ is that the entity must be 

independently owned and operated. 

The Commission notes that it is difficult 

at times to assess these criteria in the 

context of media entities and its 

estimates of small businesses to which 

they apply may be over-inclusive to this 

extent. There are also 2,117 low power 

television stations (LPTV). Given the 

nature of this service, the Commission 

will presume that all LPTV licensees 

qualify as small entities under the above 

SBA small business size standard. 

34. The Commission has, under SBA 

regulations, estimated the number of 

licensed NCE television stations to be 

380. The Commission notes, however, 

that, in assessing whether a business 

concern qualifies as small under the 

above definition, business (control) 

affiliations must be included. The 

Commission’s estimate, therefore, likely 

overstates the number of small entities 

that might be affected by the 

Commission’s action, because the 

revenue figure on which it is based does 

not include or aggregate revenues from 

affiliated companies. The Commission 

does not compile and otherwise does 

not have access to information on the 

revenue of NCE stations that would 

permit it to determine how many such 

stations would qualify as small entities. 

Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements 

35. There are potential reporting or 

recordkeeping requirements proposed in 

this FNPRM. For example, any testing 

regime will entail some form of record 

keeping. The FNPRM also seeks 

comment on potential testing 

procedures for the CMAS that could 

affect CMS providers as well as Wireless 

Communications Equipment 

Manufacturers. The proposals set forth 

in the FNPRM are intended to advance 

the Commission’s public safety mission 

and establish an effective CMAS in a 

manner that imposes minimal 

regulatory burdens on affected entities. 

Steps Taken To Minimize the 

Significant Economic Impact on Small 

Entities, and Significant Alternatives 

Considered 

36. The RFA requires an agency to 

describe any significant alternatives that 

it has considered in developing its 

approach, which may include the 

following four alternatives (among 

others): ‘‘(1) The establishment of 

differing compliance or reporting 

requirements or timetables that take into 

account the resources available to small 

entities; (2) the clarification, 

consolidation, or simplification of 

compliance and reporting requirements 

under the rule for such small entities; 

(3) the use of performance rather than 

design standards; and (4) an exemption 

from coverage of the rule, or any part 

thereof, for such small entities.’’

37. As noted in paragraph 1 above, 

this FNPRM seeks comment on the 

narrow question of whether the 

Commission should require NCE and 

public broadcasting television licensees 

and permittees to test any equipment 

that they are required to install pursuant 

to section 602(c) of the WARN Act. In 

commenting on this question, 

commenters are invited to propose steps 

that the Commission may take to 

minimize any significant economic 

impact on small entities. When 

considering proposals made by other 

parties, commenters are invited to 

propose significant alternatives that 

serve the goals of these proposals. 

Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rules 

38. None. 

Ex Parte Rules 

39. These matters shall be treated as 

a ‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ proceeding in 

accordance with the Commission’s ex 

parte rules. Persons making oral ex parte 

presentations are reminded that 

memoranda summarizing the 

presentations must contain summaries 

of the substance of the presentations 

and not merely a listing of the subjects 

discussed. More than a one or two 

sentence description of the views and 

arguments presented is generally 

required. Other requirements pertaining 

to oral and written presentations are set 

forth in section 1.1206(b) of the 

Commission’s rules. 

Ordering Clauses 

40. It is ordered, that pursuant to 

sections 1, 4(i) and (o), 201, 303(r), 403, 

and 706 of the Communications Act of 

1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i) 

and (o), 201, 303(r), 403, and 606, as 

well as by sections 602(a), (b), (c), (f), 

603, 604 and 606 of the WARN Act, this 

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

is hereby adopted. 

41. It is further ordered that the 

Commission’s Consumer and 

Government Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

this Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, including the Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the 

Chief Council for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E8–18143 Filed 8–13–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 22 

[FWS–R9–MB–2008–0057; 91200–1231–

9BPP–L3] 

RIN 1018–AV81 

Eagle Permits; Take Necessary To 

Protect Interests in a Particular 

Locality 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of 

availability of draft environmental 

assessment. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (we or us), announce 

the availability of a draft environmental 

assessment (DEA) evaluating options for 

managing take of bald eagles and golden 

eagles under the Bald and Golden Eagle 

Protection Act (Eagle Act). The DEA 

examines the effects of the action we 

proposed in a June 5, 2007 proposed 

rulemaking to establish two new 

permits under the Eagle Act (72 FR 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 158 / Thursday, August 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 47575 

31141), and two additional alternatives. 

We are soliciting current data regarding 

populations of both eagle species for the 

DEA. We are also seeking input 

regarding criteria to be used in 

quantifying take that occurs at 

important eagle-use areas, such as 

foraging areas, communal roost sites, or 

other concentration areas. Further, we 

are reopening the comment period on 

the proposed rule, which is the 

preferred alternative of the DEA. We 

have made some revisions and additions 

to the preferred alternative based on 

public comment received during the 

comment period on the proposed rule. 

Revisions of a substantive nature are 

noted in the Background section of this 

notice, and discussed more fully in the 

DEA. 

DATES: Send your comments on the DEA 

and/or proposed rule by September 15, 

2008. 

ADDRESSES: We will post the DEA on 

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/, or 

you may contact the Division of 

Migratory Birds Management at 4410 

North Fairfax Drive, MS 4107, 

Arlington, VA 22203–1610. You may 

submit comments by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public 

Comments Processing, Attn: RIN 1018–

AV81; Division of Policy and Directives 

Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 

222; Arlington, VA 22203. 

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 Public Comments section below 

for more information). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Diana Whittington, Division of 

Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, at 703–358–2010. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Comments 

You may submit your comments and 

materials concerning this proposed rule 

by one of the methods listed in the 

ADDRESSES section. Please note that we 

may not consider comments we receive 

after the date specified in the DATES

section in our final determination. 

Before including your address, phone 

number, e-mail address, or other 

personal identifying information in your 

comment, you should be aware that we 

will post your entire comment—

including your personal identifying 

information—on http:// 

www.regulations.gov. While you can ask 

us in your comment to withhold your 

personal identifying information from 

public review, we cannot guarantee that 

we will be able to do so. 

Comments and materials we receive, 

as well as supporting documentation we 

used in preparing this proposed rule, 

will be available for public inspection 

on http://www.regulations.gov, or by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Division of Migratory Bird 

Management, 4501 N. Fairfax Drive, 4th 

Floor, Arlington, VA 22203; telephone 

(703) 358–2010. 

Background 

On June 5, 2007, we published in the 

Federal Register a proposed rule (72 FR 

31141) to provide certain authorizations 

to take bald eagles and golden eagles 

under the Eagle Act (16 U.S.C. 668–

668d). The rule would establish a 

permit to authorize take that is 

associated with otherwise-lawful 

activities but which is not the purpose 

of the activity. In addition to 

authorizing the impacts of new 

activities, we proposed to use the new 

permit to extend Eagle Act take 

authorization to take previously 

exempted from the prohibitions of the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) under ESA section 

7. A second type of permit proposed in 

the rulemaking would authorize 

intentional take of eagle nests in rare 

cases where their location poses a risk 

to the public welfare or to the eagles 

themselves. Finally, the rule contained 

a proposed regulatory provision that 

would provide take authorization under 

the Eagle Act to ESA section 10 

permittees who continue to operate in 

full compliance with the terms and 

conditions of their existing permits. 

We are finalizing the proposed actions 

under two separate rulemakings. The 

authorizations associated with 

extending Eagle Act authorization to 

bald eagle take previously authorized 

under the ESA are categorically 

excluded from the requirement to 

prepare an environmental assessment 

under the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–

4347d) under Departmental procedures. 

In order to have those authorizations 

available at the earliest practical date, 

we have bifurcated the proposed rule. 

We are finalizing the ESA-related 

provisions ahead of the subject of the 

DEA we are releasing today, which is 

the remainder of the proposal. 

We have prepared the DEA under 

NEPA to analyze alternatives associated 

with the two new permit regulations we 

proposed in June. In the DEA, we 

considered three alternatives for 

managing take under the Eagle Act. 

Under Alternative 1, we would 

finalize regulations to extend Eagle Act 

authorization to bald eagle take that is 

authorized under the ESA, but we 

would not promulgate the additional 

regulations we proposed to (1) authorize 

take that is associated with, but not the 

purpose of, an action, and (2) authorize 

nest removal to protect safety and 

public welfare. This is the ‘‘No Action’’

alternative because the only action that 

we would finalize is the one we would 

address in a separate rulemaking and is 

not subject to this environmental 

assessment. 

Under Alternative 2, in addition to 

finalizing the actions described under 

Alternative 1, we would promulgate 

regulations for both of the proposed 

permits, but permits to authorize take 

that is associated with, but not the 

purpose of, an action would be limited 

to disturbance. No other forms of take 

would be authorized. We could 

authorize programmatic disturbance and 

nest take if the permittee implements 

advanced conservation practices (see 

discussion below). 

Alternative 3 is the proposed action, 

with modifications, and the preferred 

alternative. Alternative 3 includes all 

elements of Alternative 2, with the 

addition that take that results in 

mortalities could also be authorized. 

Based on public comment received on 

the June 5, 2007, proposed rule, and on 

new information compiled through the 

process of drafting the DEA, we have 

made some modifications to the 

preferred alternative. In addition to a 

variety of minor revisions, Alternative 3 

contains the following additions and 

changes to the proposed rule: 

• As discussed above, we split the 

rule into two rules that we will finalize 

separately from one another. We 

separated the original proposal to 

extend (or ‘‘grandfather’’) Eagle Act take 

authorization to take previously 

authorized under the ESA from the 

remainder of the provisions in order to 

finalize the ‘‘grandfathering’’ provisions 

more expeditiously. 

• We modified our interpretation 

(provided in the June 5, 2007, proposed 

rule) of the statutory mandate that 

permitted take be ‘‘compatible with the 

preservation of the bald eagle or the 

golden eagle.’’ In the original proposal, 

we proposed to use the standard that 

regional and national eagle populations 

not decline at a rate greater than 0.54% 

annually. Our preferred alternative now 

requires increasing or stable regional 

populations to meet the ‘‘preservation’’

standard. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
47576 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 158 / Thursday, August 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

• The rule would include issuance 

criteria to ensure that, except for safety 

emergencies, Native American religious 

needs are given first priority if requests 

for permits exceed take thresholds that 

are compatible with the preservation of 

the bald eagle or the golden eagle. 

• The rule would no longer provide 

different issuance criteria for lethal 

versus non-lethal take. Rather, it 

proposes separate provisions for 

programmatic take versus individual 

instances of take. Programmatic take 

(take that is recurring and not in a 

specific, identifiable timeframe and/or 

location) would be authorized only 

where it is unavoidable despite 

implementation of comprehensive 

measures (‘‘advanced conservation 

practices’’) developed in cooperation 

with the Service to reduce the take 

below current levels. ‘‘Advanced 

conservation practices’’ refers to 

scientifically-supportable measures 

representing the best available 

techniques designed to reduce 

disturbance and ongoing mortalities to a 

level where remaining take is 

unavoidable. 

• The rule would amend the existing 

eagle depredation permit regulations at 

50 CFR 22.23 to extend permit tenure 

beyond 90 days for purposes of hazing 

eagles. The purpose of these revisions 

would be to enable issuance of permits 

that combine programmatic 

authorizations provided under § 22.23 

and the new proposed take regulations 

(e.g., for airport safety purposes). 

• The rule would expand (from the 

proposed rule) the purposes for which 

eagle nests may be taken to include 

where necessary to protect public health 

and welfare. The proposed rule limited 

nest removal to emergencies where 

human or eagle safety was imminently 

threatened. Nest removal for 

emergencies would be retained, and 

would authorize the removal and/or 

relocation of active and inactive nests 

where genuine safety concerns 

necessitate their removal. The broader 

application would allow us to issue 

permits to remove only inactive nests in 

some circumstances where the presence 

of the nest does not immediately 

threaten injury or loss of life, but does 

interfere with maintenance or expansion 

of infrastructure needed to protect 

overall public health and welfare. An 

example of the broader application 

would be a site in an underserved 

community where a new hospital is to 

be built, where the building was 

designed to avoid three eagle nests in a 

territory, but as construction is set to 

begin, eagles build a new nest in the 

only remaining available building site. 

In this situation (depending on 

consideration of any other relevant 

factors), take of the nest may be 

considered necessary to protect public 

health and welfare, even though take is 

not necessary to alleviate an immediate 

safety threat. 

In such situations, where the take of 

an inactive nest is necessary to protect 

public health and welfare, but not to 

alleviate an immediate threat to safety, 

two additional criteria must be met 

before we may issue a nest take permit 

under this section. First, we may not 

issue the permit unless alternative 

suitable nesting and foraging habitat is 

available. Second, the permittee will be 

required to mitigate for the detrimental 

impacts to eagles to the fullest extent 

practicable. 

• We propose to redefine some terms 

and introduce new definitions for a 

number of additional terms used in the 

regulations, as follows: 

We would define ‘‘eagle nest’’ as a 

‘‘readily identifiable structure built, 

maintained, or used by bald eagles or 

golden eagles for breeding purposes.’’

This definition is based on, and 

replaces, the existing golden eagle nest 

definition, in order to apply to both 

species. We would remove the existing 

definition of ‘‘golden eagle nest’’ from 

the list of definitions. Similarly, we 

would replace the old definition of 

‘‘inactive nest’’ with a new definition 

that also includes bald eagles as well as 

golden eagles. The new definition 

would read: ‘‘a bald eagle or golden 

eagle nest that is not currently being 

used by eagles as determined by the 

absence of any adult, egg, or dependent 

young at the nest for 10 consecutive 

days. An inactive nest may become 

active again and remains protected 

under the Eagle Act.’’

The proposed permit regulations 

under § 22.26 introduced the term 

‘‘important eagle-use area’’ to refer to 

nests, biologically important foraging 

areas, and communal roosts, where 

eagles are potentially likely to be taken 

as the result of interference with 

breeding, feeding, or sheltering 

behaviors. We now propose to define 

‘‘important eagle-use area’’ as ‘‘an eagle 

nest, foraging area, or communal roost 

site that eagles rely on for breeding, 

sheltering, or feeding, and the landscape 

features surrounding such nest, foraging 

area, or roost site that are essential for 

the continued viability of the site for 

breeding, feeding, or sheltering eagles.’’

This term refers to the particular areas, 

within a broader area where human 

activity occurs, where eagles are more 

likely to be taken (e.g., disturbed) by the 

activity because of the higher 

probability of interference with 

breeding, feeding, or sheltering 

behaviors at those areas. 

We are also proposing to define terms 

used within the definition of ‘‘important 

eagle-use area.’’ We would define 

‘‘foraging area’’ to mean ‘‘an area where 

eagles regularly feed during one or more 

seasons.’’ We would define ‘‘communal 

roost site’’ as ‘‘an area where eagles 

gather repeatedly in the course of a 

season and shelter overnight and 

sometimes during the day in the event 

of inclement weather.’’ Not all foraging 

areas and communal roost sites are 

important enough that interfering with 

eagles at the site will cause disturbance 

(resulting in injury or nest 

abandonment.) Whether eagles rely on a 

particular foraging area or communal 

roost site to that degree will depend on 

a variety of circumstances, most 

obviously, the availability of alternate 

sites for feeding or sheltering. 

‘‘Territory’’ would be defined as ‘‘a 

defended area that contains, or 

historically contained, one or more 

nests within the home range of a mated 

pair of eagles, and where no more than 

one pair breeds at a time.’’

‘‘Cumulative effects’’ would mean 

‘‘the incremental environmental impact 

or effect of the proposed action, together 

with impacts of past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions.’’

We would define ‘‘indirect effects’’ as 

‘‘effects that are caused by an action and 

which may occur later in time or be 

located beyond the initial impacts of the 

action, but are still reasonably 

foreseeable.’’

The preferred alternative continues to 

include the requirement that an 

applicant avoid and minimize impacts 

to eagles to the maximum extent 

practicable, and document the existing 

measures in their application for a 

permit. ‘‘Practicable’’ would be defined 

as ‘‘capable of being done after taking 

into consideration, relative to the 

magnitude of the impacts to eagles, (1) 

the cost of remedy comparative with 

proponent resources; (2) existing 

technology; and (3) logistics in light of 

overall project purposes.’’

An additional provision that would be 

included in the final rule to implement 

our preferred alternative pertains to the 

authorizations granted through the other 

final rulemaking (to extend Eagle Act 

authorization to take authorized under 

the ESA) that we separated from the 

action for which this environmental 

assessment is being carried out. Under 

the preferred alternative, the final 

regulations to establish a new permit for 

take of eagles where the take is 

associated with, but not the purpose of, 

the activity would include a provision 

that applies to anyone granted take 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 158 / Thursday, August 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 47577 

exemptions under section 7 of the ESA. 

This would apply in areas where the 

bald eagle remains listed or is re-listed 

under the ESA or if the golden eagle 

becomes listed. Of those persons, those 

who are issued their section 7 

exemptions whose activities will also 

take eagles under the Eagle Act, and 

who wish to obtain Eagle Act 

authorization for that take, would be 

required to use the new permit 

regulations at 50 CFR 22.26 that are the 

subject of this DEA, once those 

regulations are available, rather than the 

expedited permit being established 

under separate regulations. 

Authority: The authority for this action is 

the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 

U.S.C. 668–668d). 

Dated: July 28, 2008. 

Lyle Laverty, 

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and 

Parks. 

[FR Doc. E8–18779 Filed 8–13–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 665 

RIN 0648–AV29 

Fisheries in the Western Pacific; 

Crustacean Fisheries; Deepwater 

Shrimp 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of availability of fishery 

management plan amendment; request 

for comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS announces that the 

Western Pacific Fishery Management 

Council proposes to amend the Fishery 

Management Plan for Crustacean 

Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region 

(Crustaceans FMP). If approved by the 

Secretary of Commerce, Amendment 13 

to the Crustaceans FMP would designate 

deepwater shrimp of the genus 

Heterocarpus as management unit 

species, and require Federal permits and 

data reporting for deepwater shrimp 

fishing in Federal waters of the western 

Pacific. Amendment 13 is intended to 

improve information on deepwater 

shrimp fisheries and their ecosystem 

impacts, and to provide a basis for 

future management of the fisheries, if 

needed. 

DATES: Comments on Amendment 13, 

which includes an environmental 

assessment, must be received by 

October 14, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Comments on the 

amendment, identified by 0648–AV29, 

may be sent to either of the following 

addresses: 

• Electronic Submission: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal 

www.regulations.gov; or 

• Mail: Mail written comments to 

William L. Robinson, Regional 

Administrator, NMFS, Pacific Islands 

Region (PIR), 1601 Kapiolani Blvd, Suite 

1110, Honolulu, HI 96814–4700. 

Instructions: All comments received 

are a part of the public record and will 

generally be posted to 

www.regulations.gov without change. 

All personal identifying information 

(e.g., name, address, etc.) submitted 

voluntarily by the commenter may be 

publicly accessible. Do not submit 

confidential business information, or 

otherwise sensitive or protected 

information. NMFS will accept 

anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/A’’ in 

the required fields, if you wish to 

remain anonymous). Attachments to 

electronic comments will be accepted in 

Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, 

or Adobe PDF file formats only. 

Copies of Amendment 13, including 

an environmental assessment, are 

available from the Western Pacific 

Fishery Management Council (Council), 

1164 Bishop St., Suite 1400, Honolulu, 

HI 96813, tel 808–522–8220, fax 808–

522–8226, www.wpcouncil.org. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Brett Wiedoff, NMFS PIR, 808–944–

2272. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

Federal Register document is accessible 

at the Office of the Federal Register 

website: www.gpoaccess.gov/fr. 

Crustacean fisheries in the western 

Pacific are federally-managed within the 

waters of the U.S. Exclusive Economic 

Zone (EEZ) around American Samoa, 

the Commonwealth of the Northern 

Mariana Islands (CNMI), Guam, Hawaii, 

and the Pacific Remote Island Areas 

(PRIA, including Palmyra Atoll, 

Kingman Reef, Jarvis Island, Baker 

Island, Howland Island, Johnston Atoll, 

Wake Island, and Midway Atoll). The 

EEZ around the CNMI and PRIA extends 

from the shoreline seaward to 200 

nautical miles (nm), and the EEZ around 

the other islands extends from three to 

200 nm offshore. Crustaceans FMP 

management unit species now include 

spiny lobsters, Panulirus marginatus 

and P. penicillatus, slipper lobsters of 

the family Scyllaridae, and Kona 

(spanner) crab, Ranina ranina. 

Eight species of Heterocarpus have 

been reported throughout the tropical 

Pacific. These shrimp are generally 

found at depths of 200 to 1,200 meters 

on the outer reef slopes that surround 

islands and deepwater banks. Species 

distribution tends to be stratified by 

depth with some overlap. The 

deepwater trap fisheries have primarily 

targeted Heterocarpus ensifer and H. 

laevigatus. 

Western Pacific commercial trap 

fisheries for deepwater shrimp are 

intermittent. There have been sporadic 

operations in Hawaii since the 1960s, 

small-scale fisheries in Guam during the 

1970s, and some activity in the CNMI 

during the mid–1990s. The fisheries 

have been unregulated, and there has 

been no comprehensive collection of 

information about the fisheries. Most of 

these fishing ventures have been shortlived, probably as a result of sometimesfrequent loss of traps, a shrimp product 

with a short shelf life and history of 

inconsistent quality, and the rapid 

localized depletion of deepwater shrimp 

stocks leading to low catch rates. 

Despite these hurdles, interest in 

deepwater shrimp fisheries continues. 

Amendment 13 would designate 

deepwater shrimp of the genus 

Heterocarpus as management unit 

species under the FMP, and would 

require Federal permits and reporting 

for deepwater shrimp fishing in the 

EEZ. The proposed monitoring program 

(permits and logbooks) is intended to 

improve understanding of these 

fisheries and their impact on marine 

ecosystems. Although currently there 

are no resource concerns regarding 

western Pacific deepwater shrimp, the 

proposed designation of these shrimp as 

management unit species would provide 

a basis for management of the fisheries, 

if warranted in the future. Amendment 

13 designates Essential Fish Habitat 

(EFH) for the complete assemblage of 

adult and juvenile Heterocarpus spp. as 

the outer reef slopes between 300 and 

700 meters surrounding every island 

and submerged banks in the western 

Pacific, and includes all eight species of 

deepwater shrimp in the region: 

Heterocarpus ensifer, H. laevigatus, H. 

sibogae, H. gibbosus, H. Lepidus, H. 

dorsalis, H. tricarinatus and H. 

longirostris, as required under the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act. 

Public comments on proposed 

Amendment 13 must be received by 

October 14, 2008 to be considered by 

NMFS in the decision to approve, 

partially approve, or disapprove the 

amendment. A proposed rule to 

implement the amendment has been 

prepared for Secretarial review and 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS