Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 164 / Friday, August 22, 2008 / Proposed Rules 49631 

individual to undertake muscovy duck 

control if we find that agency or 

individual has undertaken actions that 

may harm federally listed threatened or 

endangered species or are contrary to 

the provisions of this part. 

Dated: August 8, 2008. 

David M. Verhey, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and 

Wildlife and Parks. 

[FR Doc. E8–19550 Filed 8–21–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 21 

[FWS–R9–MB–2007–0018; 91200–1231–

9BPP] 

RIN 1018–AV33 

Migratory Bird Permits; Control of 

Purple Swamphens 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, propose changes in the 

regulations governing control of 

depredating or introduced migratory 

birds. The purple swamphen (Porphyrio 

porphyrio) is not native to any State, 

and competes with native species. 

However, we have proposed to add it to 

the list of species protected under our 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act obligations 

because it does occur naturally in 

American Samoa. We propose to amend 

50 CFR part 21 to allow removal of 

purple swamphens in the contiguous 

United States, Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto 

Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. 

DATES: We must receive all comments 

on this proposal by October 21, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified as comments on RIN 1018–

AV33, by either 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, Attention RIN 

1018–AV33; Division of Policy and 

Directives Management; U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service; 4401 North Fairfax 

Drive, Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203–

1610. 

We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We 

will post all comments on http:// 

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information that you provide. See the 

Public Comments section below for 

more information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

George T. Allen, Division of Migratory 

Bird Management, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 703–358–1825. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Fish and Wildlife Service is the 

Federal agency delegated the primary 

responsibility for managing migratory 

birds. This delegation is authorized by 

the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) 

(16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.), which 

implements conventions with Great 

Britain (for Canada), Mexico, Japan, and 

the Soviet Union (Russia). 

We implement the MBTA through 

regulations found in title 50 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations (CFR). In 50 CFR 

10.13, we list all species of migratory 

birds protected by the MBTA that are 

subject to the regulations protecting 

migratory birds in title 50, subchapter B 

(Taking, Possession, Transportation, 

Sale, Purchase, Barter, Exportation, and 

Importation of Wildlife and Plants). In 

50 CFR part 13 (General Permit 

Procedures) and part 21 (Migratory Bird 

Permits), regulations allow us to issue 

permits for certain activities otherwise 

prohibited in regard to migratory birds. 

In part 21, we issue permits for the 

taking, possession, transportation, sale, 

purchase, barter, importation, 

exportation, and banding and marking 

of migratory birds. We also provide 

certain exceptions to permit 

requirements for public, scientific, or 

educational institutions, and establish 

depredation and control orders that 

provide limited exceptions to the 

MBTA. 

Purple Swamphen 

The purple swamphen, a chickensized bird in the family Rallidae, is 

native to the Old World, and in the 

United States and its territories is native 

only in American Samoa. Because of the 

species’ occurrence in American Samoa, 

it is protected under the Migratory Bird 

Treaty Act. We included this species in 

the proposed rule (71 FR 50194, August 

24, 2006) to revise the list of migratory 

birds found in 50 CFR 10.13. In the 

United States, the purple swamphen 

occurs naturally only in the Pacific 

Island territories of American Samoa, 

Baker and Howland Islands, Guam, and 

the Northern Marianas Islands (Pratt et 

al. 1987). We proposed to add the 

species to the list because it is in a 

group of species that belong to families 

protected under treaties with Canada 

and Mexico. We anticipate that we will 

add the species to the list when we 

finalize the regulation. However, we 

will not make a final decision on the 

proposed § 10.13 list before we make a 

final decision on this purple swamphen 

proposed rule. 

The purple swamphen was 

introduced in southern Florida through 

escapes from aviculturalists and from 

the Miami Metro Zoo in the early 1990s. 

In Florida, the purple swamphen 

competes with native species and may 

impact the plant life of wetlands. The 

purple swamphen has an international 

reputation for eating eggs and chicks, 

including ducklings, of other ground or 

near-ground nesting species. As far as 

we know, counties in the southern half 

of Florida are the only place in the 

contiguous United States, Hawaii, 

Alaska, Puerto Rico, or the U.S. Virgin 

Islands where the purple swamphen 

occurs. 

We propose to allow removal of 

introduced purple swamphens in the 

contiguous United States, Alaska, 

Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin 

Islands from any location where they 

are found. This removal is in keeping 

with our other actions to reduce the 

spread of introduced species that 

compete with native species or harm 

habitats that they use. It also is in 

keeping with the intent of the Migratory 

Bird Treaty Reform Act of 2004 (16 

U.S.C. 703(b)). 

Public Participation 

We seek comments on any aspect of 

this proposed rule. You may submit 

your comments by either of the methods 

listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will 

not accept comments sent by email or 

by fax, or to an address not listed in the 

ADDRESSES section. We will not accept 

anonymous comments; your comment 

must include your first and last names, 

city, state, country, and postal (zip) 

code. Finally, we will not consider 

hand-delivered comments that we do 

not receive, or mailed comments that 

are not postmarked, by the date 

specified in the DATES section. 

We will post your entire comment—

including your personal identifying 

information—on http:// 

www.regulations.gov. If you provide 

personal identifying information in 

addition to the required items specified 

in the previous paragraph, such as your 

street address, phone number, or e-mail 

address, you may request at the top of 

your document that we withhold this 

information from public view. However, 

we cannot guarantee that we will be 

able to do so. 

Comments and materials we receive, 

as well as supporting documents will be 

available for public inspection, by 

appointment, during normal business 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
49632 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 164 / Friday, August 22, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Division of Migratory Bird 

Management, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, 

Mail Stop 4107, Arlington, VA 22203–

1610. 

When submitting written comments, 

please include your name and return 

address in your letter and identify it as 

comments on proposed regulations 

change RIN 1018–AV33. To facilitate 

compiling the administrative record for 

this action, you must submit written 

comments on 81⁄2-inch-by-11-inch 

paper. 

Required Determinations 

Clarity of This Regulation 

Executive Order 12866 requires each 

agency to write regulations that are easy 

to understand. We invite your 

comments on how to make this 

proposed rule easier to understand, 

including answers to questions such as 

the following: (1) Are the requirements 

in the rule clearly stated? (2) Does the 

rule contain technical language or 

jargon that interferes with its clarity? (3) 

Does the format of the rule (grouping 

and order of sections, use of headings, 

paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its 

clarity? (4) Would the rule be easier to 

understand if it were divided into more 

(but shorter) sections?) (A ‘‘section’’

appears in bold type and is preceded by 

the symbol ‘‘§’’ and a numbered 

heading; for example: ‘‘§ 21.12 General 

exceptions to permit requirements.’’ (5) 

Does the description of the rule in the 

‘‘Supplementary Information’’ section of 

the preamble help you to understand 

the proposed rule? What else could we 

do to make the rule easier to 

understand? 

Send a copy of any comments that 

concern how we could make this 

proposed rule easier to understand to 

the Office of Regulatory Affairs, 

Department of the Interior, Room 7229, 

1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20240–0001. You also may e-mail 

comments to Exsec@ios.doi.gov. 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

(Executive Order 12866) 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has determined that this rule is 

not significant and has not reviewed 

this rule under Executive Order 12866. 

OMB bases its determination upon the 

following four criteria: 

(a) Whether the rule will have an 

annual effect of $100 million or more on 

the economy or adversely affect an 

economic sector, productivity, jobs, the 

environment, or other units of the 

government, 

(b) Whether the rule will create 

inconsistencies with other Federal 

agencies’ actions, 

(c) Whether the rule will materially 

affect entitlements, grants, user fees, 

loan programs, or the rights and 

obligations of their recipients, and 

(d) Whether the rule raises novel legal 

or policy issues. 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

In accordance with the criteria in 

Executive Order 12866, this proposed 

rule would not be a significant 

regulatory action. The Office of 

Management and Budget makes the final 

determination of significance under E.O. 

12866. 

a. This proposed rule would not raise 

novel legal or policy issues. The 

proposed provisions are in compliance 

with other laws, policies, and 

regulations. 

b. This proposed rule would not have 

an annual economic effect of $100 

million or more, or adversely affect an 

economic sector, productivity, jobs, the 

environment, or other units of 

government. A cost-benefit and 

economic analysis thus is not required. 

There would be no costs associated with 

this proposed rule. 

c. This proposed rule would not 

create inconsistencies with other 

agencies’ actions. The rule deals solely 

with governance of migratory bird 

permitting in the United States. No 

other Federal agency has any role in 

regulating activities with migratory 

birds. 

d. This proposed rule would not 

materially affect entitlements, grants, 

user fees, loan programs, or the rights 

and obligations of their recipients. 

There are no entitlements, grants, user 

fees, or loan programs associated with 

the regulation of control of purple 

swamphens. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.) 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996 (Pub. L. 

104–121)), whenever an agency is 

required to publish a notice of 

rulemaking for any proposed or final 

rule, it must prepare and make available 

for public comment a regulatory 

flexibility analysis that describes the 

effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., 

small businesses, small organizations, 

and small government jurisdictions). 

However, no regulatory flexibility 

analysis is required if the head of an 

agency certifies that the rule would not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

SBREFA amended the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act to require Federal 

agencies to provide the statement of the 

factual basis for certifying that a rule 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. We have examined this 

proposed rule’s potential effects on 

small entities as required by the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act, and we have 

determined that this action would not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities 

because the changes we are proposing 

are intended to allow removal of an 

introduced species that competes with 

native species of wildlife. Purple 

swamphens are not found in business 

areas, and we foresee no effects of this 

proposed rule on small businesses. 

There would be no costs associated 

with this regulations change. 

Consequently, we certify that because 

this proposed rule would not have a 

significant economic effect on a 

substantial number of small entities, a 

regulatory flexibility analysis is not 

required. 

This proposed rule is not a major rule 

under the SBREFA (5 U.S.C. 804(2)). It 

would not have a significant impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

a. This proposed rule would not have 

an annual effect on the economy of $100 

million or more. 

b. This proposed rule would not cause 

a major increase in costs or prices for 

consumers; individual industries; 

Federal, State, or local government 

agencies; or geographic regions. 

c. This proposed rule would not have 

significant adverse effects on 

competition, employment, investment, 

productivity, innovation, or the ability 

of U.S.-based enterprises to compete 

with foreign-based enterprises. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

In accordance with the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et 

seq.), we have determined the following: 

a. This proposed rule would not 

‘‘significantly or uniquely’’ affect small 

governments. A small government 

agency plan is not required. Actions 

under the proposed regulation would 

not affect small government activities in 

any significant way. 

b. This proposed rule would not 

produce a Federal mandate of $100 

million or greater in any year. It would 

not be a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act. 

Takings 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12630, the rule would not have 

significant takings implications. A 

takings implication assessment is not 

required. This proposed rule would not 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 164 / Friday, August 22, 2008 / Proposed Rules 49633 

contain a provision for taking of private 

property. 

Federalism 

This proposed rule would not have 

sufficient Federalism effects to warrant 

preparation of a Federalism assessment 

under Executive Order 13132. It would 

not interfere with the States’ ability to 

manage themselves or their funds. No 

significant economic impacts are 

expected to result from control of purple 

swamphens. 

Civil Justice Reform 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12988, the Office of the Solicitor has 

determined that the rule would not 

unduly burden the judicial system and 

that it meets the requirements of 

sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

We examined these regulations under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

There are no information collection 

requirements associated with this 

regulations change. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

in accordance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 

U.S.C. 432–437(f) and part 516 of the 

U.S. Department of the Interior Manual 

(516 DM). The change we propose is to 

allow people to remove a species from 

locations in the United States and its 

territories in which the species may 

have been introduced. The 

environmental impacts of control of the 

purple swamphen have already been 

addressed. The State of Florida prepared 

a purple swamphen control plan and a 

NEPA assessment of State control 

actions. We completed an 

Environmental Action Statement in 

which we concluded that the proposed 

regulations change allowing the removal 

of an introduced species requires no 

additional assessment of potential 

environmental impacts. 

Socioeconomic. We do not expect the 

proposed action to have discernible 

socioeconomic impacts. 

Migratory bird populations. This 

proposed rule would not alter the take 

of native migratory birds from the wild. 

It would not harm native migratory bird 

populations. 

Endangered and Threatened Species. 

The purple swamphen is not threatened 

or endangered, and the proposed 

regulations change would not affect 

threatened or endangered species or 

habitats important to them. 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species 

Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that ‘‘The 

Secretary [of the Interior] shall review 

other programs administered by him 

and utilize such programs in 

furtherance of the purposes of this 

chapter’’ (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(1)). It 

further states that the Secretary must 

‘‘insure that any action authorized, 

funded, or carried out * * * is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any endangered species or 

threatened species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

[critical] habitat’’ (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)). 

We have concluded that the proposed 

regulations change would not affect 

listed species, and the Division of 

Migratory Bird Management has 

completed an Endangered Species 

consultation on this proposed rule 

confirming this conclusion. 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994, 

‘‘Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments’’ (59 FR 22951), Executive 

Order 13175, and 512 DM 2, we have 

evaluated potential effects on Federally 

recognized Indian Tribes and have 

determined that there are no potential 

effects. This proposed rule would not 

interfere with the Tribes’ ability to 

manage themselves or their funds or to 

regulate migratory bird activities on 

Tribal lands. 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

(Executive Order 13211) 

On May 18, 2001, the President issued 

Executive Order 13211 addressing 

regulations that significantly affect 

energy supply, distribution, and use. 

Executive Order 13211 requires agencies 

to prepare Statements of Energy Effects 

when undertaking certain actions. 

Because this proposed rule only affects 

control of invasive purple swamphens 

at limited locations, it would not be a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866, nor would it 

significantly affect energy supplies, 

distribution, or use. This action would 

not be a significant energy action, and 

no Statement of Energy Effects is 

required. 

References 

Pratt, H. D., P. L. Bruner, and D. G. 

Berrett. 1987. The Birds of Hawaii and 

the Tropical Pacific. Princeton 

University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 21 

Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation, Wildlife. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, we propose to amend part 21 

of subchapter B, chapter I, title 50 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations, as follows: 

PART 21—MIGRATORY BIRD PERMITS 

1. The authority citation for part 21 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 40 

Stat. 755 (16 U.S.C. 703); Public Law 95–616, 

92 Stat. 3112 (16 U.S.C. 712(2)); Public Law 

106–108, 113 Stat. 1491, Note following 16 

U.S.C. 703. 

2. Add new § 21.53 to read as follows: 

21.53 Control order for purple swamphens 

in the contiguous United States. 

(a) Control of purple swamphens. 

Federal, State, Tribal, and local wildlife 

management agencies, and their tenants, 

employees, or agents may remove or 

destroy purple swamphens (Porphyrio 

porphyrio) or their nests or eggs at any 

time when they find them anywhere in 

the contiguous United States, Hawaii, 

Alaska, Puerto Rico, or the U.S. Virgin 

Islands. Any authorized agency 

personnel may temporarily possess, 

transport, and dispose of purple 

swamphens, subject to the restrictions 

in paragraph (c) of this section. No 

permit is necessary to do so. 

(b) Disposal of purple swamphens. 

Authorized persons may donate purple 

swamphens taken under this order to 

public museums or public institutions 

for scientific or educational purposes, or 

they may dispose of the carcasses by 

burial or incineration. No one may 

retain for personal use, offer for sale, or 

sell a purple swamphen removed under 

this section. 

(c) Other provisions. (1) Authorized 

persons may not remove or destroy 

purple swamphens or their nests or eggs 

if doing so is contrary to any State, 

Territorial, Tribal, or local laws or 

regulations. 

(2) Authorized persons may not 

remove or destroy purple swamphens or 

their nests or eggs if doing so will 

adversely affect other migratory birds or 

species designated as endangered or 

threatened under the authority of the 

Endangered Species Act. In particular, 

the purple swamphen resembles the 

native purple gallinule (Porphyrula 

martinica). Authorized persons must 

take special care not to take purple 

gallinules or their nests or eggs when 

conducting purple swamphen control 

activities. Certain persons may take 

purple gallinules without a permit on 

rice-producing property in Louisiana 

according to the terms of a separate 

depredation order (see § 21.45). 

(3) If, while operating under this 

regulation, an authorized person takes 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
49634 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 164 / Friday, August 22, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

any other species protected under the 

Endangered Species Act, the Migratory 

Bird Treaty Act, or the Bald and Golden 

Eagle Protection Act, that person must 

immediately report the take to the 

nearest Ecological Services office of the 

Fish and Wildlife Service. See http:// 

www.fws.gov/where/ to find the location 

of the nearest Ecological Services office. 

(4) We may suspend or revoke the 

authority of any agency or individual to 

undertake purple swamphen control if 

we find that agency or individual has, 

without an applicable permit, taken 

actions that may take Federally listed 

threatened or endangered species or any 

bird species protected by the Bald and 

Golden Eagle Protection Act or the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (see § 10.13 of 

subchapter A of this chapter for the list 

of protected migratory bird species). 

Dated: August 8, 2008. 

David M. Verhey, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and 

Wildlife and Parks. 

[FR Doc. E8–19552 Filed 8–21–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 229 

[Docket No. 080407531–8569–01] 

RIN 0648–AW68 

Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental 

to Commercial Fishing Operations; 

Bottlenose Dolphin Take Reduction 

Plan 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS) proposes to 

amend the Bottlenose Dolphin Take 

Reduction Plan’s (BDTRP) 

implementing regulations by extending, 

for an additional three years, fishing 

restrictions expiring on May 26, 2009. 

This action will continue, without 

modification, current nighttime fishing 

restrictions of medium mesh gillnets 

operating in the North Carolina portion 

of the Winter-Mixed Management Unit 

during the winter. Members of the 

Bottlenose Dolphin Take Reduction 

Team (BDTRT) recommended these 

regulations be extended for an 

additional three years to ensure 

continued conservation of the Western 

North Atlantic coastal bottlenose 

dolphin stock, should a directed spiny 

dogfish fishery reemerge in North 

Carolina. 

DATES: Written comments on the 

proposed rule must be received no later 

than 5 p.m. eastern time on September 

22, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by the Regulatory Information 

Number (RIN) 0648–AW68, by any of 

the following methods: 

• Electronic Submissions: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

• Facsimile (fax): 727 824–5309, Attn: 

Assistant Regional Administrator, 

Protected Resources. 

• Mail: Assistant Regional 

Administrator for Protected Resources, 

NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, St. 

Petersburg, FL 33701–5505. 

Instructions: All comments received 

are a part of the public record and will 

generally be posted to http:// 

www.regulations.gov without change. 

All Personal Identifying Information (for 

example, name, address, etc.) 

voluntarily submitted by the commenter 

may be publicly accessible. Do not 

submit Confidential Business 

Information or otherwise sensitive or 

protected information. 

NMFS will accept anonymous 

comments (enter ‘‘N/A’’ in the required 

fields if you wish to remain 

anonymous). Attachments to electronic 

comments will be accepted in Microsoft 

Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe 

PDF file formats only. 

The BDTRP, Environmental 

Assessment, BDTRT meeting 

summaries, and background documents 

can be downloaded from the Take 

Reduction Plan web site at: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/inter

actions/trt/bdtrp.htm 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stacey Carlson, NMFS, Southeast 

Region, 727–824–5312, 

Stacey.Carlson@noaa.gov; or Melissa 

Andersen, NMFS, Protected Resources, 

301–713–2322, 

Melissa.Andersen@noaa.gov. 

Individuals who use 

telecommunications devices for the deaf 

(TDD) may call the Federal Information 

Relay Service at 1–800–877–8339 

between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. eastern time, 

Monday through Friday, excluding 

Federal holidays. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

BDTRP and Medium Mesh Gillnet 

Restrictions 

Section 118(f)(1) of the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) 

requires NMFS to develop and 

implement take reduction plans to assist 

in the recovery or prevent the depletion 

of strategic marine mammal stocks that 

interact with Category I and II fisheries. 

The MMPA defines a strategic stock as 

a marine mammal stock: (1) For which 

the level of direct human-caused 

mortality exceeds the potential 

biological removal (PBR) level; (2) 

which is declining and likely to be 

listed under the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA) in the foreseeable future; or (3) 

which is listed as threatened or 

endangered under the ESA or as a 

depleted species under the MMPA (16 

U.S.C. 1362(2)). PBR is the maximum 

number of animals, not including 

natural mortalities, that can be removed 

annually from a stock, while allowing 

that stock to reach or maintain its 

optimum sustainable population level. 

Category I or II fisheries are fisheries 

that have frequent or occasional 

incidental mortality and serious injury 

of marine mammals, respectively. 

As specified in the MMPA, the shortterm goal of a take reduction plan is to 

reduce, within six months of its 

implementation, the incidental 

mortality or serious injury of marine 

mammals taken in the course of 

commercial fishing operations to levels 

less than PBR for the stock. The longterm goal of a plan is to reduce, within 

5 years of its implementation, the 

incidental mortality or serious injury of 

marine mammals taken in the course of 

commercial fishing operations to 

insignificant levels approaching a zero 

mortality and serious injury rate, taking 

into account the economics of the 

fishery, the availability of existing 

technology, and existing state or 

regional fishery management plans. The 

MMPA also requires NMFS to amend 

take reduction plans and implementing 

regulations as necessary to meet the 

requirements of this section. 

On April 26, 2006, NMFS published 

a final rule (71 FR 24776) implementing 

the BDTRP, with a May 26, 2006, 

effective date. The BDTRP contains both 

regulatory and non-regulatory 

management measures to reduce serious 

injury and mortality of the Western 

North Atlantic coastal bottlenose 

dolphin stock (dolphin) (Tursiops 

truncatus), a strategic stock, in nine 

Category I and II commercial fisheries 

operating within the dolphin’s 

distributional range. The Western North 

Atlantic coastal bottlenose dolphin 

stock is split into seven spatial and 

temporal management units because of 

its biological complexity, and 

management measures in the BDTRP are 

applied by management unit. Both the 

regulatory and non-regulatory 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS