        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Parts 223 and 224
        [Docket No. 130808698-3698-01]
        RIN 0648-XC809
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 90-Day Finding on Petitions To List the Pinto Abalone as Threatened or Endangered Under the Endangered Species Act

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          90-day petition findings, request for information, and initiation of status review.

          SUMMARY:

          We, NMFS, announce 90-day findings on two petitions received to list the pinto abalone (Haliotis kamtschatkana) as a threatened or endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and to designate critical habitat concurrently with the listing. We find that the petitions and information in our files present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. We will conduct a status review of the species to determine if the petitioned action is warranted. To ensure that the status review is comprehensive, we are soliciting scientific and commercial information pertaining to this species from any interested party.

          DATES:
          Information and comments on the subject action must be received by January 17, 2014.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, information, or data, identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2013-0158” by any one of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submissions
            : Submit all electronic comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal http://www.regulations.gov. To submit comments via the e-Rulemaking Portal, first click the “submit a comment” icon, then enter “NOAA-NMFS-2013-0158” in the keyword search. Locate the document you wish to comment on from the resulting list and click on the “Submit a Comment” icon on the right of that line.
          • Mail or
            hand-delivery: Protected Resources Division, West Coast Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213.

          Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record and may be posted to http://www.regulations.gov without change. All personally identifiable information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business information or other information you wish to protect from public disclosure. NMFS will accept anonymous comments. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, Corel WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Melissa Neuman, NMFS, West Coast Region, (562) 980-4115; or Lisa Manning, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, (301) 427-8466.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        On July 1, 2013, we received a petition from the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) to list the pinto abalone (Haliotis kamtschatkana) as threatened or endangered under the ESA. The petitioners also requested that critical habitat be designated for the species under the ESA. On August 5, 2013, we received a second petition, filed by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) to list the pinto abalone under the ESA and designate critical habitat. Both petitions bring forth much of the same or related factual information on the biology and ecology of pinto abalone, and raise several similar issues regarding potential factors affecting this species. As a result, we are considering both petitions simultaneously in this 90-day finding. Copies of the petitions are available upon request (see ADDRESSES, above).
        ESA Statutory, Regulatory, and Policy Provisions and Evaluation Framework

        Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires, to the maximum extent practicable, that within 90 days of receipt of a petition to list a species as threatened or endangered, the Secretary of Commerce make a finding on whether that petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted, and to promptly publish such finding in the Federal Register (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)). When it is found that substantial scientific or commercial information in a petition indicates the petitioned action may be warranted (a “positive 90-day finding”), we are required to promptly commence a review of the status of the species concerned, during which we will conduct a comprehensive review of the best available scientific and commercial information. In such cases, we conclude the status review with a finding published in the Federal Register as to whether or not the petitioned action is warranted within 12 months of receipt of the petition. Because the finding at the 12-month stage is based on a thorough review of the available information, as compared to the more limited scope of review at the 90-day stage, a “may be warranted” finding does not prejudge the outcome of the status review.

        Under the ESA, a listing determination may address a species, which is defined to also include any subspecies and, for vertebrate species, any distinct population segment (DPS) which interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). A joint NMFS-U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (jointly, “the Services”) policy clarifies the agencies' interpretation of the phrase “distinct population segment” for the purposes of listing, delisting, and reclassifying a species under the ESA (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996). A species, subspecies, or DPS is “endangered” if it is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and “threatened” if it is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range (16 U.S.C. 1532(6) and (20)). Pursuant to the ESA and our implementing regulations, we determine whether species are threatened or endangered based on any one or a combination of the following factors: (1) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (2) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and (5) any other natural or manmade factors affecting the species' continued existence (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1), 50 CFR 424.11(c)).
        ESA implementing regulations define “substantial information” in the context of reviewing a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species as the amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted (50 CFR 424.14(b)). In evaluating whether substantial information is contained in a petition, the Secretary must consider whether the petition: (1) Clearly indicates the administrative measure recommended and gives the scientific and any common name of the species involved; (2) contains detailed narrative justification for the recommended measure, describing, based on available information, past and present numbers and distribution of the species involved and any threats faced by the species; (3) provides information regarding the status of the species over all or a significant portion of its range; and (4) is accompanied by the appropriate supporting documentation in the form of bibliographic references, reprints of pertinent publications, copies of reports or letters from authorities, and maps (50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)).
        At the 90-day stage, we evaluate the petitioners' request based upon the information in the petition, including its references and the information readily available in our files. We do not conduct additional research and we do not solicit information from parties outside the agency to help us in evaluating the petition. We will accept the petitioners' sources and characterizations of the information presented if they appear to be based on accepted scientific principles, unless we have specific information in our files indicating the petition's information is incorrect, unreliable, obsolete, or otherwise irrelevant to the requested action. Information that is susceptible to more than one interpretation or that is contradicted by other available information will not be dismissed at the 90-day finding stage, so long as it is reliable and a reasonable person would conclude it supports the petitioners' assertions. Conclusive information indicating the species may meet the ESA's requirements for listing is not required to make a positive 90-day finding. We will not conclude that a lack of specific information negates a positive 90-day finding if a reasonable person would conclude that the uncertainty from the lack of information suggests an extinction risk of concern for the species at issue.
        To make a 90-day finding on a petition to list a species, we evaluate whether the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating the subject species may be either threatened or endangered, as defined by the ESA. First, we evaluate whether the information presented in the petition, along with the information readily available in our files, indicates that the petitioned entity constitutes a “species” eligible for listing under the ESA. Next, we evaluate whether the information indicates that the species faces an extinction risk that is cause for concern; this may be indicated in information expressly discussing the species' status and trends, or in information describing impacts and threats to the species. We evaluate any information on specific demographic factors pertinent to evaluating extinction risk for the species (e.g., population abundance and trends, productivity, spatial structure, age structure, sex ratio, diversity, current and historical range, habitat integrity or fragmentation), and the potential contribution of identified demographic risks to extinction risk for the species. We then evaluate the potential links between these demographic risks and the causative impacts and threats identified in section 4(a)(1).
        Information presented on impacts or threats should be specific to the species and should reasonably suggest that one or more of these factors may be operative threats that act or have acted on the species to the point that it may warrant protection under the ESA. Broad statements about generalized threats to the species, or identification of factors that could negatively impact a species, do not constitute substantial information indicating that listing may be warranted. We look for information indicating that not only is the particular species exposed to a factor, but that the species may be responding in a negative fashion; then we assess the potential significance of that negative response.

        Many petitions identify risk classifications made by non-governmental organizations, such as the International Union on the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the American Fisheries Society, or NatureServe, as evidence of extinction risk for a species. Risk classifications by other organizations or made under other Federal or state statutes may be informative, but the classification alone does not provide the rationale for a positive 90-day finding under the ESA. For example, as explained by NatureServe, their assessments of a species' conservation status do “not constitute a recommendation by NatureServe for listing under the U.S. Endangered Species Act” because NatureServe assessments “have different criteria, evidence requirements, purposes and taxonomic coverage than government lists of endangered and threatened species, and therefore these two types of lists should not be expected to coincide” (http://www.natureserve.org/prodServices/statusAssessment.jsp). Thus, when a petition cites such classifications, we will evaluate the source of information that the classification is based upon in light of the standards on extinction risk and impacts or threats discussed above.
        Distribution and Life History of the Pinto Abalone

        The pinto abalone is a marine gastropod mollusc and a member of the family Haliotidae and the genus Haliotis. Of the seven species of abalone found along the west coast of North America (Geiger, 1999), pinto abalone have the broadest latitudinal range extending from Sitka Island, Alaska to Baja California, Mexico (Campbell, 2000), and it is the predominant abalone found in Washington and Alaska, and in British Columbia, Canada. Two subspecies of pinto abalone have been recognized by taxonomists: the northern form (Haliotis kamtschatkana kamtschatkana) is distributed from Alaska south to Point Conception, California; and the southern form, or “threaded abalone” (Haliotis kamtschatkana assimilis) is distributed from central California to Turtle Bay in Baja California, Mexico (Geiger, 1999).

        The pinto abalone's muscular foot is tan and is used to adhere to hard substrate and for locomotion. The epipodium (the circular fringe of skin around the foot) and tentacles are mottled yellow to dark tan with vertical banding patterns. The underside of the foot is pearly white. The outer surface of the shell is characterized by irregular lumps, mottled red and/or green coloration, and 3-6 raised, open respiratory pores. Paralleling the respiratory pores is a deep groove (Stevick, 2010).

        Pinto abalone occur in intertidal and subtidal habitats (0-20m depth, most commonly 0-10m depth; Rothaus et al., 2008) that vary with respect to exposure and contain hard substrate (bedrock and boulders/cobble) with ample quantities of benthic diatoms, and micro- and macro-algae. Pinto abalone are found in areas with little freshwater influence (salinity ≥ 30 parts per thousand), and can tolerate wide ranges in temperature, from 2 to 24 degrees Celsius, based on laboratory experiments (COSEWIC, 2009).

        Pinto abalone exhibit separate sexes and are thought to reach sexual maturity at sizes ranging between 50-70 mm shell length, which correspond to ages ranging between 2 to 5 years (Rothaus et al., 2008; COSEWIC, 2009). Adults cluster in spawning aggregations and broadcast sperm or eggs into the water sometime between spring and late summer (Campbell et al., 1992; Stevick, 2010). This type of spawning strategy depends on densely aggregated adults (e.g., within 1-2 meters of conspecifics) to achieve the high gamete densities needed for successful fertilization (Davis, 1996; Babcock and Keesing, 1999). Larvae continue to develop in the water column over a 5- to 10-day period (perhaps up to 13 days at cooler temperatures) before settling on to hard substrate in water that is slightly deeper than where spawning adults aggregate (Rothaus et al., 2008; COSEWIC, 2009). This relatively short dispersive phase combined with hydrodynamic conditions during the time of spawning may limit dispersal distances (Bouma, 2007). Once settled onto rocky substrata, typically encrusted with coralline algae, pinto abalone juveniles consume benthic diatoms, bacterial films, and microalgae (COSEWIC, 2009). Adults feed on benthic macroalgae, including drift kelp (COSEWIC, 2009). Growth rates can vary depending on food availability, water temperature, and other environmental factors (COSEWIC, 2009). Pinto abalone are long-lived (approximately 20-50 years) and reach a maximum shell length of 14 to 16.5 cm (Shepherd et al., 2000; Rothaus et al., 2008). Pinto abalone are preyed upon by a wide variety of marine predators including sea stars, fishes, octopus, the southern sea otter, river otters and Cancer crabs.
        Status and Abundance Trends of the Pinto Abalone

        The pinto abalone has been a target species for recreational and/or commercial fisheries in Alaska, British Columbia, Washington, and California. A full discussion of the impacts of fisheries on pinto abalone populations is discussed in the Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes listing factor section below. In summary, fisheries-dependent information suggests declines ranging between 80-99 percent throughout portions of the species' range (Woodby et al., 2000; Jamieson, 1999; Rogers-Bennett, 2007).

        Fishery-independent information from Alaska, British Columbia, Washington, and California corroborate the declining trends suggested by landings data. Qualitative observations during dive surveys conducted in Southeastern Alaska from 1988-1999, suggest a continued, steady decline in pinto abalone densities (Woodby et al., 2000). In British Columbia, fishery-independent surveys confirmed that natural stock rebuilding did not occur after fishery closure in 1990 and some populations further declined (Campbell, 2000; COSEWIC, 2009). Densities of mature pinto abalone on the central coast of British Columbia and in the Queen Charlotte Islands have declined by approximately 80-90 percent since 1978 (COSEWIC 2009). In Washington, fishery-independent surveys at index stations in the San Juan Archipelago indicate that pinto abalone abundance has declined by 83 percent, density has declined from 0.18 to 0.05 abalone per meter squared overall, and mean shell length has increased, suggesting recruitment failure (Rothaus et al., 2008; Essington et al., 2011). There is very little information on population status of pinto abalone in Oregon (Rogers-Bennett 2007), and the petitioners suspect that they have never occurred in abundances large enough to support fishing activity there. In California, comparison of pinto abalone numbers in the early 1970s to the 1999-2003 period at three index sites in northern California showed a decline of 99 percent, (Rogers-Bennett, 2007) and the species is currently rare throughout California (Rogers-Bennett et al., 2002). In Mexico, current-day abalone landings range between 350-400 metric tons per year, an order of magnitude lower than catches recorded in the mid-1900s. The incidental collection of the southern subspecies of pinto abalone in the Mexican fishery is unknown as is the species' status and abundance trends.
        Analysis of the Petitions
        The two petitions request the same action, to list the pinto abalone as endangered or threatened under the ESA and to designate critical habitat for the species. In addition, NRDC requested the following alternative to listing the species throughout its range:
        “In the alternative, NMFS should list the southern subspecies of pinto abalone as endangered, and identify distinct population segments (DPSs) of the northern subspecies of pinto abalone and list such DPSs as endangered or threatened.”
        The ESA allows for the listing of species and subspecies of invertebrates, but does not allow for listing of invertebrate DPSs. Thus, NMFS does not have the authority to list DPSs of pinto abalone or to list DPSs of either of its two recognized subspecies, as requested by the NRDC.
        The petitions contain similar information on the species, including the taxonomy, species description, geographic distribution, habitat, population status and trends, and factors contributing to the species' decline. Both petitioners identified historical overfishing, current low densities resulting in low recruitment rates, and poaching as the primary factors contributing to the decline of pinto abalone. The petitioners state that predation, inadequate state fishing regulations, climate change, and ocean acidification also pose serious threats to the species' persistence.
        In the following sections, we analyze the information presented by the petitions and readily available in our files regarding the specific ESA section 4(a)(1) factors (hereafter, “listing factors”) affecting the population's risk of extinction.
        The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of the Species' Habitat or Range
        Both petitions suggest that increases in atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases that have occurred since the industrial era began in the 1700s pose a serious emerging threat to pinto abalone. Specifically, the petitioners highlight impacts of the following stressors that are linked to greenhouse gas emissions: increasing sea surface temperatures, increased incursions of low salinity water into coastal areas (Essington et al., 2011), sea level rise, and ocean acidification. The petitioners include greenhouse gas emissions and its associated impacts under different listing factors. The NRDC discusses greenhouse gas emissions and associated impacts in the
          Other Natural or Manmade Factors listing factor section, while CBD includes discussions of this threat under this listing factor, and the Disease and Predation and Inadequate Regulatory Mechanisms listing factor sections. We will summarize the information presented by the petitioners and in our files only here, but recognize that climate change and its associated impacts could also be included in the Other Natural or Manmade Factors section.

        Direct impacts of water quality parameters associated with climate change on pinto abalone were evident in a study conducted by Bouma (2007), whereby larvae experienced higher mortality rates at decreased salinities (<26 practical salinity units) and elevated water temperatures (>21° Celsius). Recent studies by Crim et al. (2011) and Friedman et al. (2012) suggest that elevated levels of dissolved CO2 in seawater result in negative impacts to shell development and survival of pinto abalone larvae. In addition, elevated levels of dissolved CO2 and low pH have been observed in coastal areas along the coasts of British Columbia and Washington (Feely et al., 2012; Freidman et al., 2012), suggesting that pinto abalone populations could be currently experiencing the effects of ocean acidification. The petitioners are also concerned about the simultaneous effects of multiple stressors that are associated with climate change. For example, reddish-rayed abalone (H. coccoradiata) experienced lower than expected shell calcification rates when exposed to elevated temperatures and low pH than those observed when larvae were exposed to each stressor in isolation (Byrne et al., 2011). Indirect impacts from climate-mediated habitat changes may reduce the availability of food sources and habitats for pinto abalone, especially in the form of kelp beds and coralline algae (Tomascik and Holmes, 2003; Rogers-Bennett, 2007; COSEWIC, 2009; Rogers-Bennett et al., 2011).
        We conclude that the information in the petitions and in our files suggests that climate change and its associated impacts, especially low salinity, elevated water temperatures, and ocean acidification may already be impacting pinto abalone populations in some areas and may impede the continued existence of the species in to the future. However, additional information regarding predicted rates of change in these parameters by area, including error terms, are necessary to evaluate future impacts to pinto abalone survival. The information provided on the indirect effects of climate change on the availability of food sources and suitable settlement habitat is insufficient to evaluate whether these factors may be reducing the quality or quantity of pinto abalone habitat enough such that listing may be warranted.
        Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes

        Information from both petitions suggests that fisheries have contributed historically to population declines of pinto abalone throughout their range. Pinto abalone were harvested in commercial fisheries in Alaska, British Columbia, and California, until their closures in 1995, 1990 and 1996, respectively. In Alaska, the fishery began in the mid-1960s and operated initially with very few restrictions (Woodby et al., 2000). As landings fell dramatically in the early 1980s, a subsequent rise in the ex-vessel value ensued, possibly leading to increased fishing pressure that was not offset by increasingly stringent catch guidelines and minimum size limits (Woodby et al., 2000; Herbert, 2011). As a result, catch-per-unit-effort fell by 90 percent between the peak of the fishery in 1979 (172 metric tons) and 1995, the last year of the fishery (Woodby et al., 2000). The commercial fishery in British Columbia began in the early 1900s with little or no regulation. The fishery was small and sporadic until the 1950s, when effort increased due to the introduction of SCUBA gear and other improved fishing technologies (e.g. freezing) (Muse 1998). Landings peaked in the 1970's at over 400 metric tons per year (Sloan and Breen, 1988; Campbell, 2000) and by the mid-1980s, landings declined by roughly 88 percent (Jamieson, 1999). Despite regulations such as limited entry, quotas, size limits, and total allowable catch, abalone depletion continued and the fishery was closed in 1990 (Muse 1998) due to stock declines and conservation concerns (Jamieson, 2001). Commercial abalone fishing in California dates back to the 1950s, when Chinese-Americans began an intensive fishery in rocky intertidal areas. The fishery extended in to subtidal areas with the advent of SCUBA in the 1900s. Landings ranged between about 1,800-2,200 metric tons annually from 1952-1968, declined rapidly through the early 1980s by an order of magnitude, and gradually and steadily declined another order of magnitude until the fishery closed in 1996 (CDFW 2005). Pinto abalone were not targeted by the California fishery; however, approximately 21,000 animals belonging to the southern subspecies were removed between 1969-1995 (Rogers-Bennett et al., 2002). Pinto abalone declines of approximately 90 percent were estimated using historical data (both fishery-dependent and -independent data) to back-calculate historical baseline abundances (Rogers-Bennett et al., 2002). In Mexico, abalone fishing began at the end of the 19th century, peaked in the mid-20th century at 6,000 metric tons of meat per year, and currently ranges between 350 to 400 metric tons per year (OECD, 2012). The current-day, small-scale fishery is located on the western coast of the Baja California Peninsula and includes green (H. fulgens), pink (H. corrugata), black (H. cracherodii), white (H. sorenseni), and red (H. rufescens) abalone (OECD, 2012). This fishery is primarily based upon two species, the green and pink abalone, which together represent over 95 percent of the total catch. The Mexican government classified this fishery as deteriorated in 1996 largely because of declines in green abalone populations. Although the southern subspecies of pinto abalone is not mentioned as being a part of this fishery, it is likely that the species has been incidentally captured in Mexico.

        Recreational and/or subsistence fisheries were conducted in British Columbia, Washington and California until their closures in 1990, 1994 and 1997, respectively. Unfortunately, annual harvest information for these recreational fisheries was either not recorded or is unavailable (Rothaus et al., 2008). Currently, Alaska permits subsistence and personal use fishing with a catch limit of up to five pinto abalone per day and a minimum shell length of 3.5 inches. In Oregon, a recreational fishery remains with limits of one abalone per day, per person, and five per year (ODFW UD).
        The petitioners assert that pinto abalone populations in many areas throughout their range have not recovered despite commercial and recreational fishery closures and more restrictive regulations for remaining subsistence, personal use and recreational fisheries. The petitioners argue that historical fishing reduced pinto abalone densities to levels that were below those necessary for successful fertilization in many areas.

        We conclude that the petitions and information in our files present substantial evidence that fisheries throughout a large portion of the species' range had an impact on the viability of pinto abalone populations through density reduction and possibly subsequent reproductive failure that may continue today in some areas. This information suggests that the impacts of historical fishing may continue to affect the continued existence of pinto abalone populations, despite the fact that the threat itself has been removed. To better evaluate these continued impacts, more fishery-independent information on abalone density, size distributions, and nearest neighbor distances is necessary. To further evaluate the potential impact of the current subsistence, personal use, recreational, and commercial fisheries in Alaska, Oregon, and Mexico, more information regarding the density, size distributions, and nearest neighbor distances of pinto abalone populations in areas that overlap with fishing effort is necessary.
        Disease or Predation
        The CBD petition briefly mentions that pinto abalone are susceptible to a protist parasite in aquaculture environments and asserts that diseases and parasites do pose risks to abalone in general, especially as ocean temperatures rise due to climate change impacts. The petition does not provide any additional information to support that disease is a factor affecting the species' continued existence such that listing may be warranted. Thus, the available information is insufficient to evaluate if disease may be affecting the continued existence of pinto abalone.
        The petitioners list crabs, octopus, and sea stars as major predators of pinto abalone (Griffiths and Gosselin 2008). The NRDC believes that pinto abalone face a high level of predation by sea otters in Alaska based on information contained within Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG, 2013). The NRDC does not believe that sea otters represent the main cause of pinto abalone declines in other locations because: (1) Pinto abalone populations are still declining in areas, especially in British Columbia, where sea otters are not present; and (2) the persistence of large animals in Washington (most animals are > 100 mm shell length) suggests that predation by sea otters (which selectively prey on large abalone) is not having a large impact on populations there.
        We conclude that the NRDC petition and information in our files present substantial evidence that predation may be having an impact on the continued existence of pinto abalone in some areas of the range (i.e. by sea otters in Alaska), but not others. Additional information regarding sea otter abundance (historical, present, and predicted future), predation rates, and prey composition from subtidal areas (25 meters depth) up into the intertidal zone in Southeastern Alaska and Washington is necessary to determine whether sea otter predation is contributing to the decline of pinto abalone populations.
        Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
        The petitions assert that the inadequacy of existing Federal, state, or international regulatory mechanisms has contributed to the continued decline of pinto abalone populations throughout a large portion of their range. The petitioners contend that despite Federal, state, and international fisheries' closures approximately two decades ago, a Federal threatened listing in Canada under the Species at Risk Act in 1999 (and upgrading to endangered status in 2009; COESWIC, 2009), addition to the NOAA Species of Concern List in 2004, the development of recovery plans in Canada and California (NRAP, 2003; CDFW 2005), an abalone rebuilding strategy implemented in Mexico in 2000 (OECD, 2012), and stricter measures regulating subsistence, personal use, recreational and commercial fisheries where they remain, pinto abalone populations continue to decline. The petitioners assert that this continued decline is likely the result of multiple stressors (i.e. historical overharvest, current harvest, discard mortality, poaching, and predation by sea otters) that have occurred or are occurring in different combinations, and acting in synergistic ways depending on location, to further reduce densities and the reproductive potential of remaining pinto abalone populations. The petitioners provide evidence to indicate that four of these stressors, historical overharvest, current harvest, discard mortality, and poaching, may be occurring because of inadequate past and present regulations and lack of enforcement of those regulations by state, Federal, and international governing bodies.

        The states invoked increasingly protective measures during their commercial fisheries (e.g, bag limits, size limits, quotas, limited entry) to safeguard pinto abalone populations, but according to the petitioners these measures were either not restrictive enough, were not followed or enforced, and/or came too late to prevent the species' continued decline even after the fisheries were closed. In early 2012, Alaska closed its sport fishery and limited the subsistence and personal use fisheries to five abalone per day with a minimum shell length of 3.5 inches. Pinto abalone may only be collected by hand, using snorkel gear, and using abalone irons; the use of compressed air has been prohibited since 1997 (Herbert, pers. comm.). The 3.5-inch size limit failed to prevent stock collapse in the Alaska commercial fishery before its closure (Woodby et al., 2000). The NRDC petition suggests that this size limit may be too low to sustain current-day subsistence and personal use fishing pressure in addition to other stressors such as predation by sea otters and discard mortality. The NRDC believes that discard mortality of smaller pinto abalone (many abalone are damaged during harvesting) by abalone fishers is a problem in areas where abalone harvest is legal.
        Both petitions state that poaching has threatened and continues to plague pinto abalone populations throughout their range. In the Pacific Northwest, pinto abalone are particularly susceptible to poaching because they aggregate in relatively shallow waters, they occur in remote and largely unpatrolled coastlines and their market value remains high. Authorities in British Columbia have reported 30 abalone poaching convictions between 1997 and 2006, and they estimate that this only reflects a small percentage (10-20 percent) of the actual poaching activity (COSEWIC, 2009). The Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD, 2012) reports that even though the abalone rebuilding plan in Mexico is entirely focused on controlling fishing effort to address fishery decline, disease, climate change, predation, poaching, and a lack of fishery surveillance by the Mexican government also threaten the recovery of the fishery. A number of cases involving the illegal trade of federally protected abalone from Mexico into the United States and Canada (white and black in the United States and pinto abalone in Canada) have occurred over the last decade (Zetwo, pers. communication), indicating that existing regulatory mechanisms in Mexico have not eliminated risks to pinto abalone posed by poaching.

        The CBD petition asserts that existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to address the threats to pinto abalone posed by greenhouse gas emissions. CBD argues that in the United States, domestic laws that protect the environment are only partially being implemented and therefore are not sufficient to reverse predicted increases in greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, and will merely slow the rate at which predicted increases will occur. On the international stage, emission reduction targets have been set and pledges have been made at a number of world conferences, but many countries, including the United States, have not met their reduction goals. The petition does not discuss any specifics regarding what levels of greenhouse gas emissions would adequately protect pinto abalone populations from the impacts of climate change, or the timeframe over which reductions would need to occur in order to safeguard pinto abalone populations. Thus, it is unclear the level and extent to which existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to protect pinto abalone from this specific threat.
        The CBD petition contends that inadequate regulation of commercial abalone farms and captive propagation and enhancement programs for restoring pinto abalone populations pose risks to wild pinto abalone populations including: disease-spread, loss of genetic diversity, and reduced fitness. However the petition does not provide any specific information that validates their concerns, such as examples of how diseases spread by land-based facilities, or that the outplanting of captive-raised animals that may be genetically or behaviorally unfit has led to the decline of pinto abalone populations. The petition also does not explain how inadequate Federal and state regulation of these programs has led to the species' decline.
        Based on the information in the petitions and in our files as discussed above, we conclude that existing regulatory mechanisms may be inadequate to ensure sustainable fishing, minimize incidental collection, and sufficiently reduce or eliminate poaching of pinto abalone populations. To further evaluate the adequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, more information is needed regarding the effectiveness of recent fishing restrictions and the level of poaching occurring in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. We conclude that while the information presented in the CBD petition suggests that regulations regarding greenhouse gas emissions may not be adequate to reverse the predicted rising trend in greenhouse gas emissions, there is great uncertainty regarding the population-level impacts of climate change to pinto abalone and the adaptability of pinto abalone to climate change effects occurring over long time scales. Therefore, the available information is not sufficient to determine if inadequate regulation of greenhouse gas emissions may be threatening pinto abalone populations such that listing may be warranted. We conclude that the CBD petition does not present sufficient information to determine whether inadequate regulation of abalone farms or captive propagation and enhancement programs are impacting the continued existence of pinto abalone populations.
        Other Natural or Manmade Factors

        The NRDC petition discusses the direct and indirect impacts of climate change under this listing factor in their petition. We have reviewed the information in the petition and in our files under the listing factor entitled The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of the Species' Habitat or Range (see above).

        The CBD petition discusses the threat imposed by low pinto abalone densities and resulting reproductive failure on pinto abalone populations under this listing factor. We have reviewed the information in the petition and in our files under the listing factor entitled Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes (see above).
        Petition Finding
        After reviewing the information contained in both petitions, as well as information readily available in our files, we conclude the petitions present substantial scientific information indicating the petitioned action of listing the pinto abalone as a threatened or endangered may be warranted. Therefore, in accordance with section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA and NMFS' implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.14(b)(3)), we will commence a status review of the species. Following completion of the status review, we will determine whether the species is in danger of extinction (endangered) or likely to become so within the foreseeable future (threatened) throughout all or a significant portion of its range. We now initiate this review, and thus, the pinto abalone is considered to be a candidate species (50 CFR 424.15(b)). Within 12 months of the receipt of the NRDC petition (July 1, 2013), we will make a finding as to whether listing the species as endangered or threatened is warranted as required by section 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA. If listing the species is warranted, we will publish a proposed rule and solicit public comments before developing and publishing a final rule.
        Information Solicited
        To ensure that the status review is based on the best available scientific and commercial data, we are soliciting information relevant to whether pinto abalone is threatened or endangered. Specifically, we are soliciting published and unpublished information in the following areas: (1) Long-term trends in abundance, distribution, size ranges, and nearest neighbor distances, especially in areas where fishing pressure, sea otter predation, and poaching occurs; (2) potential factors for decline now and in the future, especially overharvesting, poaching, natural predation (especially by southern sea otters), disease, climate change, and ocean acidification; (3) southern sea otter population status, predation rates, and prey composition in Alaska and Washington from coastal intertidal areas to 25 meters depth; (4) population status in Mexico; (5) factors important for management of ongoing subsistence, personal use, and recreational fisheries; (6) current estimates of population size and available habitat; (7) data on various life history parameters including, but not limited: to size/age at maturity, fecundity, length of larval stage, and larval dispersal dynamics; (8) enforcement information from Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California, and Mexico regarding the frequency, severity, and location of poaching incidents; (9) projections on population growth or decline and risk of extinction considering the impacts of stressors; and (10) ongoing or planned efforts to protect and restore the species and its habitat.
        We also request information on critical habitat for pinto abalone. Specifically, we request information on the physical and biological habitat features that are essential to the conservation of the species and identification of habitat areas that include these essential physical and biological features. Essential features include, but are not limited to: (1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal behavior; (2) food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements; (3) cover or shelter; (4) sites for reproduction and development of offspring; and (5) habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the historical, geographical, and ecological distributions of the species (50 CFR 424.12). For habitat areas potentially qualifying as critical habitat, we request information describing: (1) The activities that affect the habitat areas or could be affected by the designation; and (2) the economic impacts, impacts to national security, or other relevant impacts of additional requirements of management measures likely to result from the designation.

        We request that all information be accompanied by: (1) Supporting documentation such as maps, raw data with associated documentation, bibliographic references, or reprints of pertinent publications; and (2) the submitter's name, mailing address, email address, and any association, institution, or business that the person represents.
        References Cited

        A complete list of references is available upon request from the NMFS West Coast Regional Office (see ADDRESSES).

          Authority:

          The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

          Dated: November 12, 2013.
          Samuel D. Rauch, III.,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, performing the functions and duties of the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2013-27553 Filed 11-15-13; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD
        36 CFR Parts 1193 and 1194
        RIN 3014-AA22
        Telecommunications Act Accessibility Guidelines; Electronic and Information Technology Accessibility Standards

          AGENCY:
          Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board.

          ACTION:
          Notice of meeting.

          SUMMARY:
          The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board) has established a Telecommunications and Electronic and Information Technology Advisory Committee (Committee) to assist it in revising and updating accessibility guidelines for telecommunications products and accessibility standards for electronic and information technology. This notice announces the dates, times, and location of two upcoming committee meetings, one of which will be a conference call and the other will be an in-person meeting.

          DATES:
          The conference call is scheduled for January 2, 2008 (beginning at 1 p.m. and ending at 4 p.m. Eastern time). The in-person meeting will take place on January 7-9, 2008 (beginning at 8:30 a.m. and ending at 6 p.m. each day).

          ADDRESSES:

          Individuals can participate in the conference call on January 2, 2008 by dialing the teleconference numbers which will be posted on the Access Board's Web site at http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/update-index.htm. The in-person meeting on January 7-9, 2008 will be held at the National Science Foundation. All attendees should go to 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230 to pick up security passes and then go to 4121 Wilson Boulevard, Stafford Place II, Room 555, Arlington, VA 22230 for the meeting.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Timothy Creagan, Office of Technical and Information Services, Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, 1331 F Street, NW., suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004-1111. Telephone number: 202-272-0016 (Voice); 202-272-0082 (TTY). Electronic mail address: creagan@access-board.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board) established the Telecommunications and Electronic and Information Technology Advisory Committee (Committee) to assist it in revising and updating accessibility guidelines for telecommunications products and accessibility standards for electronic and information technology. The next committee meetings will focus on outstanding issues which have not yet been resolved. The agendas, instructions (including information on captioning), and dial in telephone numbers for the in-person meeting, as well as for the conference call are available at http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/update-index.htm. Notices of future meetings will be published in the Federal Register.

        The committee may cancel the conference call before it is scheduled to take place depending on the needs of the committee and its progress in discussing and resolving outstanding issues. If the conference call is canceled, a notice will be posted at http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/update-index.htm. The conference call is open to the public and interested persons can dial in and communicate their views during public comment periods scheduled during the conference call. Participants may call in from any location of their choosing.

        The in-person meeting on January 7-9, 2008 is open to the public and interested persons can attend the meeting and communicate their views during public comment periods scheduled on each day of the meeting. The in-person meeting site is accessible to individuals with disabilities. Sign language interpreters, an assistive listening system, and real-time captioning will be provided. For the comfort of other participants, persons attending committee meetings are requested to refrain from using perfume, cologne, and other fragrances. Due to security measures at the National Science Foundation, all attendees must notify the Access Board's receptionist at (202) 272-0007 or receptionist@access-board.gov by December 21, 2007 of their intent to attend the in-person meeting. This notification is required for expeditious entry into the facility and will enable the Access Board to provide additional information as needed.

          Lawrence W. Roffee,
          Executive Director.

      [FR Doc. E7-24506 Filed 12-17-07; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 8150-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 679
        [Docket No. 080310410-8415-01]
        RIN 0648-AW54
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Revisions to the Pollock Trip Limit Regulations in the Gulf of Alaska

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes to revise pollock trip limit regulations to prohibit a catcher vessel from landing more than 300,000 lb (136 mt) of unprocessed pollock during a calendar day. NMFS also proposes to prohibit a catcher vessel from landing a cumulative amount of unprocessed pollock from any Gulf of Alaska (GOA) reporting area that exceeds 300,000 lb multiplied by the number of calendar days the pollock fishery is open to directed fishing in a season. The objective of this proposed rule is to prevent catcher vessels from circumventing the intent of current trip limit regulations when making deliveries of pollock. Amending the current trip limit regulation to limit legal opportunities for a vessel to exceed 300,000 lb of pollock caught in a day, would continue to disperse catches of pollock in a manner that is consistent with the intent of Steller sea lion protection measures in the GOA.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received by November 19, 2008.

          ADDRESSES:
          Send comments to Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. You may submit comments, identified by “RIN 0648-AW54,” by any one of the following methods:

          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal website at http://www.regulations.gov.
          • Mail: P. O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802.
          • Fax: (907) 586-7557.
          • Hand delivery to the Federal Building: 709 West 9th Street, Room 420A, Juneau, AK.

          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 (e.g., name, address) 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 portable document file (pdf) formats only.

          Copies of the Categorical Exclusion (CE) and the Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RIR/IRFA) prepared for this action are available by mail from NMFS, Alaska Region, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668, Attn: Ellen Sebastian, Records Officer; in person at NMFS, Alaska Region, 709 West 9th Street, Room 420A, Juneau, AK; or via the Internet at the NMFS Alaska Region website at http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Jeff Hartman, 907-586-7442.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP), pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Regulations implementing the FMP appear at 50 CFR part 679. General regulations that pertain to U.S. fisheries appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600. NMFS manages the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) groundfish fisheries under the FMP. The FMP also authorizes the use of fishery management measures to protect marine mammals, particularly for species that have been listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
        Regulations that establish current trip limits at § 679.7(b)(2), were implemented over several years in response to ESA consultations on Steller sea lions. The 1999 Steller sea lion protection measures, implemented by emergency interim rule (64 FR 3437, January 22, 1999), set trip limits for the Western and Central GOA. In 2001, NMFS issued a Biological Opinion (BiOp) that determined the groundfish fisheries managed under the protection measures were unlikely to jeopardize the continued existence of the western distinct population segment of Steller sea lions or adversely modify or destroy designated critical habitat. After the BiOp was issued, additional rulemaking implemented the current pollock trip limits across the entire GOA (67 FR 956, January 8, 2002 and 68 FR 204, January 2, 2003).
        Pollock trip limits were intended to protect Steller sea lions in part by temporally dispersing the pollock fishery in the GOA, thus reducing competition for prey species between the fishery and Steller sea lions. Trip limits were to accomplish this by decreasing daily pollock catches in areas that were in close proximity to foraging Steller sea lions.
        Trip limits regulate the amount of a species that may be landed by a vessel during a fishing trip. Trip limits often are specific to a management, regulatory or reporting area; fishing gear type or programs (such as exempted fishing or the Community Development Quota Program); and specific intervals of time during a year or season.
        In developing the current trip limits, NMFS analyzed several alternative protection measures for temporally dispersing daily catches of pollock and concluded that the most effective and least burdensome approach was to limit pollock landings for a fishing trip and to set the trip limit at 300,000 lb. That amount would allow larger catcher vessels to fully utilize available space in a hold, while still reducing landings that were frequently exceeding 300,000 lb per day. NMFS based the limit on a trip because trawl fishing trips in the GOA were typically completed within a calendar day, and enforcement issues existed with applying a landing limit based on a daily or weekly interval. A daily limit was deemed to be impractical because at the time this option was considered in 2002, NMFS did not receive accurate data on groundfish catch by each vessel in a sufficient time to determine whether a daily catch limit had been reached to prevent further fishing on that same day. Catch data was reported by paper fish tickets, that could take several days to become available to NMFS. This delay also prevented the use of a weekly landing limit. Presently, when a landing occurs, it is quickly reported electronically and made available to NMFS allowing for a much shorter turn over for enforcement of daily landing limits.
        Under the current regulations, pollock trip limits are to be apply to any catcher vessel that retains pollock in the GOA at any time during a fishing trip. Trawl catcher vessels are the only vessels that may fish in the directed pollock fishery and have sufficient catching and retention capacity to be affected by GOA pollock trip limits. For the purpose of calculating retained catch, a fishing trip is defined at § 679.2 as ending at the time that all fish or fish products are offloaded. An offload is a partial or complete landing of unprocessed catch from a catcher vessel to a processing plant or tender. A vessel operator would not be in compliance with current regulations for pollock trip limits if the amount of pollock retained onboard a vessel exceeded 300,000 lb during a fishing trip between offloads.
        In 2005, the Council reviewed trawl landing data that demonstrated current pollock trip limits were not completely effective at restricting catches of pollock to 300,000 lb per day. The Council also received testimony from industry and a report from Council staff at their February 2005 meeting describing how some trawl catcher vessels were completing multiple trips in a day, or offloading to tenders to increase their daily pollock catch. If a vessel completed two fishing trips of 300,000 lb each in a day, or delivered 300,000 lb to a tender and landed 300,000 lb in the same a day to a processor, that vessel would be complying with regulation, while removing twice as much pollock. These practices were inconsistent with the Council's intention that only one trip per trawl vessel would be completed in a day, limiting the daily catch of pollock per vessel to 300,000 lb. Because the current trip limit is based on retention of pollock at any time during a fishing trip, the current regulations have allowed vessels to catch more than 300,000 lb in a day. Increasing fishing effort from these practices in 2005 also led to a 2,000 mt overage of the 5,000 mt seasonal pollock quota. The Council did not recommend any changes to pollock trip limits in 2005, but requested that industry voluntarily restrict catches to 300,000 lb per vessel, per day.
        Between October and December of 2007 the Council again received testimony from vessel owners and reviewed updated catch data from NMFS. The Council concluded that the current pollock trip limit continued to be ineffective in dispersing catch of pollock among various reporting areas of the GOA. Representatives from the trawl catcher vessel sector reported that voluntary efforts to control pollock catches were not effective because vessels in the Western GOA were circumventing the intent of the trip limit by making more than one trip per calendar day, delivering more than 300,000 lb to a tender in a day, and towing cod ends to a tender that exceeded 300,000 lb at the point of landing. Catch data prepared by NMFS for the RIR/IRFA for this proposed rule confirmed that the trip limit regulation has not been fully effective because vessels in the GOA pollock fishery exceeded landings of 300,000 lb in a day, 241 times from 1999 to 2006.
        In December 2007, the Council recommended adding two new provisions to the current GOA trip limit regulation to resolve this problem. The first provision would add a daily landing limit at § 679.7(b)(2)(ii) for pollock by prohibiting a trawl catcher vessel from landing more than 300,000 lb of unprocessed pollock during a calendar day. The second provision would add a seasonal landing limit at § 679.7(b)(2)(iii), that would prohibit a trawl catcher vessel from landing a cumulative amount of pollock that exceeds 300,000 lb multiplied by the number of calendar days that the directed fishery is open.
        The daily landing limit would partially close the loophole in regulations that has allowed vessel operators to exceed the trip limit. The combination of a daily landing limit and a trip limit, however, could still allow some vessels to land well in excess of 300,000 lb of pollock per day.

        Trawl vessels that transit only a short distance to a processor for delivering pollock could exceed a daily landing of 300,000 lb in a 24-hour season opening, because a single 24-hour season opening overlaps with 2 calendar days (a season opening always begins at noon), and because groundfish offloads may be extended across one or more calendar days. For example, if the pollock season were to open for a 24-hour period at 12 noon on Monday (day 1), a vessel could catch 300,000 lb of pollock and complete the offload of all catch before midnight on day 1. That vessel could begin to fish in the evening of day 1, and start its second offload of 300,000 lb on Tuesday morning (day 2). Prior to the closing of the 24 hour period at 12 noon on Tuesday (day 2), the vessel could finish fishing a third trip for pollock, but return to port and complete its offload of pollock after 12 midnight on Wednesday (day 3). An offload can start on one calendar day, and end on a subsequent calendar day. Thus, in a 24-hour season opening with the proposed daily landing limit, a total of three calendar days multiplied by the daily landing limit of 300,000 lb of pollock could be delivered, for a total of 900,000 lb. Furthermore, in a 48-hour season opening, the proposed daily landing limit could allow a vessel to offload 4 x 300,000 lb, or 1,200,000 lb of pollock, and in a 72-hour opening, a vessel could offload 5 x 300,000 lb, or a total of 1,500,000 lb.
        The seasonal landing limit would prohibit a vessel operator from landing an amount of pollock that exceeds the daily landing limit multiplied by the number of calendar days that occur during the time period the directed fishery is open. In the case of a 24-hour opening that extends across two calendar days (for example, from noon on July 1 to noon on July 2), the seasonal landing limit combined with the daily landing limit and trip limit would allow a vessel to land no more than the daily landing limit of 300,000 lb multiplied by two (the number of calendar days), for a total of 600,000 lb.
        This proposed action would be consistent with the original intent of pollock trip limits to temporally and spatially disperse catches of pollock in the GOA. The daily landing limit portion of this proposed action would temporally disperse catches of pollock in the GOA by prohibiting operators of catcher vessels from exceeding 300,000 lb of pollock landed in a calendar day. The seasonal landing limit would temporally disperse pollock catches by constraining pollock vessels from exceeding an average daily catch of 300,000 lb of pollock over the period of a season, in a specific GOA regulatory area.
        The proposed action would also reduce the chance of exceeding the pollock total allowable catch (TAC) or a seasonal allocation of the pollock TAC. Implementing both a daily and seasonal landing limit to prohibit landing daily amounts of pollock in excess of 600,000 lb in a 24 hour period may also slow down the overall rate of pollock catch in a season opening. Particularly in years and reporting areas of high pollock abundance, both the daily and seasonal landing limits would slow removals from large capacity vessels that have previously landed more than 1,000,000 lb per day.
        This action would apply to vessels of all sizes and capacities in the GOA. For example, catcher vessels with larger capacity for catching and delivering pollock would no longer be able to bypass the original intent of pollock trip limits by practices such as delivering cod ends to a tender or processor, or making multiple landings per day. The RIR/IRFA for this action states that the number of times that larger trawl catcher vessels over 60 ft length overall (LOA) exceed a daily catch of 300,000 lb of pollock is consistently greater than small trawl catcher vessels (under 60 ft LOA), and the combination of day, trip, and seasonal landing limits included in this proposed action are more likely to reduce the amount of pollock caught per day for large than for small vessels. To compensate for constraining the amount of pollock that a catcher vessel may catch in a day, some of the 146 trawl vessels in the pollock fishery would require additional trips to catch the annual pollock TAC. The vessels that forego the amount of those landings in excess of 300,000 lb per day, would still remain available to all vessels to catch in additional fishing trips.
        NMFS would not need additional data to calculate or monitor compliance for daily or seasonal pollock landing limits. NMFS would use landings data entered by each shoreside, mothership or inshore floating processor in eLandings at the time a vessel offloads pollock to monitor compliance with the trip, daily, and seasonal landing limits. If a vessel exceeded the daily pollock landing limit, the amount of the overage would be detected by NOAA Office for Law Enforcement during an audit of pollock landings recorded in eLandings. Because a landing record is recorded at the end of an offload, any amount exceeding 300,000 lb in a day would be identified during a routine audit of landing records. NMFS would also have eLandings data to monitor compliance with the seasonal landing limit, by comparing the 300,000 lb per calendar day limit multiplied by the number of calendar days in the season opening, with a given vessel's cumulative amount of pollock landings in that season opening.
        The proposed action would apply to pollock caught in both the Federal waters of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and the adjacent State of Alaska waters (State waters) by Federally permitted vessels. Regulations on the daily and seasonal landing limits at § 679.7(b)(2)(ii) and (iii) would apply to reporting areas defined at § 679.2 and depicted in Figure 3 to part 679, and thus, encompasses pollock groundfish fishing in State waters. If the regulation were administered only in Federal waters, the unintended result would likely be to shift pollock catches and effort to State waters.
        A definition for “calendar day” would be added at § 679.2 to specify the interval of time in a day from 0001 hours Alaska local time to 2400 hours Alaska local time that a catcher vessel is prohibited from exceeding a daily pollock landing limit of 300,000 lb at § 679.7(b)(2)(ii). This definition also would be used to prohibit catcher vessels from landing a cumulative amount of unprocessed pollock harvested from any GOA reporting area during a directed fishery that exceeds the daily landing limit of 300,000 lb times the number of calendar days the directed fishery is open in a reporting area at § 679.7(b)(2)(iii).
        Regulations governing the prohibitions on pollock trip limits at § 679.7(b)(2) would be moved to § 679.7(b)(2)(i) to reorganize § 679.7(b)(2). The current regulatory text at § 679.7(b)(2) that includes the phrase “on board a vessel” would be moved from the beginning of the sentence to the middle of the sentence in § 679.7(b)(2)(i). Technical changes to § 679.7(b)(2), recommended by NOAA Office for Law Enforcement, are proposed to clarify the regulation. These proposed amendments do not change the content or meaning of the regulation.
        This rule also would revise Figure 3 to part 679, by increasing the accuracy of the geographic boundaries shown on the map and by changing the figure title from “Gulf of Alaska Statistical and Reporting” to read “Gulf of Alaska Reporting Areas.” The correction to the title is necessary because the Federal statistical areas are not visible in the figure or in the coordinates. A Federal statistical area is measured from 3 miles to 200 miles from shore. A Federal reporting area is measured from shore, including State waters, and extends to 200 miles from shore. The correction to the figure is necessary to more accurately depict these areas.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.

        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

        An IRFA was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, the reasons why it is being considered, and a statement of the objectives of and the legal basis for this action are included at the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble. A summary of the remainder of the IRFA follows. A copy of this analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
        The directly regulated entities for this proposed action are the members of the commercial fishing industry that operate groundfish trawl catcher vessels in the GOA. Under a conservative application of the Small Business Administration criterion and the best available data, there were seven small entities out of a total of 148 vessels in 2005, and four out of a total of 146 vessels in 2006, which would be directly regulated by the proposed action. To provide these estimates, earnings from all Alaskan fisheries for 2005 and 2006 were matched with the vessels that participated in the GOA pollock fishery for that year.
        In addition to the proposed alternative, the Council evaluated two other alternatives, which were rejected because they would be less effective than the preferred alternative to address the Council's problem statement. The no action alternative was rejected because it is not consistent with the intent of the original 1999 Steller sea lion protection measures. A second alternative considered and rejected was to limit the applicability of the preferred alternative to the Federal EEZ. Trawl pollock fisheries in the GOA are managed in the Federal EEZ by NMFS under the Gulf of Alaska Groundfish Management Plan, and within State waters by the State of Alaska. The alternative to apply daily and seasonal trip limits to only Federal EEZ would not encompass activities within State waters. As discussed in the RIR/IRFA for this action, the pollock resource and the fishery within the GOA occur both within Federal and State waters. Taking action in only one area of the GOA would limit the effectiveness of the action, since participants in the pollock trawl fishery would be free to move to the area without the trip limits. From 1999 to 2006, 60.6 percent of pollock was harvested in Federal waters and 39.4 percent in State waters. If this proposed action is implemented, Federal rules would be consistent with the corresponding action taken by the Alaska Board of Fisheries in November of 2007.
        The analysis did not identify any Federal rules that would duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule. This rule would impose no additional recordkeeping and reporting requirements on the effected vessels.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679
          Alaska, Fisheries.

          Dated: October 14, 2008.
          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 679 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 679—FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA

        1. The authority citation for part 679 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 773 et seq.; 1801 et seq.; 3631 et seq.; Pub. L.108-447.

        2. In § 679.2 add a definition for “Calendar day” in alphabetical order to read as follows:

          § 679.2
          Definitions.

            Calendar day means a 24-hour period that starts at 0001 hours Alaska local time and ends at 2400 hours Alaska local time.

          3. In § 679.7, revise paragraph (b)(2) to read as follows:

          § 679.7
          Prohibitions.

          (b) * * *
          (2) Catcher vessel harvest limit for pollock. (i) Retain more than 300,000 lb (136 mt) of unprocessed pollock on board a catcher vessel at any time during a fishing trip as defined at § 679.2;
          (ii) Land more than 300,000 lb (136 mt) of unprocessed pollock harvested in any GOA reporting area to any processor or tender vessel during a calendar day as defined at § 679.2; and
          (iii) Land a cumulative amount of unprocessed pollock harvested from any GOA reporting area during a directed fishery that exceeds the amount in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section multiplied by the number of calendar days that occur during the time period the directed fishery is open in that reporting area.

          4. In Figure 3 to part 679, the figure heading and map are revised to read as follows:

            Figure 3 to Part 679—Gulf of Alaska Reporting Areas
            BILLING CODE 3510-22-S

              EP20OC08.003

      [FR Doc. E8-24923 Filed 10-17-08; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-C


        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
        Defense Acquisition Regulations System
        48 CFR Part 252 and Chapter 2
        RIN 0750-AF53
        Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Receiving Reports for Shipments (DFARS Case 2006-D024)

          AGENCY:
          Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule with request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          DoD is proposing to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to address requirements for the distribution of material inspection and receiving reports under DoD contracts. The proposed rule clarifies that copies of the Wide Area WorkFlow-Receipt and Acceptance (WAWF-RA) report must be distributed with a shipment, when WAWF-RA is used to satisfy material inspection and receiving report requirements.

          DATES:
          Comments on the proposed rule should be submitted in writing to the address shown below on or before January 8, 2007, to be considered in the formation of the final rule.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by DFARS Case 2006-D024, using any of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • E-mail: dfars@osd.mil. Include DFARS Case 2006-D024 in the subject line of the message.
          • Fax: (703) 602-0350.
          • Mail: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Attn: Ms. Robin Schulze, OUSD (AT&L) DPAP (DARS), IMD 3C132, 3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3062.
          • Hand Delivery/Courier: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Crystal Square 4, Suite 200A, 241 18th Street, Arlington, VA 22202-3402.

          Comments received generally will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Ms. Robin Schulze, (703) 602-0326.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        A. Background
        The clause at DFARS 252.246-7000, Material Inspection and Receiving Report, contains requirements for preparing and furnishing material inspection and receiving reports to the Government. Contractors can satisfy material inspection and receiving report requirements by using DD Form 250, in a manner and to the extent required by DFARS Appendix F, or by using the Wide Area WorkFlow-Receipt and Acceptance (WAWF-RA) electronic form. This proposed rule clarifies that, when WAWF-RA is used, two copies of the WAWF-RA report must be distributed with the shipment in accordance with DFARS Appendix F. Such clarification is needed to ensure proper identification of all shipments.
        This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review under Executive Order 12866, dated September 30, 1993.
        B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

        DoD does not expect this rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., because the rule makes no significant change to DoD policy for preparation and use of material inspection and receiving reports. Therefore, DoD has not performed an initial regulatory flexibility analysis. DoD invites comments from small businesses and other interested parties. DoD also will consider comments from small entities concerning the affected DFARS subparts in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Such comments should be submitted separately and should cite DFARS Case 2006-D024.
        C. Paperwork Reduction Act
        The information collection requirements for DoD material inspection and receiving reports have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget, under Control Number 0704-0248, for use through March 31, 2008.

          List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 252
          Government procurement.

          Michele P. Peterson,
          Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.

        Therefore, DoD proposes to amend 48 CFR part 252 and Appendix F to chapter 2 as follows:
        1. The authority citation for 48 CFR part 252 and Appendix F to subchapter I continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
          41 U.S.C. 421 and 48 CFR Chapter 1.

          PART 252—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES
          2. Section 252.246-7000 is revised to read as follows:

            252.246-7000
            Material Inspection and Receiving Report.
            As prescribed in 246.370, use the following clause:

              Material Inspection and Receiving Report (XXX 2006)
              (a) At the time of each delivery of supplies or services under this contract, the Contractor shall prepare and furnish to the Government a material inspection and receiving report in the manner and to the extent required by Appendix F, Material Inspection and Receiving Report, of the Defense FAR Supplement.

              (b) Contractor submission of the material inspection and receiving information required by Appendix F of the Defense FAR Supplement by using the Wide Area WorkFlow-Receipt and Acceptance (WAWF-RA) electronic form (see paragraph (b)(1) of the clause at 252.232-7003) fulfills the requirement for a material inspection and receiving report (DD Form 250). Two copies of the WAWF-RA report shall be distributed with the shipment, in accordance with Appendix F, Part 4, F-401, Table 1, of the Defense FAR Supplement.

            (End of clause)

            3. Appendix F to chapter 2 is amended in Part 4, Section F-401, by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:

              Appendix F—Material Inspection and Receiving Report

              F-401 Distribution.
              (a) The contractor is responsible for distributing the DD Form 250, including mailing and payment of postage. Use of the Wide Area WorkFlow-Receipt and Acceptance electronic form satisfies the distribution requirements of this section, except for the copies required to accompany shipment.

       [FR Doc. E6-19035 Filed 11-8-06; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 5001-08-P