        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Parts 223 and 224
        [Docket No. 101004485-0486-01]
        RIN 0648-XZ50
        Listing Endangered and Threatened Species: 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List Six Species of Sawfishes as Endangered or Threatened Species Under the Endangered Species Act

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

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

          SUMMARY:

          We, NMFS, announce a 90-day finding on a petition to list six species of sawfish: Anoxyprisitis cuspidata, Prisitis clavata, P. microdon, P. pristis, P. zijsron, and the remaining non-listed population(s) of P. pectinata as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). We find that the petition and information in our files present substantial information indicating the petitioned action may be warranted for five of the sawfish species petitioned (A. cuspidata, P. clavata, P. microdon, P. zijsron, and all non-listed population(s) of P. pectinata). We find that the petition and information in our files do not present substantial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for P. pristis. We will conduct a status review of the five species of sawfish (A. cuspidata, P. clavata, P. microdon, P. zijsron, and all non-listed population(s) of P. pectinata) to determine if the petitioned action is warranted. To ensure that the status review is comprehensive, we are soliciting scientific and commercial data regarding these species (see below).

          DATES:
          Information and comments on the subject action must be received by May 6, 2011.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by the code 0648-XZ50, addressed to: Shelley Norton, Natural Resource Specialist, by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal http://www.regulations.gov.

          • Facsimile (fax): 727-824-5309.
          • Mail: NMFS, Southeast Regional Office, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.

          • Hand delivery: You may hand deliver written comments to our office during normal business hours at the street address given above.

            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 otherwise sensitive or protected information. 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:
          Shelley Norton, NMFS, Southeast Region, (727) 824-5312; or Dwayne Meadows, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, (301) 713-1401.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        On September 9, 2010, we NMFS, received a petition from WildEarth Guardians requesting that the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) list six species of sawfish (range-wide): A. cuspidata, P. clavata, P. microdon, P. pristis, P. zijsron, and the remaining non-listed population of P. pectinata as endangered or threatened species under the ESA. The petitioner alternatively requested the listing of any Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of the six species of sawfish, if we determine that they exist. Copies of the petition are available from us (see
          ADDRESSES, above).

        On November 30, 1999, we received a petition from the Center for Marine Conservation (now the Ocean Conservancy) requesting that we list the North American population of smalltooth sawfish (P. pectinata) as endangered. We listed the U.S. DPS of smalltooth sawfish as endangered on April 1, 2003 (68 FR 15674). Smalltooth sawfish whose range is located outside the U.S. are not currently listed under the ESA.
        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 review with a finding as to whether, in fact, 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 more thorough review of the available information, as compared to the narrow 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 subspecies and, for any vertebrate species, any distinct population segment (DPS) that interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). A joint NOAA-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 (ESA sections 3(6) and 3(20), respectively, 16 U.S.C. 1532(6) and (20)). Pursuant to the ESA and our implementing regulations, we determine whether species are threatened or endangered because of any one or a combination of the following five section 4(a)(1) factors: (1) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range; (2) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and (5) any other natural or manmade factors affecting the species' existence (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1), 50 CFR 424.11(c)).
        ESA-implementing regulations issued jointly by NMFS and USFWS (50 CFR 424.14(b)) 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. 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)).
        Court decisions have clarified the appropriate scope and limitations of the Services' review of petitions at the 90-day finding stage, in making a determination that a petitioned action “may be” warranted. As a general matter, these decisions hold that a petition need not establish a “strong likelihood” or a “high probability” that a species is either threatened or endangered to support a positive 90-day finding.

        We evaluate the petitioner's 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 petitioner's 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 that indicates 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 petitioner's assertions. In other words, 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 alone negates a positive 90-day finding, if a reasonable person would conclude that the unknown information itself 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 at issue faces 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 at issue (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 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 other organizations or agencies, 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 may 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 information that the classification is based upon in light of the standards on extinction risk and impacts or threats discussed above.
        Species Description
        In the following sections we compile information from the petition and our files to describe the best available information and knowledge regarding the petitioned species biology.
        Taxonomy
        All sawfishes belong to one of two genera (Pristis or Anoxypristis) in the Family Pristidae of the Order Pristiformes, and are classified as rays (Superorder Batoidea). Considerable taxonomic confusion exists for sawfishes. The largetooth sawfish group (P. pristis, P. microdon, and P. perotteti) is considered to be the most taxonomically confused of all of the sawfish species. Faria (2007) distinguished seven extant species in the family. The petitioner states that P. pristis is a valid taxon based on the most recent IUCN assessment (IUCN, 2005), but that it is a sketchily-known large sawfish. The petitioner also states that mature specimens are lacking and small specimens are rare and isolated attributes may be misidentified members of P. microdon. Information in our files indicates that P. pristis is not a valid species eligible for listing under the ESA. Faria (2007) completed a taxonomic review of sawfishes using historical taxonomic literature, empirical observations on morphology, geographical distribution, and genetics. Using molecular phylogeny (mitochondrial and nuclear gene analysis) paired with morphological characteristics he concluded that P. pristis is not a valid species. Pristis pristis is associated with various morphological features from a variety of specimens that cannot be assigned to a single species (Faria 2007). Based on the results of his review, Faria (2007) has prepared a proposal to the International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature to suppress or declare invalid P. pristis. The taxonomy sources cited by the petition, the IUCN and the Integrated Taxonomic Information System, rely on older, out-of-date information. Our regulations state that, “In determining whether a particular taxon or population is a species for the purposes of the Act, the Secretary shall rely on standard taxonomic distinctions and the biological expertise of the Department and the scientific community concerning the relevant taxonomic group” (50 CFR 424.11(a)). Under this provision, we must apply the best available science even when it indicates that currently accepted taxonomic classifications are wrong. Based on the best available commercial and scientific information, we have determined that P. pristis is not a valid species and, therefore, does not qualify for listing under the ESA. The remainder of this document will focus on the five remaining sawfish species listed in the petition.
        Distribution
        Sawfishes are elasmobranches that historically were once widespread in tropical to warm temperate, shallow, nearshore marine habitats, estuaries, large rivers, and some lakes. Their distribution was presumably once continuous in suitable habitat, but is now severely fragmented with many populations extirpated from large parts of their former range and remaining populations seriously depleted.
        Sawfish distributions are still widespread. Anoxypristis cuspidata occurs in the Indo-West Pacific Ocean ranging from east Africa to Australia, China, and Taiwan (Compagno and Cook, 1995). Pristis clavata primarily occurs in northern nearshore waters of Australia while P. microdon is found from Sri Lanka to Australia, including islands of the Indonesian archipelago (Last and Stevens, 1994; Compagno and Cook, 1995). Pristis microdon is also found in freshwater bodies in countries in Southern Africa, India, and southeastern Asia (Taniuchi et al., 1994). Pristis pectinata is the most wide-ranging species, but its distribution is highly disjunct. Pristis pectinata occurs in the Western Atlantic Ocean from the Gulf of Mexico to Brazil (Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953), while in the eastern Atlantic Ocean, P. pectinata once occurred in the Mediterranean Sea (where it is now extirpated) and is rarely found in western African countries and South Africa. Its range further extends through the Indian Ocean from east Africa to Southeast Asia and Australia (Last and Stevens, 1994; Simpfendorfer, 2005). Pristis zijsron occurs in the Indian and Western Pacific Ocean from east Africa to Australia including some areas of Southeast Asia and in the Indonesian archipelago (Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953; Last and Stevens, 1994; Cook and Compagno, 1995).
        Habitats
        Sawfishes are generally benthic in nature frequenting shallow coastal, brackish, and freshwater habitats. Sawfishes usually occur in shallow water depths less than 32 ft (10 m), but occasionally adults have been recorded up to 164 ft (50 m) (Simpfendorfer and Wiley, 2005). Observations of sawfishes tend to indicate a preference for areas with lower salinities especially river mouths. For the U.S. DPS of smalltooth sawfish, Simpfendorfer and Wiley (2005) reported closer associations between encounters and mangroves, seagrasses, and the shoreline than expected if distribution were random. Their encounter data also demonstrated that juvenile smalltooth sawfish occur in shallower water, and larger sawfish occur regularly at depths greater than 32 ft (10 m).
        Age, Growth, and Reproduction

        Studies on the biological characteristics of any of the sawfishes are rare, but those studies that have examined parameters such as age, growth, and reproduction suggest a group with very low productivity. In the following discussion, we describe what is known about the life history of any of the species for which information exists. Where necessary we make determinations as to the best-available evidence for the biology of the petitioned species. There have been no formal studies examining the age and growth of the largetooth sawfishes, though Thorson's (1982a) study of the Lake Nicaragua population of P. perotteti provided some parameters that may be applicable to other sawfishes. He estimated size at birth to be 30 in (75 cm) and an early juvenile growth rate of 13.8 to 15.7 in (35 to 40 cm)/year. Thorson (1982a) also estimated age of maturity to be 10 years and size at maturity to be 118 in (300 cm). Preliminary vertebral growth ring analysis suggests the lifespan of P. microdon to be an estimated maximum age of 51 years (Peverell, 2006), and we determined this to be our best available estimate of largetooth sawfish lifespan. Age at maturity for P. pectinata has been estimated to be 10-33 years depending on sex and study (Simpfendorfer, 2000; Clarke et al., 2004). Tanaka (1991) produced a growth curve for the freshwater sawfish P. microdon from northern Australia and Papua New Guinea using vertebral ageing that indicated relatively slow growth and late maturity. In contrast, Thorburn et al. (2007), working in northwestern Australia, reported similar first year growth rates, but continued rapid growth, with growth to 98 in (2500 mm) approximately four times faster than reported by Tanaka (1991). Thorson (1982) provided growth information for the largetooth sawfish (P. perotetti) from tag-recapture data, noting slow growth in adults (mean annual growth of 1.7 in or 44 mm). Recently, Simpfendorfer et al. (2006) reported growth rates of juvenile smalltooth sawfish collected in Florida waters between 1999 and 2006 were 25.59 to 33.46 in (650-850 mm) in the first year and 18.90 to 26.77in (480-680 mm) in the second year. The growth rates reported are substantially faster than those previously assumed for this species and may have important implications for the recovery of this endangered species. However, there are conflicting data regarding the growth rates of older sawfish which need to be resolved.

        As in all elasmobranches, fertilization in sawfishes is internal. Development is believed to be ovoviviparous. The embryos of P. pectinata, while still bearing the large yolk sac, already resemble adults relative to the position of their fins and absence of the lower caudal fin lobe. During embryonic development the rostral saw blade is soft and flexible. The rostral teeth are also encapsulated or enclosed in a sheath until birth. Shortly after birth, the teeth become exposed and attain their full size proportionate to the size of the saw. Size at birth for smalltooth sawfish is approximately 2.3 to 2.7 ft (690-810 mm) (Simpfendorfer et al. 2008). Bigelow and Schroeder (1953) reported gravid females carry 15-20 embryos. Studies of P. perotteti in Lake Nicaragua (Thorson, 1976) report brood sizes of 1-13 individuals, with a mean of 7.3 individuals. The gestation period for P. perotteti is approximately 5 months and females likely produce litters every second year (Thorson, 1976).

        Simpfendorfer (2000), using age based demographic models, estimated an intrinsic rate of increase of 0.08 to 0.13 per year, and population doubling time of 5.4 and 8.5 for P. pectinata (US DPS). Intrinsic rates of increase for P. perotteti were 0.05 to 0.07 per year, with a population doubling time of 10.3 to 13.5 years. The estimates were based on ideal conditions (no fisheries mortality, no population fragmentation, no habitat modification and no inbreeding depression arising from the genetic consequences of a small population size). Low intrinsic rates of population increase are associated with the life history strategy known as “K-selection”. K-selected animals are usually successful at maintaining relatively small, persistent population sizes in relatively constant environments. Consequently, sawfishes are not able to respond rapidly to additional and new sources of mortality resulting from changes in their environment. Musick (1999) and Musick et al. (2000) noted that intrinsic rates of increase less than 10 percent (0.1) were low, and make the population particularly vulnerable to excessive mortalities and rapid population declines, after which recovery may take decades.
        Diet and Feeding
        Bigelow and Schroeder (1953) reported that sawfishes in general subsist chiefly on small schooling fishes, such as mullets and clupeids. They also reported that they feed to some extent on crustaceans and other bottom dwelling inhabitants. Breder (1952), in summarizing the literature on observations of sawfish feeding behavior, noted that they attack fish by slashing sideways through schools, and often impale the fish on their rostral teeth. Prey are subsequently scraped off the teeth by rubbing them on the bottom and then ingested whole. The oral teeth of sawfish are ray-like, having flattened cusps that are better suited to crushing or gripping.
        Morphological Characteristics
        All modern sawfishes appear in some respects to be more shark-like than ray-like, with only the trunk and especially the head ventrally flattened. All sawfish snouts are extended as a long, narrow, flattened, rostral blade with a series of transverse teeth along either edge. The rostrum has a saw-like appearance and hence the name sawfish. The presence of this rostrum separates sawfishes from all other skates and rays.
        The smalltooth sawfish P. pectinata has 20 to 34 rostral teeth on each side of the rostrum (Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953; Thorson, 1973; McEachran and Fechhelm, 1998; Compagno and Last, 1999). P. zijsron, has perhaps the longest rostrum of any living sawfish, ranging to at least 5 ft or 1.66 m in length. The rostral tooth count for P. zijsron varies between 23 and 37 (typically 25-34) per side. Pristis zijsron is distinguished from A. cuspidata by its sharply pointed rostral teeth (versus blade-like), greater number of rostral teeth per side (23-37 versus 18-25), presence of dermal denticles over the entire body, and the lack of a developed lower caudal fin lobe (Last and Stevens, 1994). Pristis zijsron is distinguished from P. clavata by its narrow-based and moderately tapering rostrum (versus wide-based and strongly tapering), greater number of rostral teeth per side (23-37 versus 18-23), and the lack of a developed lower caudal fin lobe. In addition, P. zijsron reaches a larger maximum size (24 ft or 7.3 m or larger) than does P. clavata (10 ft or 3.1 m in total length). Pristis microdon can attain lengths of up to 7 m and is distinguished from other sawfishes by a combination of the following characteristics: first dorsal fin anterior to the pelvic fins; caudal fin bearing a conspicuous ventral lobe; and 18-23 teeth on the rostrum (Last and Stevens 1994; Compagno and Last 1998).
        Analysis of Petition

        We evaluated the information provided in the petition and all other information readily available in our files to determine if it presented substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned actions may be warranted for the five valid species of sawfish (A. cuspidata; P. clavata; P. microdon; P. zijsron; and all non-listed population(s) of P. pectinata). The petition provides some information on the species, including administrative measures recommended, scientific and common name, description, habitat, and range and states that all five factors in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA are adversely affecting the continued existence of the petitioned species. In particular, the petitioner states that all of the petitioned sawfish species are threatened by habitat loss and degradation resulting from human population growth, coastal destruction and pollution, and fisheries (targeted and incidental). The petitioner also states that all six species of sawfish are threatened by the international shark fin trade, curio trade, and inadequate regulatory protection programs worldwide. Information on population status and trends for all six species of sawfish is included. Additionally, the petition states that, due to the difficulty in differentiating between all sawfish species, enforcement of trade bans is very difficult.

        Data are not available to determine the actual number or size of most remaining populations of sawfish, but all known populations of sawfishes have severely declined based on publication and museum records, negative scientific survey records, anecdotal fisher observations, and limited catch per unit effort information. Many populations have been extirpated or are near extirpation from large areas of their former range, with no or only very few observations since the 1960s. Interviews with fishers (structured and unstructured) have been undertaken in several countries in recent years to obtain information on recent and historic catches (e.g., Doumbouya, 2004; Saine, 2004). In most range states, these species are now only very sporadically recorded. Due to their unique morphological characteristics, it is unlikely that individuals would not report catching a sawfish.
        We summarize our analysis and conclusions regarding the specific ESA section 4(a)(1) factors affecting the species' risk of extinction below.
        The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
        The information presented in the petition on the species states coastal development has caused substantial losses in coastal zone habitats through agricultural and urban development, commercial activities, dredge-and-fill activities, boating erosion, and diversions of freshwater. The petitioner also refers to information on habitat degradation and loss listed in the 2007 proposal by the U.S. to list all species of sawfish under the Conventions on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Additionally, information in our files indicates that the distribution and range of all species of sawfish has become severely fragmented and significant range contractions have occurred.
        Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes
        Information from the petition and in our files suggests that the primary threat to all sawfish species is from fisheries. Sawfishes are caught as bycatch in various fishing gears (rod and reel, shrimp nets, trawls, and gill nets). Sawfish species are highly susceptible to entanglement in fishing gears because their toothed-rostrum makes it difficult to avoid entanglement in almost all types of mesh nets. The saw becomes entangled in the net and fishers often harm the animal (remove their saw or kill them) when removing them from their nets. In some locations where they are or were abundant enough, sawfishes have been directly targeted because of their value.
        Sawfishes are utilized for a wide variety of products. Among the most common products is the sawfish rostrum. Rostrums have long been a favorite marine curio (Migdalski, 1981) with large rostra commanding impressive prices (McDavitt, 1996). Rostra are sometimes decorated with elaborate designs or grotesque faces. These folk art rostra are sometimes fashioned into elaborate sheaths for knives. Sawfish rostra are also utilized as ceremonial weapons in the folk religion of Taiwan. McDavitt (1996) reported that sawfish rostra are also used in traditional medicine in Asia and in Mexico City. Rostra are dried and powdered, and then infused into a medicinal tea, which is used to treat “whooping cough, bronchitis, laryngitis and diseases of the respiratory tract in general” (Watson, 2004).
        Sawfish rostral teeth have been the preferred material used to manufacture artificial “spurs” for use as weapons in Peruvian cockfighting (Cogorno Ventura, 2001). The rostral teeth are mostly obtained from Brazil, Ecuador, Panama, and various Caribbean countries. Charvet-Almeida (2002) and McDavitt and Charvet-Almeida (2004) determined that rostra find their way into the international cockfighting market from Brazil. Sawfish rostral teeth have been favored over other natural spur materials (such as deer antler, sea turtle shell, sea-lion teeth, mammal bones, and stingray spines), as systematic testing revealed that sawfish teeth were more durable, and have a sufficiently porous surface to cause greater body damage to the opponent (McDavitt and Charvet-Almeida, 2004).
        Sawfish products are also utilized for medicinal purposes. Four sawfish products are listed as materia medica in traditional Chinese medicine: liver, ova, and bile (Han and Xu, 1992) as well as the sawfish rostra (McDavitt, 1996). The bile of sawfishes is thought to remove phlegm and diminish inflammation from such conditions as fall injuries, rheumatoid arthritis, and cholecystitis (inflammation of the gall bladder) (McDavitt, 1996).
        Sawfishes are highly prized as exhibit animals in public aquaria because of their charismatic nature (McDavitt, 1996). They command high prices in the aquarium trade. Because of their large fins with high fin needle content (a tasteless gelatinous product used to make shark fin soup), sawfish fins are valued for shark fin soup in Asia. Although few fin dealers advertise the type of fins they trade, one Hong Kong vendor designates two trade names used for sawfish fins: huang jiao (described in English as “saw shark,”) and mian qun (labeled as “yellow shovel nose” in English).
        Disease and Predation

        The petition states that disease from parasitic infections and natural predation from sharks and crocodiles are not responsible for the dramatic decline of the populations of sawfish. The petitioner also states that entanglement in fishing gears increases the risk of predation for sawfish due to their reduced population size. The petitioner states that disease and predation may now be a greater threat for all five petitioned species since their populations have declined, but does not provide information to substantiate their claims. There is no evidence in our files that indicate that disease and/or predation are negatively affecting population growth in these species.
        Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

        As stated in the petition and in the U.S.' CITES proposal to list all sawfishes (2007), very few countries have enacted legislation specifically to protect sawfishes or manage their fisheries. Consequently, protective measures covering trade of A. cuspidata, P. clavata, P. zijsron, and P. pectinata were implemented internationally under Appendix I of CITES in 2007, making non-domestic trade of parts illegal. Pristis microdon was protected under Appendix II of CITES only for the purposes of live trade of animals to aquaria. Protection under Appendix I prohibits international trade in specimens of these species except when the purpose of the import is not commercial, for instance for scientific research. In these exceptional cases, trade may take place provided it is authorized by the granting of both an import permit and an export permit (or re-export certificate). Protection under Appendix II listing means international trade is allowed but an export permit or re-export certificate must be issued when it is determined that trade will not be detrimental to the survival of the species in the wild. Although all sawfishes are protected under CITES, information in our files indicates that enforcement of these regulations in various countries is difficult due to the length of the coastline, extensive internal waterways, lack of enforcement personnel, and the need for more efficient tools. Targeted fisheries for sawfish species is unlikely in most countries because abundances are so low; however, those caught as bycatch are probably kept due to their value. Thus, illegal foreign trade of sawfish parts may be ongoing in Nicaragua and Brazil and elsewhere in spite of the CITES listing and national laws (McDavitt, 2006). The Nicaraguan government imposed a temporary moratorium on targeted fishing for sawfishes in Lake Nicaragua in the early 1980s (Thorson, 1982), after the population collapsed following intensive fishing in the 1970s. The aim was to allow the population to recover, but no such recovery has occurred (McDavitt, 2002). Indonesia enacted legislation to protect sawfishes (and five other freshwater fish species) in Lake Sentani, West Papua, following severe depletion of populations in a gill net fishery (Compagno et al., 2006). All Australian sawfish populations are listed as Vulnerable or Endangered, either under Australia's Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act or by the Australian Society for Fish Biology. Environment Australia was petitioned to list all species of sawfish on the Endangered Species List and India's Ministry of Environment and Forests has protected sawfishes under the Wildlife Protection Act since 2001.
        Other Natural or Manmade Factors
        Both information in the petition and information in our files indicate that the future abundance of all sawfish species is limited by their life history characteristics. Sawfish have slow growth rates, late maturity, a long life span, and low fecundity rates. K-selected animals are usually successful at maintaining relatively small, persistent population sizes in relatively constant environments. Conversely, they are not able to respond rapidly to additional sources of mortality, such as overexploitation and habitat degradation.
        Summary of Section 4(a)(1) Factors
        In summary, the petition and information in our files present substantial information that four of the five of section 4(a)(1) factors are likely affecting the continued existence of the five petitioned sawfish species. Interactions between and among these various threats may further exacerbate the impacts of each of the threats, such that there may be an extinction risk of concern for each of the five species.
        Petition Finding

        After reviewing the information contained in the petition and in our files, we conclude there is not substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that P. pristis is a valid species eligible for listing. However, the petition and information in our files present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the other five species of sawfish throughout their entire range (A. cuspidata,
          P. clavata,
          P. microdon,
          P. zijsron, and all non-listed population(s) of P. pectinata). In accordance with section 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA and NMFS' implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)), we will commence a review of the status of these five species and make a determination within 12 months of receiving the petition as to whether the petitioned action is warranted. The U.S. DPS of P. pectinata is already listed as an endangered species. As part of the status review, we will apply our DPS policy to the non-listed populations. If warranted, we will publish a proposed rule to list one or more species. If we propose any listings we will 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 on whether A. cuspidata,
          P. clavata,
          P. microdon,
          P. zijsron, and all non-listed population(s) of P. pectinata are endangered or threatened. Specifically, we are soliciting information in the following areas: (1) Historical and current distribution and abundance of these species throughout their range; (2) historical and current population trends; (3) life history in marine environments, (4) curio, meat, shark fin or other trade data; (5) taxonomy; (6) any current or planned activities that may adversely impact the species; (7) ongoing or planned efforts to protect and restore the species and their habitats; (8) population structure information relevant to distinct population segments; and (9) management, regulatory, and enforcement information. We request that all information be accompanied by: (1) supporting documentation such as maps, bibliographic references, or reprints of pertinent publications; and (2) the submitter's name, address, and any association, institution, or business that the person represents.
        References Cited

        A complete list of references is available upon request from the Protected Resources Division on NMFS Southeast 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: March 1, 2011.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2011-5107 Filed 3-4-11; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 73
        [DA 05-710; MB Docket No. 05-116; RM-11188]
        Radio Broadcasting Services; Fisher and Thief River Falls, MN

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          This document requests comments on a petition for rule making filed by Citicasters Licenses, L.P., licensee of Station KSNR(FM), Channel 262C1, Thief River Falls, Minnesota. Petitioner requests that the Commission reallot Channel 262C1 from Thief River Falls to Fisher, Minnesota. The coordinates for Channel 262C1 at Fisher are 47-58-38 NL and 96-36-42 WL, with a site restriction of 24.2 kilometers (15.1 miles) northeast of Fisher.

          DATES:
          Comments must be filed on or before May 9, 2005, and reply comments on or before May 24, 2005.

          ADDRESSES:
          Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve Petitioner's counsel, as follows: Marissa G. Repp, Esq., and Tarah S. Grant, Esq., Hogan & Hartson, L.L.P.; 555 Thirteenth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20004-1109.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          R. Barthen Gorman, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No. 05-116, adopted March 16, 2005 and released March 18, 2005. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC's Reference Information Center at Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. This document may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractors, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1-800-378-3160 or http://www.BCPIWEB.com. This document does not contain proposed information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed information collection burden “for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
        The provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to this proceeding.

        Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing permissible ex parte contacts.
        For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, See 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

          List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
          Radio, Radio broadcasting.

        For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 73 as follows:

          PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES
          1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, and 336.

            § 73.202
            [Amended]
            2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Minnesota, is amended by removing Channel 262C1 at Thief River Falls, and adding Fisher, Channel 262C1.

            Federal Communications Commission
            John A. Karousos,
            Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau.

      [FR Doc. 05-6563 Filed 4-1-05; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 73
        [MB Docket No. 18-43, RM-11797; DA 18-146]
        Radio Broadcasting Services; Connerville, Oklahoma

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          This document requests comments on a Petition for Rule Making filed by The Chickasaw Nation, proposing to amend the FM Table of Allotments, by allotting Channel 247A at Connerville, Oklahoma, as the first local Tribal-owned commercial service. A staff engineering analysis indicates that Channel 247A can be allotted to Connerville consistent with the minimum distance separation requirements of the Commission's rules. The reference coordinates are 34-25-00 NL and 96-43-53 WL with a site restriction of 9.40 km (5.84 miles) southwest of the community.

          DATES:
          Comments must be filed on or before May 29, 2018, and reply comments on or before June 13, 2018.

          ADDRESSES:
          Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street SW, Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve the petitioner as follows: The Chickasaw Nation, c/o John Crigler, Esq., Suite 200, Flour Mill Building, 1000 Potomac Street NW, Washington, DC 20007.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Adrienne Y. Denysyk, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2700.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No. 18-43, adopted February 14, 2018, and released February 14, 2018. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Information Center at Portals II, CY-A257, 445 Twelfth Street SW, Washington, DC 20554. The full text is also available online at http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. This document does not contain proposed information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed information collection burden “for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
        Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of l980 do not apply to this proceeding.

        Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing permissible ex parte contacts.
        For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

          List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
          Radio, Radio broadcasting.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Nazifa Sawez,
          Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau.

        Proposed Rules
        For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 73 as follows:

          PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES

        1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
           47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 309, 310, 334, 336 and 339.

        2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Oklahoma, is amended by adding Connerville, Channel 247A to read as follows in alphabetical order:

          § 73.202
           Table of Allotments.

          (b) Table of FM Allotments.

                Oklahoma

              *         *         *         *         *

              Connerville
              247A

              *         *         *         *         *

      [FR Doc. 2018-10056 Filed 5-10-18; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 635
        [Docket No. 130214139-3315-01]
        RIN 0648-XC513
        Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; 2013 Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Quota Specifications

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments; notice of public hearings.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes 2013 quota specifications for the Atlantic bluefin tuna (BFT) fishery, and seeks comments from the public on the allocation of available underharvest among the fishery categories under certain circumstances. This action is necessary to implement binding recommendations of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), as required by the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA), and to achieve domestic management objectives under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).

          DATES:

          Written comments must be received on or before May 13, 2013. Public hearings will be held on April 29, 2013, from 2 to 4 p.m., and on May 3, 2013, from 1 to 3 p.m. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for further details.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2013-0042,” by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2013-0042, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to Sarah McLaughlin, Highly Migratory Species Management Division, Office of Sustainable Fisheries (F/SF1), NMFS, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930
          • Fax: 978-281-9340, Attn: Sarah McLaughlin
          • Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and generally will be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter“N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats only.
          The public hearing locations are:
          1. Gloucester, MA—NMFS, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930.
          2. Silver Spring, MD—NMFS Science Center, 1301 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

          Supporting documents, including the Supplemental Environmental Assessment, as well as others, such as the Fishery Management Plans described below may be downloaded from the HMS Web site at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/. These documents also are available by sending your request to Sarah McLaughlin at the mailing address specified above.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Sarah McLaughlin or Brad McHale, 978-281-9260.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Atlantic bluefin tuna, bigeye tuna, albacore tuna, yellowfin tuna, and skipjack tuna (hereafter referred to as “Atlantic tunas”) are managed under the dual authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and ATCA. As an active member of ICCAT, the United States implements binding ICCAT recommendations to comply with this international treaty. ATCA authorizes the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to promulgate regulations, as may be necessary and appropriate to carry out ICCAT recommendations. The authority to issue regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and ATCA has been delegated from the Secretary to the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NMFS.
        Background
        On May 28, 1999, NMFS published in the Federal Register (64 FR 29090) final regulations, effective July 1, 1999, implementing the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks (1999 FMP). The 1999 FMP included a framework process to promulgate annual specifications for the BFT fishery, in accordance with ATCA and the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and to implement the annual recommendations of ICCAT. Since 1982, ICCAT has recommended a Total Allowable Catch (TAC) of western Atlantic BFT, and since 1991, ICCAT has recommended specific limits (quotas) for the United States and other Contracting Parties with BFT fisheries.
        On October 2, 2006, NMFS published a final rule in the Federal Register (71 FR 58058), effective November 1, 2006, implementing the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan (Consolidated HMS FMP), which consolidated management of all Atlantic HMS (i.e., sharks, swordfish, tunas, and billfish) into one comprehensive FMP. The implementing regulations for Atlantic HMS are at 50 CFR part 635. Among other things, the Consolidated HMS FMP maintained an allocation scheme, established in the 1999 FMP, for dividing the baseline annual U.S. BFT quota among several domestic quota categories based on gear type (i.e., Harpoon, Purse Seine, Angling, General, Longline, and Trap categories).
        The baseline quota has remained unchanged from 2012, and the 2013 BFT quota specifications are necessary to adjust the annual U.S. baseline BFT quota to account for any underharvest or overharvest of the adjusted 2012 U.S. BFT quota. Preliminary information indicates an underharvest of the 2012 adjusted BFT quota. Final 2012 landings and dead discard information will be available in late spring 2013.
        In May 2011, NMFS prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA)/Regulatory Impact Review and Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for a final rule that: (1) implemented and allocated the U.S. BFT quota for 2011 and for 2012, (2) adjusted the 2011 U.S. quota and subquotas to account for unharvested 2010 quota allowed to be carried forward to 2011, and to account for a portion of the estimated 2011 dead discards up front, and implemented several other BFT management measures (76 FR 39019, July 5, 2011). Although it is not necessary to prepare an EA for quota specifications alone (in accordance with the approach described in the Consolidated HMS FMP), NMFS has prepared a Supplemental EA to present updated information regarding the affected environment, including information from a 2012 ICCAT stock assessment for BFT, among other things. The results of the 2012 stock assessment update were not substantively different than those of an assessment that ICCAT conducted in 2010.
        2010 ICCAT Recommendation and 2011 Implementing Rule

        At its 2010 annual meeting, ICCAT recommended a TAC of 1,750 mt annually for 2011 and for 2012, inclusive of dead discards (ICCAT Recommendation 10-03—Supplemental Recommendation by ICCAT concerning the Western Atlantic BFT Rebuilding Program). This amount was expected to allow for continued stock growth under low and high stock recruitment scenarios developed by ICCAT's scientific body at the 2010 BFT stock assessment. The U.S. share of the TAC for 2011 and 2012, adjusted for two specific bycatch allocations, was 54.02 percent, which resulted in a baseline quota of 923.7 mt. The total annual U.S. quota, including an additional 25 mt to account for bycatch related to pelagic longline fisheries in the Northeast Distant gear restricted area (NED), was 948.7 mt. ICCAT limits the amount of underharvest that may be carried forward from one year to the next to no more than 10 percent of a country's quota.
        Through the final rule implementing the BFT quotas and Atlantic tuna fisheries management measures (76 FR 39019, July 5, 2011), NMFS implemented the 923.7-mt baseline quota consistent with ICCAT Recommendation 10-03 and set the domestic BFT fishing category subquotas per the allocation percentages established in the Consolidated HMS FMP and implementing regulations (71 FR 58058, October 2, 2006). The baseline quota and category subquotas are codified and remain effective until changed (for instance, if any new ICCAT BFT TAC recommendation is adopted).
        2012 ICCAT Recommendation
        At its 2012 annual meeting, ICCAT recommended a one-year rollover of the 1,750-mt TAC as part of ICCAT Recommendation 12-02—Supplemental Recommendation by ICCAT concerning the Western Atlantic BFT Rebuilding Program. This amount is expected to allow for continued stock growth under the both the low and high stock recruitment scenarios, considering the 2012 ICCAT BFT stock assessment results. The annual U.S. baseline quota for 2013 continues to be 923.7 mt, and the annual total U.S. quota, including 25 mt to account for bycatch related to pelagic longline fisheries in the NED, continues to be 948.7 mt.
        Although the baseline quota is unchanged this year because the 2012 ICCAT recommendation included the same TAC as the prior recommendation, NMFS is proposing underharvest or overharvest adjustments as necessary for the 2013 fishing year through quota specifications, consistent with the Consolidated HMS FMP. Until the final specifications for 2013 are effective, the existing BFT base quotas continue to apply as codified. See Table 1, second column. As mentioned above, ICCAT limits the amount of underharvest that may be carried forward from one year to the next to no more than 10 percent of a country's quota. Applied to the 2012 catch figures, this provision limits the amount of U.S. underharvest that may be carried forward this year to 94.9 mt (10 percent of the 948.7-mt total U.S. quota).
        Accounting for Dead Discards
        The United States must report BFT landings data and BFT dead discard estimates to ICCAT annually. Currently, the best available annual estimate of dead discards is the 2011 estimate of 145.2 mt. Using the 2011 estimate as a proxy for estimated 2013 dead discards for the proposed action is appropriate because it is the best available and most complete information that NMFS currently has regarding dead discards and follows the established protocol in the regulations. When the 2012 BFT dead discard estimate becomes available (late spring 2013), it will be used to prepare the final specifications and will be reported to ICCAT along with total 2012 BFT landings. Only pelagic longline dead discard estimates are available at this time. Estimates from other gear types and fishing sectors that are not observed at sufficient levels for estimation and that do not report via a logbook are not included in this calculation. However, bycatch and bycatch mortality of BFT by vessels using handgear and purse seine gear is considered to be relatively low.
        2013 Quota Specifications
        The 2013 BFT quota specifications NMFS proposes here are necessary to adjust the current annual U.S. baseline BFT quota to account for underharvest or overharvest of the adjusted 2012 U.S. BFT quota. Based on preliminary data available as of February 26, 2013, BFT landings in 2012 totaled 713.2 mt. Adding the 145.2-mt estimate of dead discards results in a preliminary 2012 total catch of 858.4 mt, which is 185.2 mt less than the amount of quota (inclusive of dead discards) allowed under ICCAT Recommendation 10-03, which applied in 2012 (i.e., 948.7 mt plus 94.9 mt of 2011 underharvest carried forward to 2012, totaling 1,043.6 mt). ICCAT limits the amount of underharvest that may be carried forward from one year to the next to no more than 10 percent of a country's quota, which limits the amount of 2012 U.S. underharvest that may be carried forward to 2013 to 94.9 mt.
        NMFS proposes to account up front (i.e., at the beginning of the fishing year) for half of the expected dead discards for 2013, using the best available estimate of dead discards, and deducting that portion directly from the Longline category subquota. This is the same approach that NMFS took for the 2011 and 2012 BFT quota specifications. Accounting for dead discards in the Longline category in this way may provide further incentive for pelagic longline fishermen to reduce those interactions that may result in dead discards. NMFS would apply half of the amount of underharvest that is allowed to be carried forward to 2013 to the Longline category, and maintain the other half in the Reserve category. Maintaining this portion of the underharvest in the Reserve category until later in the fishing year would provide maximum flexibility in accounting for 2013 landings and dead discards. Consistent with determination criteria at 50 CFR § 635.27(a)(8), NMFS may allocate any portion of the Reserve category quota for inseason or annual adjustments to any other quota category.
        Specifically, NMFS would deduct half of the dead discard estimate of 145.2 mt (i.e., 72.6 mt) from the 2013 baseline Longline category subquota of 74.8 mt and apply half of the 94.9 mt allowed to be carried forward to 2013 to the Longline category (i.e., 74.8 − 72.6 + 47.5 = 49.7 mt adjusted Longline subquota, not including the 25-mt allocation set aside by ICCAT for the NED). NMFS would add the remainder of the 2012 underharvest that can be carried forward to 2013 (47.4 mt) to the Reserve category's baseline allocation of 23.1 mt, for an adjusted Reserve category quota of 70.5 mt. The adjusted Longline category subquota (49.7 mt) would be further subdivided in accordance with the Consolidated HMS FMP (i.e., allocation of no more than 60 percent to the south of 31° N. latitude) as follows: 19.9 mt to pelagic longline vessels landing BFT north of 31° N. latitude, and 29.8 mt to pelagic longline vessels landing BFT south of 31° N. latitude. NMFS would account for landings under the 25-mt NED allocation separately from other Longline category landings.

        For the directed fishing categories (i.e., the Angling, General, Harpoon, Purse Seine categories) as well as the Trap category, in which BFT may be caught incidentally, NMFS is not proposing adjustments to the baseline BFT subquotas (i.e., the allocations that result from applying the scheme established in the Consolidated HMS FMP to the baseline U.S. BFT quota).

        Thus, in accordance with the ICCAT Recommendation 12-02, the Consolidated HMS FMP allocation scheme for the domestic categories, and regulations regarding annual adjustments at § 635.27(a)(10), NMFS proposes quota specifications for the 2013 fishing year as follows: General category—435.1 mt; Harpoon category—36 mt; Purse Seine category—171.8 mt; Angling category—182 mt; Longline category—49.7 mt; and Trap category—0.9 mt. The amount allocated to the Reserve category for inseason adjustments, scientific research collection, potential overharvest in any category except the Purse Seine category, and potential quota transfers would be 70.5 mt. These allocations are shown in Table 1.
        NMFS will make any necessary adjustments to the 2013 specifications in the final rule after considering updated 2012 landings information and the final dead discard estimate for 2012. It is important to note that NMFS and ICCAT have separate schedules and approaches for accounting for landings and dead discards. At the beginning of the year, NMFS accounts proactively for half of the best estimate of dead discards, whereas total 2013 U.S. landings and dead discards will be accounted for at the end of the year and reported to ICCAT in 2014. ICCAT usually assesses quota compliance at its annual meeting in November by comparing the prior year's landings and reported dead discards against the adjusted U.S. quota. At the 2013 ICCAT annual meeting, ICCAT will compare actual U.S. 2012 landings and dead discards against the total 2012 adjusted U.S. quota of 1,043.6 mt (i.e., the 948.7-mt base quota for 2012, plus the 94.9 mt allowed to be carried forward from 2011 to 2012), to determine the United States' compliance with 2012 ICCAT recommendations.
        Request for Public Comments
        If the final 2012 landings and dead discards information result in a total of greater than 948.7 mt, but less than 1,043.6 mt, then the amount of 2012 underharvest that the United States may carry forward to 2013 would need to be reduced from 94.9 mt accordingly. NMFS invites public comment on possible allocation approaches should the carry forward amount be reduced. One option might be to provide half of the carry forward amount to the Longline category and the other half to the Reserve category. For example, if the 2012 landings and the final dead discard estimate total 963.6 mt, 80 mt would be available to carry forward and NMFS could provide 40 mt to each of these two categories). Another option might be to provide the entire amount to the Longline or Reserve category, particularly if the amount is small (e.g., 20 mt) or to allocate the amount other ways after considering domestic management needs for 2013. As described below, NMFS took this approach in the 2012 final BFT specifications (77 FR 44161, July 27, 2012). In any event, the baseline subquotas for the directed fishing categories and Trap category would not be changed.
        In exploring options, one consideration is the possibility that deducting of half of the final estimate of dead discards from the baseline Longline category subquota would result in little to no quota for that category for 2013 prior to application of any available underharvest. Another consideration is the possibility that NMFS may, in the final specifications, need to close the Longline category fishery to BFT retention based on codified quotas. This was the case in 2012. NMFS closed the Longline category fishery to BFT retention in the southern area on May 29, 2012 (77 FR 31546), and in the northern area on June 30, 2012 (77 FR 38011), for the remainder of the year, because landings had met the codified subquotas for those areas. Given that the incidental Longline fishery for BFT was closed, NMFS accounted fully for those landings in the final rule by applying 76.2 of the available 94.9-mt underharvest to the Longline category and maintaining the remaining underharvest (18.7 mt) in the Reserve category. Providing this amount to the Longline category allowed NMFS to adjust the Longline South and Longline North subquotas to the amounts actually taken in those areas at the time of the closure, and to provide greater transparency than year-end accounting would.
        If the complete 2012 landings information and final dead discard estimate exceed the adjusted 2012 U.S. BFT quota of 1,043.6 mt, NMFS may need to take further action, consistent with the BFT quota adjustment regulations and with ICCAT Recommendation 10-03. Also, the United States may be subject to adjustment of the U.S. BFT quota, consistent with ICCAT recommendations. Given the amount of dead discards the United States has reported to ICCAT in the last few years (ranging from 122 to 204 mt), NMFS considers this potential situation to be unlikely, as the dead discard estimate would need to be approximately 330 mt. To address the possibility of overharvest of the adjusted U.S. quota, NMFS requests public comment on potential regulatory options to consider for the final 2013 quota and subquotas. For example, the Longline and/or the Reserve category quotas could be reduced as necessary, or the overall 2013 BFT quota could be reduced, which would affect all category subquotas.
        NMFS considers the proposed specifications approach as a transition from the method used for 2007 through 2010, as NMFS continues to develop draft Amendment 7 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP. From 2007 through 2010, there were substantial underharvests of some of the commercial BFT subquotas. Consistent with the Consolidated HMS FMP and its implementing regulations, NMFS provided the Longline category a substantial portion of prior year U.S. underharvest that was allowed to be carried forward (limited to 50 percent of the total U.S. quota at that time) during the annual specification process at the beginning of the fishing year. This provided quota sufficient for the pelagic longline fleet to operate for the entire fishing year while also accounting for dead discards “up front,” using the best available estimate of anticipated dead discards. NMFS was also able to increase the directed categories' quotas and the Reserve category quota using available underharvest.
        Draft Amendment 7 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP will explore related BFT fishery management issues consistent with the need to end overfishing and rebuild the stock. NMFS anticipates that measures in draft Amendment 7 would address several of the long-standing challenges facing the fishery and will examine, among other things, revisiting quota allocations; reducing and accounting for dead discards; adding or modifying time/area closures or gear-restricted areas; and improving the reporting and monitoring of dead discards and landings in all categories. NMFS anticipates that draft Amendment 7 will publish in mid-2013.

        In the meantime, management of the BFT fishery continues under the current Consolidated HMS FMP, implementing regulations, and ICCAT Recommendations. In contemplating how to account for dead discards within the BFT quota and allocate the underharvest that is allowed to be carried forward, NMFS believes that the operational issues facing the pelagic longline fishery as the fleet continues directed fishing operations for swordfish and other tunas should be considered. NMFS anticipates that dead discards in the pelagic longline fishery may be reduced due to continued implementation of the weak hook requirement in the Gulf of Mexico in 2011 (76 FR 18653, April 5, 2011).
        BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

          EP11AP13.002

        Request for Comments

        NMFS solicits comments on this proposed rule through May 13, 2013. See instructions in ADDRESSES section above.
        Public Hearing Dates and Locations

        1. April 29, 2013, 2 to 4 p.m., Gloucester, MA—NMFS, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930

        2. May 3, 2013, 1 to 3 p.m., Silver Spring, MD—NMFS Science Center, 1301 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910
        The public hearing locations will be physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Sarah McLaughlin at (978) 281-9279, at least 7 days prior to the meeting. The public is reminded that NMFS expects participants at the public hearings to conduct themselves appropriately. At the beginning of each public hearing, a representative of NMFS will explain the ground rules (e.g., alcohol is prohibited from the hearing room; attendees will be called to give their comments in the order in which they registered to speak; each attendee will have an equal amount of time to speak; and attendees should not interrupt one another). The NMFS representative will attempt to structure the meeting so that all attending members of the public will be able to comment, if they so choose, regardless of the controversial nature of the subject(s). Attendees are expected to respect the ground rules, and, if they do not, they will be asked to leave the hearing.
        Classification
        The NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that the proposed rule is consistent with the Consolidated HMS FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, ATCA, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This proposed rule is exempt from the procedures of E.O. 12866 because this action contains no implementing regulations.

        Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., the Chief Council for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Council for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The reasoning for this certification is as follows:
        These annual BFT quota specifications (effective January 1 through December 31, 2013) are necessary to implement ICCAT recommendations, as required by ATCA, and to achieve domestic management objectives under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Under ATCA, the United States must promulgate regulations as necessary and appropriate to implement binding recommendations of ICCAT.

        The proposed rule would adjust the annual U.S. baseline BFT quota to account for any underharvest or overharvest of the adjusted 2012 U.S. BFT quota. Preliminary information indicates an underharvest of the 2012 adjusted BFT quota. This proposed action was developed in accordance with the framework process set forth in the Consolidated HMS FMP, and is supported by the Environmental Impact Statement/Regulatory Impact Review/Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis prepared for the Consolidated HMS FMP, the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis prepared for the 2011 final rule implementing BFT quotas and Atlantic tuna fisheries management, and the Supplemental Environmental Assessment prepared for these 2013 quota specifications (see ADDRESSES).
        On July 5, 2011, NMFS published a final rule (76 FR 39019) that modified the U.S. baseline quota to 923.7 mt to implement ICCAT Recommendation 10-03 (Supplemental Recommendation by ICCAT concerning the Western Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Rebuilding Program) and set the category subquotas per the allocation percentages established in the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan (Consolidated HMS FMP, 71 FR 58058, October 2, 2006). At its 2012 annual meeting, ICCAT recommended a one-year rollover of the annual Total Allowable Catch (TAC) of 1,750 mt that was set in 2010 for 2011 and 2012 (ICCAT Recommendation 12-02).
        Although the baseline quota is unchanged this year because the 2012 ICCAT recommendation included the same TAC as the prior recommendation, NMFS will make underharvest and overharvest adjustments as necessary for the 2013 fishing year through quota specifications, consistent with the Consolidated HMS FMP. Preliminary information indicates an underharvest of the 2012 adjusted bluefin tuna quota. The proposed quota specifications were developed in accordance with the framework process set forth in the Consolidated HMS FMP, and is supported by the Environmental Impact Statement/Regulatory Impact Review/Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis prepared for the Consolidated HMS FMP and the Supplemental Environmental Assessment prepared for this action.
        As summarized in the 2012 Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation Report for Atlantic Highly Migratory Species, there were approximately 8,492 commercial Atlantic tunas or Atlantic HMS permits in 2012, as follows: 4,084 in the Atlantic Tunas General category; 13 in the Atlantic Tunas Harpoon category; 5 in the Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine category; 253 in the Atlantic Tunas Longline category; 8 in the Atlantic Tunas Trap category; and 4,129 in the HMS Charter/Headboat category. This constitutes the best available information regarding the universe of permits and permit holders recently analyzed.
        Under the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations implementing the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., a small fishing entity is one that has less than $4 million in annual revenue ($6.5 million for charter/party boats). This action would apply to all participants in the Atlantic bluefin tuna fishery, all of which are considered small entities.
        The U.S. Atlantic bluefin tuna quota includes dead discards. Although the United States is not required by ICCAT or current regulations to account for the total amount of dead discards until the end of the fishing season, in both the 2011 and 2012 proposed specifications, NMFS took the proactive measure of accounting for half of the dead discard estimate “up front,” (i.e., at the beginning of the fishing year) and deducting that portion directly from the Longline category quota.
        The current ICCAT recommendation limits the amount of underharvest that may be carried forward from one year to the next to no more than 10 percent of a country's quota. This restriction limits the amount of underharvest that may be carried forward to 94.9 mt (10 percent of the 948.7-mt total U.S. quota). In both 2011 and 2012, NMFS proposed allocating half of the amount of underharvest that was allowed to be carried forward to the Longline category and maintaining the other half in the Reserve category. This recommendation was intended to provide maximum flexibility in accounting for landings and dead discards at the end of the year. In 2012, when the pelagic longline fishery reached the incidental Longline bluefin tuna subquota, NMFS prohibited further retention of bluefin tuna in that fishery for the remainder of the year before finalizing the quota specifications. Therefore, NMFS provided a slightly larger portion to the Longline category in the final rule to account for actual bluefin tuna landings, and placed the remainder in the Reserve category. For the last two years, NMFS has maintained the directed fishing categories at their baseline quotas.

        NMFS proposes to carry 94.9 mt forward to 2013 and distribute that amount in the same manner as proposed for 2011 and 2012, i.e., half to the Longline category quota and half to the Reserve category quota. The directed fishing categories would continue to receive their baseline subquotas. This would result in the same subquotas as were finalized in 2011. NMFS will make any necessary adjustments to the 2013 specifications in the final rule after considering updated 2012 landings information and the final dead discard estimate for 2012, which should be available in late spring.
        The most recent ex-vessel average price per pound information for each commercial quota category is used to estimate potential ex-vessel gross revenues under the proposed 2013 subquotas (i.e., 2012 prices for the General, Harpoon, and Longline/Trap, and Purse Seine categories). The 2013 subquotas could result in estimated gross revenues for each category, if finalized and fully utilized, as follows: General category: $8.8 million (435.1 mt * $9.13/lb); Harpoon category: $724,600 (36 mt * $9.13/lb); Purse Seine category: $4.7 million (171.8 mt * $12.46/lb); Trap category: $12,300 (0.9 mt * $6.19/lb); and Longline category: $678,000 (49.7 mt * $6.19/lb). Estimated potential 2013 revenues on a per vessel basis, considering the number of permit holders listed above and the proposed subquotas, could be $2,144 for the General category; $55,739 for the Harpoon category; $2,681 for the Longline category; $943,845 for the Purse Seine category; and $1,535 for the Trap category. Thus, all of the entities affected by this rule are considered to be small entities for the purposes of the RFA.
        This proposed rule would not change the U.S. Atlantic bluefin tuna baseline quota, amount of carryover, or implement any new management measures not previously considered. The baseline quota and category subquotas are codified and remain effective until changed (for instance, if any new ICCAT bluefin tuna TAC recommendation is adopted). Thus, the affected entities will not experience any negative, direct economic impacts as a result of this rule.
        The annual specification process that this proposed rule follows, including application of underharvests and overharvests, is described in detail in Chapters 2 and 4 of the Consolidated HMS FMP. Because the economic impacts of the carryover of underharvest, to the extent that there are any, are expected to be generally positive, this rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, no initial regulatory flexibility analysis is required, and none has been prepared.

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 971 et seq. and 1801 et seq.

          Dated: April 8, 2013.
          Alan D. Risenhoover,
          Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, performing the functions and duties of the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2013-08492 Filed 4-10-13; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 679
        RIN 0648-BG54
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Integrating Electronic Monitoring Into the North Pacific Observer Program

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of availability of fishery management plan amendments; request for comments; notice of public hearing.

          SUMMARY:
          The North Pacific Fishery Management Council submitted Amendment 114 to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area and Amendment 104 to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (collectively referred to as the FMPs) to the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) for review. If approved, Amendments 114/104 would integrate electronic monitoring into the North Pacific Observer Program. This action is necessary to improve the collection of data necessary for the conservation, management, and scientific understanding of managed fisheries. Amendments 114/104 are intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the FMPs, and other applicable laws.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received no later than May 9, 2017.
          Per section 313 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS will conduct public hearings to accept oral and written comments on the proposed rule in Oregon, Washington, and Alaska during the public comment period.
          The first public hearing will be held in conjunction with the April meeting of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council on April 6, 2017, 6 p.m. to 8 p.m., Alaska local time, at the Hilton Hotel, 500 W 3rd Ave., Anchorage, AK 99501.
          The second public hearing will be on April 18, 2017, 10 a.m. to 12 p.m., Pacific daylight time, at the International Pacific Halibut Commission office, 2320 West Commodore Way, Suite 300, Seattle, WA 98199.

          The third public hearing will be held on April 19, 2017, 1 p.m. to 3 p.m., Pacific daylight time, at the Hatfield Marine Science Center, Lavern Weber Room, 2030 SE Marine Science Drive, Newport, OR 97365.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2016-0154, by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2016-0154, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. Mail comments to P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668.

            Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

          Electronic copies of Amendments 114 and 104 and the Draft Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review prepared for this action (collectively the “Analysis”) may be obtained from www.regulations.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Gretchen Harrington or Jennifer Watson, 907-586-7228.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires that each regional fishery management council submit any fishery management plan amendment it prepares to NMFS for review and approval, disapproval, or partial approval by the Secretary of Commerce. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving a fishery management plan amendment, immediately publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing that the amendment is available for public review and comment. This notice announces that proposed Amendments 114/104 to the FMPs are available for public review and comment.

        NMFS manages the groundfish fisheries in the exclusive economic zone under the FMPs. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared the FMPs under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Regulations governing U.S. fisheries and implementing the FMP appear at 50 CFR parts 600 and 679.
        Amendments 114/104 to the FMPs would amend the Council's fisheries research plan prepared under the authority of section 313 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. NMFS published regulations implementing the plan on November 21, 2012 (77 FR 70062). The Council's fisheries research plan is implemented through the North Pacific Observer Program (Observer Program) and its purpose is to collect data necessary for the conservation, management, and scientific understanding of the groundfish and halibut fisheries off Alaska.
        In December 2016, the Council adopted Amendments 114/104 to integrate electronic monitoring (EM) into the Observer Program. The Observer Program is an integral component in the management of North Pacific fisheries. The Observer Program provides the regulatory framework for NMFS-certified observers (observers) to be deployed onboard vessels to obtain information necessary for the conservation and management of the groundfish fisheries, and, although not managed under the FMPs, the halibut fisheries. The information collected by observers contributes to the best available scientific information used to manage the fisheries in furtherance of the purposes and national standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Observers collect biological samples and information on total catch, including bycatch, and interactions with protected species. Managers use data collected by observers to manage groundfish catch and bycatch limits established in regulation and to document fishery interactions with protected resources. Managers also use data collected by observers to inform the development of management measures that minimize bycatch and reduce fishery interactions with protected resources. Scientists use observer-collected data for stock assessments and marine ecosystem research.
        In 2013, the Council and NMFS restructured the Observer Program to address longstanding concerns about statistical bias of observer-collected data and cost inequality among fishery participants with the funding and deployment structure under the previous Observer Program (77 FR 70062, November 21, 2012). The restructured Observer Program established two observer coverage categories: Partial and full. All groundfish and halibut vessels and processors are included in one of these two categories. The partial coverage category includes fishing sectors (vessels and processors) that are not required to have an observer at all times. The partial coverage category includes catcher vessels, shoreside processors, and stationary floating processors when they are not participating in a catch share program with a transferrable prohibited species catch limit. Small catcher/processors that meet certain criteria are also in the partial coverage category. Proposed Amendments 114/104 are designed to integrate EM in the partial coverage category and would not change provisions in the FMP that apply to the full coverage category.
        NMFS contracts with an observer provider and determines when and where observers are deployed, based on a scientific sampling design for the partial coverage category. The restructured Observer Program created a new observer funding system to fund observer deployment in the partial coverage category. Vessels and processors in the partial coverage category pay a fee equal to1.25 percent of the fishery ex-vessel value.
        The restructured Observer Program includes vessel sectors (the halibut sector and the less than 60 ft. length overall (LOA) groundfish sector) that were not subject to any observer requirements under the previous program. Even before implementing the restructured Observer Program, many vessel owners and operators new to the Observer Program were opposed to carrying an observer (77 FR 70062, November 21, 2012). Vessel owners and operators explained that there is limited space on board for an additional person or limited space in the vessel's life raft. Some vessel owners, operators, and industry representatives advocated for the use of EM instead of having an observer on board their vessels. To address their concerns, the Council and NMFS have been actively engaged in developing EM as a tool to collect fishery data.

        In 2013, NMFS developed, and the Council adopted, the Strategic Plan for Electronic Monitoring and Electronic Reporting in the North Pacific to guide integration of monitoring technologies into North Pacific fisheries management and provide goals and benchmarks to evaluate attainment of goals (available on the Alaska Fisheries Science Center Web site at http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/Publications/AFSC-TM/NOAA-TM-AFSC-276.pdf).

        In 2014, the Council appointed an EM Workgroup to develop an EM program to integrate into the Observer Program. The EM Workgroup provides a forum for stakeholders, including the commercial fishery participants, NMFS, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and EM service providers, to cooperatively and collaboratively design, test, and develop EM systems, and to identify key decision points related to operationalizing and integrating EM systems into the Observer Program in a strategic manner. Amendments 114/104 reflect the design and recommendations of the EM Workgroup. Additional information on the work of the EM Workgroup is provided in the Analysis (see ADDRESSES).
        The Council and NMFS developed EM for data collection for vessels that use nontrawl gear in the partial coverage category to address their desire for an alternative way to collect fisheries data in consideration of the operating requirements of these fisheries. Nontrawl gear fishery participants identified unique issues with carrying an observer. Vessel owners and operators explained that there is limited space onboard for an additional person or limited space in the vessel's life raft. EM has the potential to reduce economic and operational costs associated with deploying human observers throughout coastal Alaska. Through the use of EM, it may be possible to obtain at-sea data from a broader cross-section of the nontrawl gear fleet at lower cost and increase flexibility to respond to the scientific and management needs of these fisheries.
        Proposed Amendments 114/104 would revise the FMPs to include provisions for the use of EM systems in the Executive Summary, Section 3.2.4, Section 3.9, and Appendix A. Under proposed Amendments 114/104, owners or operators of vessels using nontrawl gear in the partial coverage category would be able to choose to use an EM system instead of carrying an observer. An EM system uses cameras, a video storage devise, and associated sensors to passively record and monitor fishing activities. The video is reviewed by an analyst onshore at a later time to collect catch and effort information.
        NMFS would contract with an EM service provider to install EM systems on vessels. NMFS would use a portion of the fee revenues to fund EM systems and EM deployment under proposed Amendments 114/104, as authorized by section 313 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
        The EM service provider would work with the vessel owner or operator to develop the vessel monitoring plan. The vessel monitoring plan would describe how fishing operations on the vessel would be conducted and how the EM system and associated equipment would be configured to meet the data collection objectives and purpose of the EM program. The proposed rule to implement proposed Amendments 114/104 provides the details of the responsibilities of vessel owners or operators if they decide to participate in EM.

        Owners or operators of vessels using nontrawl gear could request to be in the EM selection pool. During the fishing year, NMFS would randomly select vessels in the EM selection pool to use an EM system on a fishing trip according to the sampling design in the annual deployment plan (ADP). The ADP would describe how NMFS plans to deploy observers on vessels in the partial coverage category in the upcoming year, to determine the criteria for the EM selection pool and to deploy EM on fishing trips in the upcoming year. NMFS uses the sampling design to generate unbiased estimates of total and retained catch, and catch composition in the groundfish and halibut fisheries. NMFS would make adjustments to the ADP each year after NMFS conducts a scientific evaluation of data collected by observers and EM systems to evaluate the impact of changes in observer and EM system deployment and identify areas where improvements are needed to collect the data necessary to conserve and manage the groundfish and halibut fisheries. The Council and its Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) review the ADP each October, receive public comments on the ADP, and make additional recommendations for improvements. NMFS finalizes the ADP in December and releases it prior to the start of the fishing year. NMFS posts the ADP on the NMFS Alaska Region Web site (http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov).

        Each year, NMFS would also evaluate in the Annual Report how well various aspects of the Observer Program and the EM deployment are achieving program goals, identify areas where improvements are needed, and make recommendations to modify the sampling design in the upcoming ADP. The SSC and Council review the Annual Report each June, and receive public comments on the Annual Report, and make additional recommendations for improvements. NMFS posts the Annual Report on the NMFS Alaska Region Web site (http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov).

        NMFS is soliciting public comments on proposed Amendments 114/104 through the end of the comment period (see DATES). NMFS intends to publish in the Federal Register and seek public comment on a proposed rule that would implement Amendments 114/104, following NMFS' evaluation of the proposed rule under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Magnuson-Stevens Act section 313 requires NMFS to provide a 60-day public comment period on the proposed rule and conduct a public hearing in each state represented on the Council for the purpose of receiving public comment on the proposed regulations. The states represented on the Council are Alaska, Oregon, and Washington. NMFS will conduct a public hearing in each of these states (see DATES).
        People wanting to make an oral statement for the record at the public hearing are encouraged to provide a written copy of their statement and present it to NMFS at the hearing. If attendance at the public hearing is large, the time allotted for individual oral statements may be limited. Oral and written statements receive equal consideration. There are no limits on the length of written comments submitted to NMFS.

        Respondents do not need to submit the same comments on Amendments 114/104, the proposed rule, and at a public hearing. All relevant written and oral comments received by the end of the applicable comment period, whether specifically directed to the FMP amendments, this proposed rule, or both, will be considered by NMFS in the approval/disapproval decision for Amendments 114/104 and addressed in the response to comments in the final decision. Comments received after end of the applicable comment period will not be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on Amendments 114/104. To be considered, comments must be received, not just postmarked or otherwise transmitted, by the last day of the comment period (see DATES).

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

          Dated: March 6, 2017.
          Karen H. Abrams,
          Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2017-04716 Filed 3-9-17; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P