        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Parts 648, 660, and 679
        RIN 0648-XG338
        Request for Information on National Reform of Regional Observer Program Insurance Requirements

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

          ACTION:
          Notification; Request for Information (RFI).

          SUMMARY:

          NMFS requests information from the public to support a national initiative to reform and streamline observer program insurance requirements. The goals of this reform effort are to: ease the regulatory burden and reduce costs for private companies that provide observer staffing to NMFS observer programs through more efficient, nationally applicable insurance requirements; eliminate outdated and/or inappropriate regulatory requirements; reduce observer deployment risks for vessel owners and shore side processors; and identify insurance that could improve observer safety and facilitate full compensation for observer occupational injuries. To proceed with this effort, NMFS seeks technical information on the types of insurance and minimum coverage amounts (in dollars) that would minimize observer deployment risks to the extent practicable considering costs and other factors. Additionally, NMFS seeks public comment on Federal Employees Compensation Act (FECA) claims and benefits processing for observer occupational injuries and whether observer companies should carry private insurance to supplement FECA benefits for observers.

          DATES:
          Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before September 14, 2018.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit written comments by any of the following methods:
          • Email: NMFS-HQ-ST.Insurance-Reform@NOAA.GOV. Please include the subject heading of “Comments on Regional Observer Program RFI”. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word or Excel, or Adobe PDF formats only.
          • Mail: Dennis Hansford, 1315 East West Highway, Room 12506, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

            Instructions: Comments containing references, studies, research, and other empirical data that are not widely published should include copies or electronic links of the referenced materials. All submissions, including attachments and other supporting materials, will become part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Sensitive personal information, such as account numbers or Social Security numbers, or names of individuals, should not be included. Submissions will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information. Do not submit confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive or protected information. Comments that contain profanity, vulgarity, threats, or other inappropriate language will not be considered.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Requests for additional information should be directed to Dennis Hansford, 301-427-8136 or dennis.hansford@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Overview

        The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., establishes a national program for conservation and management of fishery resources within the United States Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). See id. 1801(a)(6), 1811(a). NMFS, acting under authority delegated from the Secretary of Commerce, is responsible for managing fisheries under the MSA, in conjunction with eight regional fishery management councils (Councils) established under the Act. See id. 1852(a). Each Council has authority to develop fishery management plans (FMPs) for fisheries in a specific geographical area and to deem proposed regulations that are necessary for plan implementation. See id. 1852(a), (c).

        Collection of information on fishing and fish processing, such as type and quantity of fishing gear used, catch in numbers of fish or weight thereof, fishing locations, and biological information, are critical to effective fishery management. See id. 1853(a)(5). To obtain this information, the MSA authorizes, among other things, that an FMP may “[r]equire that one or more observers be carried on board a vessel of the United States engaged in fishing for species that are subject to the plan, for the purpose of collecting data necessary for the conservation and management of the fishery . . .”. See id. 1853(b)(8).

        In 2016, 53 fisheries subject to management under an FMP or international authority were monitored by observer programs. To carry out required observer coverage, NMFS administers 14 observer programs that operate in the agency's five regions. These programs train and deploy observers, establish information collection protocols, debrief observers following deployment to provide quality control on information that observers collect, and oversee private companies that provide program support. At present, all NMFS observer programs staff their at-sea and shore side observer deployments through private companies, commonly referred to as observer providers. Observer providers service NMFS regional observer programs under two distinct models: (1) Direct service, where the NMFS observer program contracts with an observer provider; and (2) industry-funded, where the observer provider contracts with industry to fulfill observer coverage requirements. Further information about NMFS' regional observer programs is available at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/fishery-observers.

        While observers most frequently are deployed under the MSA to collect information on fishing vessels, observers also are deployed on motherships, and shore side processing facilities. Additionally, NMFS' regional observer programs deploy at-sea monitors, who collect only vessel catch information under “catch share programs,” which allocate a portion of a fishery total allowable catch to permit holders or sectors. For purposes of this RFI, the term “observer” refers to a person deployed in any of these roles.
        Observer Deployment Risks
        The Bureau of Labor Statistics, Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries ranks commercial fishing as one of the most dangerous occupations. Because most observers are deployed to fishing vessels, observer risk of occupational injury is on par with that of commercial fishermen. Observer programs also entail risks for observer employers—private companies—and the fishing vessels and shore side processors that are subject to observer coverage. The risks for the three parties include:—
        1. Observers—risk of occupational injury.

        2. Vessel owners and shore side processors—observer claims for compensation for incidents arising out of deployment, e.g., occupational injury.

        3. Private companies—observer claims for compensation for incidents arising out of deployment, e.g., occupational injury, and vessel/shore side processor owner claims for damages resulting from observer negligence.
        Insurance and statutory compensation programs are the traditional mechanisms to address the risks that private companies entail. However, the nuances of maritime law combined with the unique nature of the fishery observer occupation have complicated efforts to address observer risks, whether through insurance or statutory program. Since 1994, Councils and NMFS have taken various efforts to resolve insurance issues for observer programs. These efforts have resulted in regulatory—or contract based—insurance requirements that differ across regions. At present, the types of insurance policies that observer providers are required to have, either by regulation or by contract, include the following:

        • Maritime liability to cover “seamen's claims” under the Merchant Marine Act (Jones Act) and General Maritime Law
        • U.S. Longshore and Harbor Worker's Compensation Act
        • State Worker's Compensation
        • Contractual General Liability
        • Marine General Liability
        • Commercial General Liability
        • Marine Employers Liability

        Regulatory based observer provider insurance requirements are codified at 50 CFR 679.52(b)(11)(vi) (North Pacific Groundfish Observer Program), 50 CFR 660.17(e)(vii) (West Coast Groundfish Observer Program), and 50 CFR 648.11(h)(3) (Northeast Observer Program).

        In addition, Congress addressed compensation for observer occupational risks through the 1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA). Public Law 104-297 (Oct. 11, 1996). Through that statute, Congress amended the MSA to deem observers to be federal employees for purposes of FECA while deployed on a vessel under the Act or the Marine Mammal Protection Act. 16 U.S.C. 1881b(c). The extension of FECA coverage to observers deployed at-sea filled a gap in coverage for observer occupational injuries that occur at-sea, but this extension is not applicable to shore side observers.
        NMFS Reevaluation of Observer Program Insurance Requirements

        Beginning in 2014, NMFS initiated a reevaluation of regional observer program insurance requirements. This effort included an Observer Provider Insurance Workshop in 2016 during which observer providers, insurance experts, and observers joined NMFS and representatives from other federal agencies to discuss the efficiency of observer provider insurance requirements and compensation for observer occupational injuries. Subsequent to the Insurance Workshop, NMFS published an Observer Provider Insurance Workshop Technical Report (Tech Report), available at http://spo.nmfs.noaa.gov/tech-memos, which summarized the Workshop's proceedings and identified actions that NMFS could take to reform observer program insurance requirements and facilitate compensation for observer occupational injuries. As detailed in the Tech Report, some of the insurance policies that observer providers are required to have are inapplicable to observers or have limited applicability depending on whether the claim concerns an injury sustained at-sea or on shore. Furthermore, prior to the publication of the Tech Report, it was noted that other forms of insurance generally not required, such as a Marine General Liability policy, may better address certain observer company risks.
        In addition, NMFS has learned that, while FECA does provide coverage for observer at-sea injuries, the compensation formula under that Act does not provide for overtime pay. Because observers typically work 12-16 hour shifts to correspond with fishing vessel crew shifts, they often do not receive full wage compensation for occupational injury claims under FECA.
        To address these issues, the Tech Report recommended that NMFS explore replacing regional insurance requirements with nationally applicable minimum insurance requirements. The goal of that action would be to streamline and improve the efficiency of regional observer provider insurance requirements, thereby resulting in reduced regulatory burden, cost savings, and a suite of insurance that better addresses observer deployment risks. Considering the highly technical nature of maritime insurance and insurance markets in general, the Tech Report recommended that NMFS first gather more information on the types of insurance and minimum dollar coverage amounts for the risks that observer deployments present. NMFS issues this RFI to gather that information through the questions below.

        In addition, NMFS seeks public comment on the related issue of FECA compensation for observer occupational injuries and whether some form of private insurance could supplement FECA benefits. National inconsistencies with observer compensation for occupational injuries were noted not only in the Tech Report, but also in the Observer Program Safety Review (OPSR) Final Report, available at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/document/observer-safety-program-review-report. The OPSR recommended that NMFS initiate action to improve the insurance scheme for compensation of observer occupational injuries. Through this notification, NMFS seeks information to respond to that recommendation and ways that insurance can improve observer safety.
        Request for Information

        To reform and streamline observer provider insurance requirements, and facilitate observer compensation for at-sea occupational injuries under FECA, NMFS seeks public comment on the issues raised in this RFI and, in particular, on the following questions. See ADDRESSES for information on how to submit comments.
        1. What insurance policies and coverage amounts (in dollars) are appropriate to address observer deployment risks for: (a) Observers, (b) observer providers, and (c) owners of vessel and shore side processors and other observing platforms?
        2. If observer providers have different insurance requirements to cover the different contexts in which observers are deployed—at-sea and shore side, what would be the most feasible and efficient insurance package and associated dollar amounts for covering all of the various contexts?
        3. As an alternative to national minimum insurance requirements, would it be feasible, and more efficient, for observer providers to self-organize and self-insure?
        4. If an insurance policy for a Jones Act or General Maritime Law claim is required, acknowledging that courts in some jurisdictions have held that those claims are inapplicable to observers, might it be beneficial to continue the requirement?
        5. What gaps, if any, are there in FECA coverage for observer occupational injuries? For observers, what, if any, problems have you experienced with regard to claims and benefits for occupational injuries, whether under FECA, state worker's compensation, or private insurance?
        6. If there are gaps in FECA coverage, is there a type of private insurance that could supplement FECA compensation for observer occupational injuries?
        7. What types of insurance could advance NMFS' efforts to improve the safety of observer programs and reduce the occurrence of observer occupational injuries?
        8. To maximize efficiency of observer insurance requirements, should NMFS address the requirements regionally, through regional regulatory or contractual insurance requirements, or through nationally applicable minimum insurance standards? If a, what regional or national policies and dollar amounts of coverage would be appropriate?

          Dated: July 10, 2018.
          Edward C. Cyr,
          Director, Office of Science and Technology, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2018-15057 Filed 7-13-18; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 63
        [FRL-7270-9]
        Approval of the Clean Air Act, Section 112(l), Authority for Hazardous Air Pollutants; Perchloroethylene Air Emission Standards for Dry Cleaning Facilities; Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          EPA proposes to approve Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection's (MA DEP) request to implement and enforce its Regulation 310 CMR, Sections 7.26(10)-(16) Perchloroethylene Air Emissions Standards for Dry Cleaning Facilities and Sections 70.01-04 Environmental Results Program Certification pertaining to dry cleaning facilities in place of the National Perchloroethylene Air Emission Standards for Dry Cleaning Facilities (“Drycleaning NESHAPS”), as it applies to area sources. Approval of this request would make Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection's rules federally enforceable and would reduce the burden on area sources within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts's jurisdiction such that they would only have one rule with which they must comply. Major sources would remain subject to the Federal drycleaning NESHAP.
          In the final rules section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving MA DEP's request as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial action and anticipates no relevant adverse comments. MA DEP has been enforcing its own regulations since 1997. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no relevant adverse comments are received in response to this action, EPA will take no further action on this proposed rule. If the EPA receives relevant adverse comments, EPA will withdraw the direct final rule and it will not take effect. EPA will then address all public comments received in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period in this action.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received on or before October 16, 2002.

          ADDRESSES:
          Written comments should be mailed concurrently to the addresses below: Steven Rapp, Chief, Air Permits, Toxics, and Indoor Programs Unit (CAP), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region I, One Congress Street, Suite 1100, Boston, MA 02114.
          Steven DeGabriele, Director, Business Compliance Division, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, One Winter Street, Boston, MA 02108.
          Copies of the requests for approval are available for public inspection at EPA's Region I Office, Air Permits, Toxics and Indoor Programs Unit during normal business hours.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          MaryBeth Smuts, Air Permits, Toxics, and Indoor Programs Unit, U.S. EPA Region I, One Congress St, Suite 1100, Boston, MA 02114, (617) 918-1512.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        For additional information see the direct final action which is published in the Rules section of this Federal Register.

          Dated: August 13, 2002.
          Robert W. Varney,
          Regional Administrator, EPA-New England.

      [FR Doc. 02-23258 Filed 9-13-02; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 635
        [Docket No. 010326079-1079-01; I.D. 010301C]
        RIN 0648-AO96
        Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS); 2001 Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Quota Specifications and General Category Effort Controls

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed initial annual quota specifications and General category effort controls; public hearings; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes initial specifications for the Atlantic bluefin tuna (BFT) fishery to set BFT quota and General category effort controls for the 2001 fishing year. The proposed initial quota specifications and effort controls are necessary to implement the 1998 recommendation 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). NMFS will hold public hearings to receive comments from fishery participants and other members of the public regarding the proposed initial quota specifications and effort controls.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received on or before May 14, 2001.
          The public hearings dates are: -
          1. Wednesday, April 11, 2001, 7 p.m. to 9 p.m., Gloucester, MA 01930. -
          2. Tuesday, April 17, 2001, 7 p.m. to 9 p.m., Hyannis, MA 02601. -
          3. Friday, April 20, 2001, 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. Brunswick, ME 04011. -
          4. Friday, April 27, 2001, 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. Riverhead, NY 11901.

          ADDRESSES:
          Written comments on the proposed initial quota specifications and General category effort controls should be sent to Chris Rogers, Acting Chief, Highly Migratory Species Management Division, Office of Sustainable Fisheries (F/SF1), NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3282. Comments also may be sent via facsimile (fax) to (301) 713-1917. Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or the Internet. -
          The public hearing locations are: -
          1. Gloucester--Milton Fuller School, 4 School House Road, Gloucester, MA 01930. -
          2. Hyannis--Sheraton Hyannis Four Points, Route 132, Hyannis, MA 02601. -
          3. Brunswick--The Atrium, 21 Gurnet Road, Cooks Corner, Brunswick, ME 04011 -
          4. Riverhead--Riverhead Town Hall, 2000 Howell Ave, Riverhead, NY 11901

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
           Brad McHale or Pat Scida, (978) 281-9260.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Atlantic tunas are managed under the dual authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and ATCA. ATCA authorizes the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to implement binding recommendations of ICCAT. The authority to issue regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and ATCA has been delegated from the Secretary to the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA). -
        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 (HMS FMP) that was adopted and made available to the public in April 1999. The proposed initial specifications are necessary to implement the 1998 ICCAT recommendation, which is required by ATCA, and to achieve domestic management objectives under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The proposed initial quota specifications would allocate the total ICCAT-recommended quota (including the allocation of the unused portion of the dead discard allowance) among the several established fishing categories, would carry-over any unharvested quota in 2000 from a specific category to the same category for 2001, and would be consistent with the BFT rebuilding program as set forth in the HMS FMP. -

        NMFS proposes the 2001 fishing year (June 1, 2001 to May 31, 2001) BFT initial quota specifications under the annual and inseason adjustment procedures of the HMS FMP. Also in accordance with the HMS FMP, NMFS proposes the General category effort control schedule, including time-period subquotas and restricted fishing days (RFDs), for the upcoming fishing season. After consideration of public comment, NMFS will issue final initial specifications and publish them in the Federal Register. -
        Domestic Quota Allocation
        The HMS FMP and the implementing regulations established baseline percentage quota shares for each of the domestic fishing categories of the ICCAT-recommended U.S. BFT quota. These percentage shares were based on allocation procedures that had been developed by NMFS over several years. The baseline percentage quota shares established in the HMS FMP for fishing years beginning June 1, 2001 are as follows: General category--47.1 percent; Harpoon category--3.9 percent; Purse Seine category --18.6 percent; Angling category--19.7 percent; Longline category--8.1 percent; Trap category--0.1 percent; and Reserve--2.5 percent. -
        The current ICCAT BFT quota recommendation allows, and U.S. regulations require, the addition or subtraction, as appropriate, of any underharvest or overharvest in a fishing year to the appropriate quota category for the following year, provided that such carryover does not result in overharvest of the total annual quota and is consistent with all applicable ICCAT recommendations, including restrictions on landings of school BFT. Therefore, NMFS proposes to adjust the 2001 fishing year quota specifications for the BFT fishery to account for underharvest and overharvest in the 2000 fishing year. -
        The General, Harpoon, and Purse Seine category fisheries for BFT have been closed for the 2000 fishing year (June 1, 2000 to May 31, 2001), but landings figures are still preliminary and may be updated before the 2001 specifications are finalized. For the 2000 fishing year, NMFS has preliminarily determined that General category landings were less then the adjusted General category quota by 9.7 mt; Harpoon category landings were less then the adjusted Harpoon category quota by 0.6 mt; and Purse Seine category landings exceeded the adjusted Purse Seine category quota by 4.0 mt. Based on the estimated amount of Reserve that NMFS is maintaining for the landing of BFT taken during ongoing scientific research projects, NMFS estimates that 9.4 mt of Reserve remains unharvested from the 2000 fishing year. -

        Given estimated catch rates and available quota, the Angling and Longline category fisheries will remain open through May 31, 2001. As NMFS anticipates publication of final BFT quota specifications for the 2001 fishing year prior to the availability of final 2000 landings figures for these two categories, best estimates will be used to determine carryover amounts, if any. To date, the Angling category has the following underharvests for the 2000 fishing year: School BFT--118.4 mt; large school/small medium BFT--130.1 mt; and large medium/giant BFT--4.8 mt. In addition, 38.3 mt remains in the school reserve. To date, 100.6 mt remain in the Longline category. Should adjustments to the proposed initial 2001 BFT quota specifications be required based on the final 2000 BFT landings figures, NMFS will publish a Federal Register document adjusting the final initial 2001 fishing year quota specifications. -
        In accordance with the regulations regarding annual adjustments at § 635.27(a)(9)(ii), NMFS proposes specifications for the 2001 fishing year that include carryover adjustments. The proposed quotas are: General category--667.0 mt; Harpoon category--55.0 mt; Purse Seine category--255.6 mt; Angling category--566.4 mt; Longline category--213.6 mt; and Trap category--3.9 mt. Additionally, 44.3 mt would be reserved for inseason allocations or to cover potential overharvest in any category except the Purse Seine category. Regulations at 50 CFR 635.27(a)(9)(i) require that Purse Seine category vessels add or subtract under or overharvests to or from each individual vessel’s quota allocation, as appropriate. -
        As part of the BFT rebuilding program, ICCAT recommended an allowance for dead discards. The U.S. dead discard allowance is 68 metric tons (mt). The 1999 fishing year preliminary estimate of U.S. dead discards, as reported in pelagic longline vessel logbooks, totaled 51 mt (data provided by the Southeast Fisheries Science Center). As estimates of BFT dead discards for the 2000 fishing year will not be available for some time, the estimate for the 1999 fishing year was used to calculate the amount to be added to, or subtracted from, the U.S. BFT landings quota for 2001 as a result of dead discards. Estimates of dead discards from other gear types and fishing sectors that do not use the pelagic longline vessel logbook are unavailable at this time and thus are not included in this calculation. As U.S. fishing activity is estimated to have resulted in less dead discards than its allowance, the ICCAT recommendation and U.S. regulations state that the U.S. may add one-half of the difference between the amount of dead discards and the allowance (i.e., 68 mt - 51 mt = 17 mt, 17 mt/2 = 8.5 mt) to its total allowed landings for the following year, or to individual fishing categories or to the Reserve. NMFS proposes to allocate the 8.5 mt to the total allowed landings quota, which would then be allocated to the individual fishing categories based on the baseline percentage quota allocations established in the HMS FMP.- -
        Based on the proposed initial specifications, the Angling category quota of 566.4 mt would be divided as follows: School BFT--247.7 mt, with 134.3 mt to the northern area (north of 38° 47′ N. lat.), 113.4 mt to the southern area (south of 38° 47′ N. lat.), and an additional 20.6 mt held in reserve; large school/small medium BFT--286.9 mt, with 171.1 mt to the northern area and 115.8 mt to the southern area; and large medium/giant BFT--11.2 mt, with 4.9 mt to the northern area and 6.3 mt to the southern area. NMFS issued a proposed rule (65 FR 76601; December 7, 2000) that would adjust the location of the north-south dividing line to 39o 18′ N. latitude and change the percentage quota allocations in the northern and southern areas. Should a final rule be issued to implement these changes they will be incorporated into the final initial specifications. -

        The Longline category quota of 213.6 mt would be subdivided as follows: 27.0 mt to longline vessels landing BFT north of 34° N. lat. and 186.6 mt to longline vessels landing BFT south of 34° N. lat. -
        General Category Effort Controls
        For the last several years, NMFS has implemented General category time-period subquotas to increase the likelihood that fishing would continue throughout the late summer and early fall fishing seasons. The subquotas are consistent with the objectives of the HMS FMP and are designed to address concerns regarding allocation of fishing opportunities, to assist with distribution and achievement of optimum yield, to allow for a late season fishery, and to improve market conditions and scientific monitoring. -
        The HMS FMP divides the annual General category quota into three time-period subquotas as follows: 60 percent for June-August, 30 percent for September, and 10 percent for October-December. These percentages would be applied to the adjusted 2001 coastwide quota for the General category of 657.0 mt, with the remaining 10.0 mt being reserved for the New York Bight fishery. Therefore, coastwide, 394.2 mt would be available in the period beginning June 1 and ending August 31; 197.1 mt would be available in the period beginning September 1 and ending September 30; and 65.7 mt would be available in the period beginning October 1 and ending December 31, 2001. -
        In addition to time period subquotas, NMFS also has implemented General category RFDs to extend the fishing season throughout the summer and fall. The RFDs are consistent with the objectives of the HMS FMP and are designed to address the same issues addressed by time-period subquotas. For the 2001 fishing year, NMFS proposes a schedule of RFDs that is similar to that implemented for the 2000 fishing year, adjusted as necessary to coordinate with Japanese market holidays. -
        Persons aboard vessels permitted in the General category would be prohibited from fishing, including tag-and-release, for BFT of all sizes on the following days: July 15, 16, 18, 22, 23, 25, 29, and 30; August 1, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 13, 15, 19, 20, 22, 26, 27, and 29; September 2, 3, 5, 9, 10, 12, 16, 17, 19, 23, 24, 26, and 30; October 1, 3, 7, 8, 10, 14, and 15. These proposed RFDs would improve distribution of fishing opportunities without increasing BFT mortality. -
        Request for Comments
        Over the past year industry has expressed interest and concern over the allocation of BFT quota underharvest and the implementation of RFDs. NMFS specifically invites comments on the following subjects: (a) BFT quota carry-over provisions and the allocation of BFT quota carry-over for successive years; and (b) alternative methods of implementing effort controls, including procedures for waiving or adding RFDs during the fishing season.
        Comments submitted in response to this notice will be considered in the development of the final initial quota specifications and effort controls, and will also become a matter of public record.
        Public Hearings and Special Accommodations
        The public is reminded that NMFS expects participants at the public hearings to conduct themselves appropriately. At the beginning of each public hearing, a NMFS representative 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 hearing 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. -

        The public hearing sites are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Brad McHale (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) at least 7 days prior to the hearing.
        Classification

        These proposed specifications and effort controls are published under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., and the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act, 16 U.S.C. 971 et seq. Preliminarily, the AA has determined that the proposed specifications and the effort controls are consistent with the HMS FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and the 1998 ICCAT BFT catch recommendation.
        The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce has certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that the proposed specifications and effort controls would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as follows:

          The proposed initial specifications would set Atlantic BFT tuna quota allocations and General category effort controls for the 2001 fishing year; these proposed initial specifications are similar to those set for the 2000 fishing year and are in accordance with the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks (Highly Migratory Species (HMS) FMP). Because the overall U.S. BFT landings quota and fishing patterns would remain the same, there is no anticipated change in revenues that would accrue to, or costs that would be incurred by, small businesses or in the fishery overall.

        Because of this certification, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis was not prepared.
        These proposed quota specifications and General category effort controls have been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        Taken together, the proposed quota specifications and General category effort controls are not expected to increase endangered species or marine mammal interaction rates. On September 7, 2000, NMFS re-initiated formal consultation for the HMS fisheries under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The proposed specifications would not significantly alter current fishing practices and would not likely increase takes of listed species or result in any irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources that would have the effect of foreclosing the formulation or implementation of any reasonable and prudent alternative measures to reduce adverse impacts on protected resources.
        The area in which this proposed action is planned has been identified as EFH for species managed by the New England Fishery Management Council, the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, the Caribbean Fishery Management Council, and the Highly Migratory Species Division of the Office of Sustainable fisheries at NMFS. It is not anticipated that this action will have any adverse impacts to EFH and, therefore, no consultation is required.

          Dated: March 28, 2001.
          Clarence Pautzke,
          Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 01-8032 Filed 3-28-01; 3:17 pm]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Parts 223 and 224
        [Docket No. 000303059-0059-01; I.D. No.021700B]
        RIN No. 0648-XA49
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Findings for a Petition to List North American Populations of Smalltooth Sawfish and Largetooth Sawfish as Endangered Under the Endangered Species Act

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of petition findings; request for information and comments.

          SUMMARY:
          The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) announces 90-day findings for a petition to add North American populations of smalltooth sawfish and largetooth sawfish to the List of Threatened and Endangered Wildlife. NMFS finds that the petition and information available in NMFS records indicate that listing North American populations of smalltooth sawfish as endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) may be warranted; and do not indicate that listing North American populations of largetooth sawfish as endangered may also be warranted. NMFS is now initiating a status review of smalltooth sawfish to determine if the petitioned action for that species is warranted. NMFS will maintain the largetooth sawfish as a candidate species, and continue to solicit more information regarding this species to resolve doubts regarding its range and taxonomy.

          DATES:
          The findings announced in this document were made on March 6, 2000. Comments and information related to this petition finding must be received by May 9, 2000.

          ADDRESSES:
          Information and comments concerning these petition findings should be submitted to Charles A. Oravetz, Assistant Regional Administrator, Protected Resources Division, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Regional Office, 9721 Executive Center Drive North, St. Peterburg, Florida 33702-2432. The petition, findings, supporting data, and comments are available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the same address.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Jennifer Lee, NMFS Southeast Region, (727)570-5312; or Marta Nammack, NMFS Office of Protected Resources, (301) 713-1401.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        NMFS designated smalltooth sawfish (Pristis
          pectinata) and largetooth sawfish (P.
          perotteti) as candidate species under the ESA on June 23, 1999. The candidate species list serves to notify the public that NMFS has concerns regarding these species/vertebrate populations that may warrant listing in the future, and it facilitates voluntary conservation efforts. On November 30, 1999, NMFS received a petition from the Center for Marine Conservation requesting NMFS to list North American populations of those two species of sawfish as endangered. The petitioner submitted biological, distributional, and historical information on sawfish and identified potential threats including (1) destruction, modification or curtailment of habitat or range; (2) overutilization for commercial, recreational or scientific purposes; (3) inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and (4) other natural or manmade factors affecting the species existence. Also, the petitioner cited references in support of the petition.

        Section 4(b)(3) of the ESA contains provisions concerning petitions from interested persons requesting the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to add a species or to remove a species from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and designate critical habitat. Section 4(b)(3)(A) requires that, to the maximum extent practicable, within 90 days after receiving such a petition, the Secretary make a finding on whether the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. This finding must be promptly published in the Federal Register. In determining whether substantial information exists for a petition to list a species, NMFS takes into account information submitted with and referenced in the petition and all other information readily available in NMFS files. NMFS' ESA implementing regulations define “substantial information” as the amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted. 50 CFR 424.14(b). If the petition is found to present such information, the Secretary must conduct a status review of the involved species and make a determination whether the petitioned action is warranted within 12 months of receipt of the petition (1-year determination).
        Under the ESA, a listing determination can address a species, subspecies, or distinct population segment (DPS) of a species (16 U.S.C. 1532(15)). A DPS is a vertebrate population that is discrete in relation to the remainder of the species to which it belongs, and significant in relation to the species to which it belongs (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996). The petition states that populations of smalltooth sawfish occur in the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans, and largetooth sawfish in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. The petition further states that while the species is widely distributed, smalltooth sawfish exists as “distinct population units...with little chance of recruitment from other stocks”. Since the petitioner requested listings for largetooth and smalltooth sawfish in U.S. waters, NMFS considers the petition in the context of DPSs with ranges that lie entirely or partially in U.S. waters.
        Analysis of Petition
        The sawfish family is characterized by a toothy snout projecting well forward of the head. Approximately 2 ft (0.6m) or greater in length at birth, sawfish commonly grow to 16 ft (4.9m), some reaching lengths of up to 18 ft (5.5m). Sawfish are restricted to shallow coastal, estuarine, and fresh waters. They are often found in brackish water near river mouths and large embayments, preferring partially enclosed waters, lying in deeper holes on bottoms of mud or muddy sand. Sawfish are long lived species that grow slowly, mature late and are ovoviviparous, producing a small number of young, resulting in a very low intrinsic rate of population increase for these species. Such animals are usually successful at maintaining relatively small population sizes in relatively constant environments, but are not able to respond rapidly to additional and new sources of mortality resulting from changes in their environment, such as overexploitation and habitat degradation (Musick, 1999).
        Smalltooth sawfish and largetooth sawfish may be morphologically distinguished from each other by the number of pairs of rostral teeth, the placement of their pectoral fins relative to their pelvic fins, and the shape of their caudal fin. Despite these differences in morphology, early literature indicates there were some problem with identification of these species in early records.

          Smalltooth sawfish—Smalltooth sawfish historically inhabited marine habitats in selected parts of the eastern Pacific Ocean, western and eastern Atlantic Ocean, Mediterranean Sea, Indo-Pacific, and Red Sea, and freshwater habitats in North, Central and South America, Africa, and India. In North America, historical records indicate that during the 19th century, smalltooth sawfish were abundant along both coasts of Florida and in the summer north to North Carolina, in estuaries and lower reaches of rivers, as well as out to depths of about 25m along open coasts fronted by mud flats of the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coastal waters of the southeastern United States. Smalltooth sawfish migrated north along the coast during summer months but was probably not a permanent resident in western Atlantic waters north of Florida.
        There are no quantitative data available to conduct a formal stock assessment for smalltooth sawfish species, however, the decline of this species is well documented by anecdotal reports. Historical record of field observations indicates that smalltooth sawfish were abundant as recent as the 1950's. Reports of smalltooth sawfish becoming entangled in fishing nets are common in early literature and indicate smalltooth sawfish were considered a nuisance by fishermen, doing considerable damage to their nets when entangled and capable of inflicting serious wounds with their saw. As a result, these fish were usually killed on the spot by fishermen when captured or released only after removal of their saw.
        During the 20th century, smalltooth sawfish have been recorded with declining frequency. An independent assessment of smalltooth sawfish was performed by Adams and Wilson in 1995, by contacting all state fisheries management agencies from New York south and west to Texas and asking for any records of recent landings. In addition, research institutions and museums with marine holdings were contacted. From the responses received, it appears that the species no longer occurs along the eastern seaboard and that by the 1970's the species was confined in the Gulf of Mexico to a few restricted locales in Florida, Louisiana and Texas waters. Today, official records of smalltooth sawfish landings are rare throughout their range in North America. Incidental commercial catch was likely the most significant factor in the population's decline. Snelson and Williams (1981) attribute the loss of the species from the Indian River directly to the activities of commercial fishing for other species (Snelson and Williams, 1981). Sawfish are extremely vulnerable to overexploitation due to their exceptional propensity for entanglement in net gear, their restricted habitat, and their low intrinsic rate of increase.

          Largetooth sawfish—Largetooth sawfish historically inhabited warm-temperate to tropical marine waters in the Atlantic and eastern Pacific, possibly in the eastern Mediterranean, and freshwater habitats in Central and South America and Africa. It is represented by a closely allied form, P.
          microdon (or forms) along the Pacific Coast of Central America, off northern Australia, off Indo-China, among the East Indies, and in the tropical-subtropical belt of the Indian Ocean. Largetooth sawfish are very similar to P.
          microdon but their exact relationship remains to be determined.

        Historical occurrences of largetooth sawfish in North America were much more limited than those of smalltooth sawfish and were strictly confined to shallow (<10 m) warm-temperate and tropical waters (>18° to at least 30°C) in the immediate vicinity of the shore and to estuarine localities, partly enclosed lagoons, and similar situations. In the United States, largetooth sawfish were reported along the Texas coast from the Mexican border (Brownsville) to the Louisiana border (Port Arthur). Evidence to support its historical abundance in this area stems from one literature source, “Notes on Sawfish, Pristis
          perotteti Muller and Henle, not Previously Reported from the Waters of the United States” (Baughman, 1943), that includes a report of seven large largetooth sawfish taken by one fishermen near Galveston, Texas. Oddly, the same scientist indicates in a 1952 publication that West Indian sawfish (P.
          microdon) were sometimes caught in Texas waters and does not mention the largetooth sawfish.
        Compared to occurrences of smalltooth sawfish, largetooth and/or West Indian sawfish were relatively rare. Bigelow and Schroeder (1953) noted the fact that all specimens reported from the coast of Texas have been large, in contrast with the abundance of smaller ones further south, suggesting that the production of young is confined chiefly to regions where the temperature of the water is at least as high as 25-26°C. They believed that most of the large specimens taken from the northern, cooler waters had migrated from a tropical nursery, (Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953).

        While historic record of field observations indicate there may have been largetooth sawfish present in North American waters at one time, there are no data to support that there is presently, or ever was, a resident North American population of largetooth sawfish. All of the information included in the petition on the population status of largetooth sawfish pertains to Lake Nicaraguan populations in Central America. NMFS feels applying this information to other stocks is inappropriate because in Lake Nicaragua, historical conditions permitted residence of a large number of sawfish, which reproduced in the lake and constituted a discrete stock, with limited genetic mixing with other stocks (Thorson 1982). Additionally, this Central American population was subjected to a heavy directed commercial fishery in the 1970's and suffered severe declines. In the United States, there are no directed commercial fisheries for sawfish.
        Petition Findings
        Given the decline in recorded abundance, limited reproductive capacity and documented take by commercial and recreational fishermen, NMFS finds that the petitioner presents substantial scientific and commercial information indicating that a listing of smalltooth sawfish may be warranted based on the criteria specified in 50 CFR 424.14(b)(2). Under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA, this finding requires that a status review of the status of smalltooth sawfish be completed within 1 year of the receipt of the petition (by November 29, 2000) to determine whether the petitioned action to list smalltooth sawfish as endangered is warranted.
        NMFS also finds that there is not substantial evidence to warrant initiation of a status review of North American populations of largetooth sawfish, on the basis that the petition did not contain substantial scientific and commercial information to indicate the present existence of such a population eligible for listing. While the petition presented evidence that largetooth sawfish did occur at one time in Texas waters, based on NMFS' review of the petition and on other available information, we believe that the largetooth species is most likely a tropical species, only rarely straying to North American waters.
        Listing Factors and Basis for Determination
        Under section 4(a)(1) of the ESA, a species can be determined to be threatened or endangered for any one of the following reasons: (1) 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; or (5) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. Listing determinations are made solely on the best scientific and commercial data available, after conducting a review of the status of the species and taking into account efforts made by the State and foreign nations to protect such species.
        Within 1 year from the date the petition was received, a finding will be made as to whether listing the North American population of the smalltooth sawfish as endangered is warranted, as required by section 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA.
        Information Solicited
        To ensure that the status review is complete and based on the best available scientific and commercial data, NMFS is soliciting information about smalltooth sawfish concerning the following: (1) Historical and current abundance and distribution; (2) the existence of reproducing populations; (3) biological or other relevant data to determine the existence or lack of distinct population segments in U.S. waters; (4) information on any current or planned activities that may adversely impact North American sawfish, especially related to the five listing factors identified here; and (5) ongoing efforts to protect sawfish and their habitat. NMFS requests that data, information, and comments be accompanied by supporting documentation such as maps, bibliographic references, or reprints of pertinent publications; and the person's name, address, and any association, institution, or business that the person represents. Such information may be submitted to the address given previously.

        NMFS is also soliciting data on largetooth sawfish. Even though NMFS has determined that a formal initiation of a status review of largetooth sawfish under the ESA is not warranted at this time, some concerns about its status still remain. If NMFS becomes aware of new information that would warrant a formal initiation of a status review of the largetooth sawfish, NMFS would announce this in the Federal Register.
        NMFS also requests quantitative evaluations describing the quality and extent of habitats for both species, as well as information on areas that may qualify as critical habitat. Areas that include the physical and biological features essential to the species should be identified. Essential features include, but are not limited to, the following (1) Habitat for individual and population growth, and for normal behavior; (2) food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements; (3) cover or shelter; (4) sites for reproduction and rearing of offspring; and (5) habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the historic geographical and ecological distributions of the species.

        For areas potentially qualifying as critical habitat, NMFS requests information describing the activities that affect the area or could be affected by the designation; and the economic costs and benefits of additional requirements of management measures likely to result from the designation. The economic cost to be considered in the critical habitat designation under the ESA is the probable economic impact “of the [critical habitat] designation upon proposed or ongoing activities” (50 CFR 424.19). NMFS must consider the incremental costs resulting specifically from a critical habitat designation that are above the economic effects attributable to listing the species. Economic effects attributable to listing include actions resulting from section 7 consultations under the ESA to avoid jeopardy to the species and from the taking prohibitions under section 9 or 4(d) of the ESA. Comments concerning economic impacts should distinguish the costs of listing from the incremental costs that can be directly attributed to the designation of specific areas as critical habitat.

        References Cited
        Bigelow, H.B. and W.C. Schroeder. 1953. Sawfishes, guitarfishes, skates, rays, and chimaeroids. Fishes of Western North Atlantic. Sears Foundation for Marine Research 1 (2): 1-514.
        Baughman, J. L. 1943. Notes on Sawfish, Pristis perotteti Muller and Henle, not Previously Reported from the Waters of the United States. Copeia 1: 43-48.
        Musick, J.A. 1999. Life in the slow lane: ecology and conservation of long-lived marine animals. American Fisheries Society Symposium 23, Bethesda, Maryland.
        Snelson, F.F., Jr. and SE. Williams. 1981. Notes on the occurrence, distribution and biology of elasmobranch fishes in the Indian River Lagoon System, Florida. Estuaries 4(2):110-120.

        Thorson, T.B. 1982. Life history implications of a tagging study of the largetooth sawfish, Pristis perotteti, in the Lake Nicaragua-Rio San Juan system. Environmental Biology of Fishes 7(3): 207-228

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 1531 et
            seq.

          Dated: March 6, 2000.
          Andrew A. Rosenberg,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 00-5907 Filed 3-9-00; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-F


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 253
        [Docket No. 0908061221-91225-01]
        RIN 0648-AY16
        Merchant Marine Act and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fishing Vessel, Fishing Facility and Individual Fishing Quota Lending Program Regulations; Correction

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule, correction and reopening of comment period.

          SUMMARY:

          NMFS published a proposed rule on May 5, 2010, amending the Fisheries Finance Program's programmatic regulations. The proposed rule was published with an incorrect Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) in the ADDRESSES section. Members of the public using the incorrect RIN may have had difficulty posting comments at http://www.regulations.gov. In order to allow anyone adversely affected by the mistake to submit comments, NMFS reopens the comment period and requests additional comments for two weeks.

          DATES:
          NMFS invites the public to comment on the proposed rule published at 75 FR 24549. Comments must be submitted in writing on or before September 8, 2010.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on the proposed rule, identified by RIN 0648-AY16 by any one of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov.

          • Fax: (301) 713-1306, Attn: Earl Bennett.
          • Mail: Earl Bennett, Acting Chief, Financial Services Division, NMFS, Attn: F/MB5, 1315 East-West Highway, SSMC3, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

            Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to http://www.regulations.gov without change. All Personal Identifying Information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.

          NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter N/A in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only. Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this proposed rule may be submitted to earl.bennett@noaa.gov or david.rostker@omb.eop.gov or faxed to (202) 395-7285.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Earl Bennett, (301) 713-2390 x 187, earl.bennett@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Need for Correction

        On May 5, 2010, NMFS published a proposed rule at 75 FR 24549, which can be viewed at http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/prules/75fr24549.pdf.

        The ADDRESSES section of the proposed rule contained an incorrect RIN. Although members of the public submitting comments by mail, fax and e-mail to the addresses listed in the proposed rule would have been unaffected, those attempting to post comments at http://www.regulations.gov may have been hindered from posting comments because of this error. In order to allow anyone adversely affected by the mistake the opportunity to comment, NMFS will take comments for an additional two weeks.
        The new sentence in the ADDRESSES section of column one in 75 FR 24550 should read: “You may submit comments, identified by 0648-AY16, by any one of the following methods:”

          Dated: August 20, 2010.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2010-21135 Filed 8-24-10; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 22
        RIN 1018-AT94
        Protection of Bald Eagles; Definition of “Disturb”

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; reopening of the comment period; notice of availability: draft environmental assessment.

          SUMMARY:
          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (we or us), reopen the comment period for our proposed rule, and announce the availability of a Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) evaluating the possible effects of defining “disturb” under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. We prepared the DEA as part of the National Environmental Policy Act process. The analysis of our preferred alternative is based on a definition slightly modified from our February, 2006 proposed rulemaking (71 FR 8265, February 16, 2006).

          DATES:
          Send your comments on the proposed rule and/or DEA by January 11, 2007.

          ADDRESSES:

          You may obtain copies of the proposed rule and DEA by visiting our Web site at http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/, at the address listed below. You may submit comments and other information, identified by RIN 1018-AT94, by any one of the following methods:
          • Mail: Robert Blohm, Acting Chief, Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MBSP-4107, Arlington, Virginia 22203. Attn: RIN 1018-AT94.
          • Hand Delivery/Courier: Same address as above.
          • E-mail: BaldEagle_ProposedRule@fws.gov. Include “RIN 1018-AT94” in the subject line of the message.
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal:
            http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

          For detailed instructions on submitting comments, see the “Public Comments Invited” heading at the end of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Eliza Savage, Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, at 703-358-2329, or via e-mail at: Eliza_Savage@fws.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        On February 16, 2006, we published in the Federal Register a proposed rule (71 FR 8265) to define “disturb” under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) (16 U.S.C. 668-668d). The proposed rule would add a definition for “disturb” to regulations at 50 CFR 22.3. We proposed this action in anticipation of possible removal (delisting) of the bald eagle in the 48 contiguous States from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife under the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). If the bald eagle is delisted, BGEPA will become the primary law protecting bald eagles. The purpose of the proposed rule is to define the term “disturb” in a manner consistent with the language and intent of the BGEPA and thereby provide a predictable standard to guide bald eagle management following delisting.
        We opened a public comment period on the proposed rule until May 17, 2006. On May 16, 2006, we published a notice to extend the comment period until June 19, 2006 (71 FR 28294).

        In the February 16, 2006, proposed rule, we stated that we would prepare an environmental assessment pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) if warranted. We have prepared a draft environmental assessment (DEA), which we now make available for public comment. In the DEA, we considered four alternatives for the definition of “disturb,” as applied to bald eagles and golden eagles.
        Under Alternative 1, we would not define “disturb.” Disturbance would remain a prohibited act under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668d), without further regulatory interpretation. Under Alternative 2, the definition of “disturb” would be based on immediate effects to individual birds. We would define “disturb” as having a direct effect, as evinced by immediate behavioral response on the part of a bald eagle or a golden eagle, without consideration for secondary, biologically significant events. Alternative 3 is to define “disturb” to encompass effects to individual birds while requiring a biological impact. Under this alternative, we would define “disturb” as “to agitate or bother a bald or golden eagle to the degree that causes (i) injury or death to an eagle (including chicks or eggs) due to interference with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior, or (ii) nest abandonment.” This is the preferred alternative. It has been modified from our February, 2006 proposed rulemaking for purposes of clarification. Alternative 4 is to define disturb such that the disturbing action must be intentionally directed at eagles and cause injury or death.
        Public Comments

        When submitting comments, please include your name and return address, and identify your comments as pertaining to RIN 1018-AT94. Submit comments by only one method; do not send duplicate submissions. We prefer that comments be submitted electronically. To facilitate our compilation of the Administrative Record for this action, if you send written comments, you must submit them on 81/2 inch by 11 inch paper. Addresses are listed in the ADDRESSES section near the beginning of this document.

        Our practice is to make comments, including names and addresses of respondents, available for public review by appointment during normal business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home addresses from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. Comments from organizations and businesses and from individuals officially representing organizations or businesses will be available for public inspection in their entirety. If you wish to view the files, please call 703-358-1714 to make an appointment.

          Dated: December 1, 2006.
          David Verhey,
          Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

      [FR Doc. E6-21139 Filed 12-11-06; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        [Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2013-0121; FWS-HQ-ES-2013-0122; FWS-HQ-ES-2013-0123; FWS-HQ-ES-2013-0124; FWS-HQ-ES-2013-0125: 450 003 0115]
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Findings on Five Petitions

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Notice of petition findings and initiation of status reviews.

          SUMMARY:
          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce 90-day findings on five petitions to list 19 species as endangered or threatened, under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Based on our review, we find that these petitions present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned actions may be warranted. Therefore, with the publication of this notice, we are initiating a review of the status of these species to determine if the petitioned actions are warranted. In order to assure that the best scientific and commercial data informs the status review and, if warranted, the subsequent listing determinations, and to provide an opportunity for all interested parties to provide information for consideration for the status assessment, we are requesting information regarding these species (see Request for Information below). Based on the status reviews, we will issue 12-month findings on the petitions, which will address whether the petitioned action is warranted, as provided in section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act.

          DATES:

          To allow us adequate time to conduct these status reviews, we request that we receive information no later than March 24, 2014. Information submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit information by one of the following methods:

            (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter the appropriate docket number (see table, below). You may submit information by clicking on “Comment Now!” If your information will fit in the provided comment box, please use this feature of http://www.regulations.gov, as it is most compatible with our information review procedures. If you attach your information as a separate document, our preferred file format is Microsoft Word. If you attach multiple comments (such as form letters), our preferred format is a spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel.
          (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: [Insert appropriate docket number; see table, below]; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.

          We request that you send information only by the methods described above. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see Request for Information).

            Species
            Docket No.

            15 foreign bats
            FWS-HQ-ES-2013-0121

            Emperor penguin
            FWS-HQ-ES-2013-0122

            Flores hawk-eagle
            FWS-HQ-ES-2013-0123

            Ridgway's hawk
            FWS-HQ-ES-2013-0124

            Virgin Islands coquí
            FWS-HQ-ES-2013-0125

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Janine Van Norman, Chief, Branch of Foreign Species, Ecological Services Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 420, Arlington, VA 22203; telephone 703-358-2171; facsimile 703-358-1735. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Request for Information

        When we make a finding that a petition presents substantial information indicating that listing a species may be warranted, we are required to promptly review the status of the species (status review). For the status review to be complete and based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we request information on these species from governmental agencies, Native American tribes, the scientific community, industry, and any other interested parties. We seek information on:
        (1) The species' biology, range, and population trends, including:
        (a) Habitat requirements;
        (b) Genetics and taxonomy;
        (c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns;
        (d) Historical and current population levels, and current and projected trends; and
        (e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, its habitat, or both.

        (2) The factors that are the basis for making a listing determination for a species under section 4(a)(1) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), which are:
        (a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range (“Factor A”);
        (b) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes (“Factor B”);
        (c) Disease or predation (“Factor C”);
        (d) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (“Factor D”); or
        (e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence (“Factor E”).
        (3) The potential effects of climate change on these species or their habitats.
        (4) We also seek the following species-specific information:
        (a) For the Armenian whiskered bat (Myotis hajastanicus),
        • Population surveys;
        • Habitat requirements;
        • Quality of forested habitat surrounding Lake Sevon, Armenia; and
        • Information on current restoration efforts on and around Lake Sevon, Armenia.
        (b) For the Flores hawk-eagle (Spizaetus floris),

        • Information on habitat loss, including the impact of illegal logging and urban expansion on habitat, and the impact of El Niño forest fires from 1997-1998 on monsoon forest habitat in Lesser Sundas Islands (Nusa Tenggara); and
        • Information on intentional killing of the species, particularly statistics on international trade in Flores hawk-eagles.
        Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
        Submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the actions under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in making a determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or threatened species must be made “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.”

        You may submit your information concerning these status reviews by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. If you submit information via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire submission—including any personal identifying information—will be posted on the Web site. If you submit a hardcopy that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this personal identifying information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all hardcopy submissions on http://www.regulations.gov.

        Information and supporting documentation that we received and used in preparing this finding will be available for you to review at http://www.regulations.gov, or you may make an appointment during normal business hours at the appropriate lead U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
        Background

        Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires that we make a finding on whether a petition to list a species presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. We are to base this finding on information provided in the petition and supporting information submitted with the petition. To the maximum extent practicable, we are to make this finding within 90 days of our receipt of the petition and publish our notice of the finding in the Federal Register.
        Our standard for substantial scientific or commercial information within the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90-day petition finding is “that amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted” (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we find that substantial scientific or commercial information was presented, we are required to commence a review of the status of the species, which will be subsequently summarized in our 12-month finding.
        Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 424 set forth the procedures for adding a species to, or removing a species from, the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act (see Request for Information).
        In considering what factors might constitute threats, we must look beyond the exposure of the species to a factor to evaluate whether the species may respond to the factor in a way that causes actual impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a factor and the species responds negatively, the factor may be a threat and, during the status review, we attempt to determine how significant a threat it is. The threat is significant if it drives, or contributes to, the risk of extinction of the species such that the species may warrant listing as endangered or threatened as those terms are defined in the Act. However, the identification of factors that could impact a species negatively may not be sufficient to compel a finding that the information in the petition and our files is substantial. The information must include evidence sufficient to suggest that these factors may be operative threats that act on the species to the point that the species may meet the definition of endangered or threatened under the Act.
        Review of Petition To List 15 Bat Species as Endangered or Threatened Under the Act

        Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2013-0121 in the document labeled Appendices for 15 Foreign Bats.
        Species and Range

            Common name(s)
            Scientific name
            Range

            Armenian myotis, Armenian whiskered bat

              Myotis hajastanicus

            Armenia.

            Aru flying fox

              Pteropus aruensis

            Aru Islands, Indonesia.

            Bonin flying fox

              Pteropus pselaphon

            Japan.

            Christmas Island pipistrelle

              Pipistrellus murrayi

            Christmas Island, Australia.

            Cuban greater funnel-eared bat

              Natalus primus

            Cuba.

            Greater monkey-faced bat

              Pteralopex flanneryi

            Papua New Guinea.

            Hill's horseshoe bat

              Rhinolophus hilli

            Rwanda.

            Jamaican greater funnel-eared bat

              Natalus jamaicensis

            Jamaica.

            Lamotte's roundleaf bat

              Hipposideros lamottei

            Guinea, Liberia, and Côte d'Ivoire.

            Lord Howe long-eared bat

              Nyctophilus howensis

            Australia.

            Montane monkey-faced bat

              Pteralopex pulchra

            Solomon Island.

            Negros naked-backed fruit bat, Philippine bare-backed fruit bat

              Dobsonia chapmani

            Philippines.

            New Caledonia long-eared bat

              Nyctophilus nebulosus

            New Caledonia.

            New Zealand greater short-tailed bat

              Mystacina robusta

            New Zealand.

            Paraguayan mustached bat

              Pteronotus paraguanensis

            Venezuela.

        Petition History
        On October 25, 2010, we received a petition dated October 25, 2010, from WildEarth Guardians, requesting that 15 species of bats be listed as endangered or threatened under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition.
        Finding
        Based on information provided in the petition, in the sources cited in the petition, and available in our files, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for all 15 species under section 4(a)(1) of the Act:
        • Armenian myotis based on factors D and E (see Appendix A);
        • Aru flying fox based on factor E (see Appendix B);
        • Bonin flying fox based on factor E (see Appendix C);
        • Christmas Island pipistrelle based on factors A, C, D, and E (see Appendix D);
        • Cuban greater funnel-eared bat based on factors A and E (see Appendix E);
        • Greater monkey-faced bat based on factors A and D (see Appendix F);
        • Hill's horseshoe bat based on factor A and D (see Appendix G);
        • Jamaican greater funnel-eared bat based on factors A, D, and E (see Appendix H);
        • Lamotte's roundleaf bat based on factors A, D, and E (see Appendix I);
        • Lord Howe long-eared bat based on factor E (see Appendix J);
        • Montane monkey-faced bat based on factors A, D, and E (see Appendix K);
        • Negros naked-backed fruit bat/Philippine bare-backed fruit bat based on factors A, B, D, and E (see Appendix L);
        • New Caledonia long-eared bat based on factors A and E (see Appendix M);
        • New Zealand greater short-tailed bat based on factors C and E (see Appendix N); and
        • Paraguayan mustached bat based on factors A, D, and E (see Appendix O).
        Thus, for each of these species, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factors identified in this finding (See REQUEST FOR INFORMATION).
        Review of Petition To List the Emperor Penguin as Endangered or Threatened Under the Endangered Species Act

        Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2013-0122 in the document labeled Appendix for the Emperor Penguin.
        Species and Range
        This petition concerns the emperor penguin (Aptenodytes forsteri), with a range in Antarctica.
        Petition History
        On December 5, 2011, we received a petition dated November 28, 2011, from Center for Biological Diversity requesting that the emperor penguin be listed as endangered or threatened under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, as required by 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses this petition.
        Finding
        Based on our review of the information provided in the petition, in the sources cited in the petition, and available in our files, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the emperor penguin based on factors A, D, and E.
        Thus, for the emperor penguin, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factors identified in this finding (See REQUEST FOR INFORMATION).
        Review of Petition To List the Flores Hawk-Eagle as Endangered or Threatened Under the Endangered Species Act

        Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2013-0123 in the document labeled Appendix for the Flores Hawk-eagle.
        Species and Range
        This petition concerns the Flores hawk-eagle (Spizaetus floris), with a range in Indonesia.
        Petition History
        On October 6, 2011, we received a petition, dated September 30, 2011, from WildEarth Guardians requesting that the Flores hawk-eagle be listed as endangered or threatened under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, as required by 50 CFR 424.14(a). In a December 20, 2011, letter to the petitioner, we responded that we reviewed the information presented in the petition and did not find that the petition warranted an emergency listing. This finding addresses the petition.
        Finding
        Based on our review of the information provided in the petition, in the sources cited in the petition, and readily available in our files, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the Flores hawk-eagle based on factors A, B, D, and E.
        Thus, for the Flores hawk-eagle, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factors identified in this finding (See REQUEST FOR INFORMATION).
        Review of Petition To List Ridgway's Hawk as Endangered or Threatened Under the Endangered Species Act

        Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2013-0124 in the document labeled Appendix for Ridgway's Hawk.
        Species and Range
        This petition concerns the Ridgway's hawk (Buteo ridgwayi), with a range in the Dominican Republic.
        Petition History
        On October 6, 2011, we received a petition dated September 28, 2011, from WildEarth Guardians requesting that Ridgway's hawk be listed as endangered or threatened under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, as required by 50 CFR 424.14(a). In a December 20, 2011, letter to the petitioner, we responded that we were currently required to complete a significant number of listing and critical habitat actions by the end of Fiscal Year 2016 pursuant to court orders, judicially approved settlement agreements, and other statutory deadlines, and we may conduct a review of the petition prior to Fiscal Year 2016 should budget and workload permit. This finding addresses the petition.
        Finding
        Based on our review of the information provided in the petition, in the sources cited in the petition, and readily available in our files, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the Ridgway's hawk based on factors A, D, and E.
        Thus, for the Ridgeway's hawk, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factors identified in this finding (See REQUEST FOR INFORMATION).
        Review of Petition To List the Virgin Islands Coquí as Endangered or Threatened Under the Endangered Species Act

        Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be found at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2013-0125 in the document labeled Appendix for the Virgin Island Coquí.
        Species and Range
        This petition concerns the Virgin Islands coquí (Eleutherodactylus schwartzi), with a range in the British Virgin Islands.
        Petition History
        On October 6, 2011, we received a petition dated September 28, 2011, from WildEarth Guardians requesting that the Virgin Islands coquí be listed as endangered or threatened under the Act. The petitioner also requested designation of critical habitat in the U.S. Virgin Islands. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, as required by 50 CFR 424.14(a). In a December 20, 2011, letter to the petitioner, we responded that we were currently required to complete a significant number of listing and critical habitat actions by the end of Fiscal Year 2016 pursuant to court orders, judicially approved settlement agreements, and other statutory deadlines, and we may conduct a review of the petition prior to Fiscal Year 2016 should budget and workload permit. This finding addresses the petition.
        Finding
        Based on our review of the information provided in the petition, in the sources cited in the petition, and readily available in our files, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the Virgin Islands coquí based on factors A, C, and D.
        Thus, for the Virgin Island coquí, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factors identified in this finding (See REQUEST FOR INFORMATION).
        Conclusion
        On the basis of our evaluation of the information presented under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we have determined that the petitions summarized above present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the requested actions may be warranted and are initiating status reviews to determine whether these actions under the Act are warranted. At the conclusion of the status reviews, we will issue 12-month findings in accordance with section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act, as to whether or not listing is warranted.
        It is important to note that the “substantial information” standard for a 90-day finding differs from the Act's “best scientific and commercial data” standard that applies to a status review to determine whether a petitioned action is warranted. A 90-day finding does not constitute a status review under the Act. In a 12-month finding, we will determine whether a petitioned action is warranted after we have completed a thorough review of the species. Because the Act's standards for 90-day and 12-month findings are different, as described above, a substantial 90-day finding does not mean that the 12-month finding will result in a warranted finding.
        References Cited
        On http://www.regulations.gov, the docket for each species or group of species (see table under ADDRESSES) contains the relevant appendix or appendices mentioned above. Each appendix contains a complete list of references cited. Each appendix is also available upon request from the Branch of Foreign Species (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

        Authors

        The primary authors of this notice are the staff members of the Branch of Foreign Species, Ecological Services Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
        Authority

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

          Dated: January 8, 2014.
          Stephen Guertin,
          Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

      [FR Doc. 2014-01184 Filed 1-21-14; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P