Federal Register Vol. 82, No.36,

Title: Scanner Capability Assessment of SNAP-Authorized Small Retailers (SCANR) Study.

OMB Number: 0584—NEW.

Expiration Date of Approval: Not yet determined.

Type of Request: New collection.

Abstract: The Scanner Capability Assessment of SNAP-Authorized Small Retailers Study will provide FNS with information to inform rulemaking for the 2014 Farm Bill requirement that all authorized SNAP retailers use scanning technologies at the POS to redeem SNAP benefits. This study will result in a comprehensive description of the scanner capability of small SNAP-authorized retailers that will provide FNS with information to inform rulemaking for the 2014 Farm Bill requirement. Cost estimates from the industry interviews and follow-up interviews with retailers and data from secondary sources will be used to estimate store-level costs for adopting scanning systems with different levels of functionality. The cost estimates will account for all costs associated with the purchase, installation, and maintenance of scanning systems. Using the store-level costs and data from the SCANR Survey on the number of small SNAP-authorized retailers without scanning systems, the study will also include the total cost estimate for all small SNAP-authorized retailers to comply with the 2014 Farm Bill requirements. Finally, the study will include a descriptive assessment of the technological and economic barriers small SNAP retailers face in adopting and using scanning systems.

Specifically, this study will employ a mixed-methods approach in which both quantitative and qualitative data will be collected, analyzed, and synthesized to assess the economic and technological barriers of adopting scanning technologies by small SNAP-authorized retailers and possible inducements. The study design will include industry interviews, a national survey of small SNAP-authorized retailers, and follow-up interviews with a subset of survey respondents to provide qualitative information on the barriers and inducements to adopting scanning systems.

The study design comprises three data collection components to address four study objectives:

• Objective 1: Determine and describe the requirements for installing and operating electronic scanning systems at small SNAP-authorized retailers.

• Objective 2: Provide a store-level and industry-wide cost analysis of installing and maintaining electronic scanning systems at small SNAP-authorized retailers in order to be in full compliance with the 2014 Farm Bill.

• Objective 3: Provide reliable national estimates of the extent to which scanning systems are in place at small SNAP-authorized retailers.

• Objective 4: Determine barriers and inducements to using scanning technologies by small SNAP-authorized retailers.

The data collection components are as follows:

Structured interviews with nine vendors of POS scanning systems to provide information on the requirements and costs for two options of functionality for scanning systems. The structured interviews will be used to address Objectives 1 and 2.

FNS is interested in the requirements and costs for two options of functionality for scanning systems: (1) Scanning systems that can identify which items are eligible to be purchased with SNAP and are integrated with the store inventory to scan the item's price and (2) scanning systems that can identify which items are eligible to be purchased with SNAP and are integrated with the store inventory to scan the item's price and are integrated with the EBT terminal. The first option will allow a retailer to meet the minimum requirements as outlined in the 2014 Farm Bill. The cost data will be combined with the survey data and data from secondary sources (e.g., labor rates) to conduct a cost analysis to estimate store-level and industry-level costs for complying with the 2014 Farm Bill requirements.

Nationally representative survey of small SNAP-authorized retailers to provide information on the number of retailers that lack scanning systems and the number that may not comply with this provision and choose to leave SNAP instead. Data will be collected through a nationally representative survey of small SNAP-authorized retailers to provide information to address Objectives 2 and 3.

The target population for the survey is small SNAP-authorized retailers defined as small grocery stores, medium grocery stores, convenience stores, and specialty stores excluding chains that have 10 or more outlets under the same owner. The sample design for the survey will be sufficiently powered to provide national and subgroup estimates by store type and urbanicity. The survey approach will use multiple modes to facilitate response (hard copy or web-based) and telephone reminders to nonrespondents to maximize the response rate.

Follow-up interviews with a subset of survey respondents to provide qualitative information on the barriers and inducements to adopting scanning systems. Data will be collected through follow-up interviews with a subset of the retailers that responded to the structured survey to address Objectives 2 and 4.

Approximately half of the retailers selected for the interviews will be stores that reported on the survey that they currently are using scanning systems (via in-person interviews) and half will be stores that do not use scanning systems (via phone interviews). The interviews will provide the opportunity to learn about costs, benefits, and challenges associated with implementing and operating scanning systems from a group of retailers that currently use them and about costs and other concerns of retailers that do not use scanning systems. Interview questions will also provide insight regarding the level of knowledge about scanning technology among small retailers and the information gaps, particularly among nonusers.

Affected Public: Business for profit.

There are a total of 1,389. The respondent groups that were identified include 12 POS vendors and 1,377 SNAP-authorized small retailers.

• POS vendors that supply retailers with scanning systems. We estimate that nine vendors will participate in the interviews.

• SNAP-authorized small retailers: Store owner, store manager, or regional manager. Out of 1,377 respondents, we estimate that 936 of the small retailers sampled will go on to participate in the survey.

• SNAP-authorized small retailers: Store owner, store manager, or regional manager. Out of 936 small retailers who participated in the SCANR survey, we estimate that 50 of them will take part in a follow-up interview.

Estimated Total Number of Respondents: 1,389.

For the industry interviews, it is estimated that 12 of the industry interview respondents will be contacted and, of these, 9 will complete the interview, 3 will be non-respondents.

For the SCANR Survey, a multimode, two-phase approach will be used. For phase I (survey), respondents can choose to participate by hard copy (mail survey) or web, and for phase II (interview), all non-respondents will be re-contacted by phone and asked to complete the survey (by phone or reminded to complete the survey by mail or web). Out of 123,000 small retailers, a sample of 1,377 will be selected. It is estimated that, of these, 207 will not be eligible for the survey (e.g., no longer in operation), 585 will complete phase I (50% response rate after adjusting for eligibility), and 351 will complete phase II (60% response rate), yielding 936 completed surveys. Adjusting for eligibility, we are targeting an 80% response rate (936/(1,377−207)).

For the follow-up interviews, a sample of 71 respondents that completed the SCANR Survey will be selected for either telephone or on-site interviews. It is estimated that 50 of the selected respondents will take part in the interview (70% response rate).

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.545.

For the industry interviews with vendors, there is one response per respondent. For retailers, there is one response for 886 of the respondents (SCANR Survey only) and two responses for 50 of the respondents who participate in follow-up interviews.

Estimated Total Annual Responses: 1,925.

For the industry interviews, this total includes 9 completed interviews with vendors and 3 attempted interviews. For the SCANR Survey, this total includes 936 responses from small retailers and 441 attempted, but non-completed or non-responses. For the follow-up interviews, this total includes 50 completed interviews and 21 attempted interviews.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.21.

For the telephone interviews with vendors: Vendors will take up to 1 hour to participate in the telephone interviews. Vendors who choose not to participate will spend 5 minutes (0.08 hours) reading the recruitment materials.

For the SCANR Survey: Small retailers will take 15 minutes (0.25 hours) to respond to the survey (via mail, web, or phone). Small retailers who choose not to participate will spend 5 minutes (0.08 hours) reading the recruitment materials.

For the follow-up interviews: Small retailers will take 30 minutes (0.5 hours) to respond to the in-depth telephone or on-site interviews. Small retailers selected for a follow-up interview who choose not to participate will spend 5 minutes (0.08 hours) reading the recruitment materials.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: FNS estimates the total burden is 345.57 hours. See Table 1 below:

Title: Evaluation of the Direct Certification with Medicaid for Free and Reduced-Price Meals (DCM-F/RP) Demonstrations.

Form Number: N/A.

OMB Number: Not Yet Assigned.

Expiration Date: Not Yet Determined.

Type of Request: New collection.

Abstract: Direct certification has improved access to free school meals while easing the burden on families and district staff by reducing the use of household applications and decreasing the number of students subject to verification for school meal benefit eligibility. Direct certification also improves program integrity because it is less error-prone than certification by application.

Recently, FNS has sought ways to further expand direct certification, including experimenting with allowing direct certification based on data from means-tested programs that do not confer categorical eligibility. Prior DCM demonstrations have authorized selected States and districts to use income information from Medicaid files to determine students' eligibility based on their household income and directly certify those students found to be eligible for free meals. The new DCM-F/RP demonstration expands the use of direct certification using income information from Medicaid files to include eligibility for reduced-price meals. The evaluation of the DCM-F/RP demonstration will investigate the processes, challenges, and outcomes of using Medicaid data to directly certify students.

The study will gather data from State, School Food Authority,1 and State Agency vendor staff, including (1) site visits and follow-up interviews to document DCM-F/RP processes, (2) administrative records on certification for school meal benefits and participation in the school meal programs, and (3) cost logs and clarification interviews on the State-level administrative costs of DCM-F/RP. Data will be collected for school year (SY) 2017-2018.

FNS is also conducting research with the State Child Nutrition and Medicaid agency officials, school district directors and school district food service staff to develop, test, and improve the evaluation data collection instruments and methodologies. This pre-testing burden was approved by the Office of Management and Budget on December 19, 2016 under OMB # 0584-0606 FNS Generic Clearance for Pre-Testing, Pilot, and Field Test Studies.

Affected Public: State and Local Government—Respondent groups identified include (1) State Child Nutrition Agency staff who administer the National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program from 15 State agencies, (2) State Medicaid Agency staff from 15 State agencies, (3) staff from 3 other State Agencies that play key roles in the direct certification process, and (4) school district staff from 32 districts.

Businesses—Respondent groups identified include 2 State Child Nutrition agency vendors and 2 Medicaid Agency vendors that play key roles in the direct certification process.

Estimated Number of Respondents: The total estimated number of unique respondents for SY 2017-2018 is 197 (193 respondents and 4 non-respondents). This count assumes 100 percent response from State Child Nutrition Agency staff on site visits, follow-up telephone interviews, administrative records requests, and cost data collection. For State Medicaid Agency staff, it assumes 100 percent response on site visits and 93 percent response on the follow-up telephone interviews and cost data collection. For other State Agency staff, it assumes 100 percent response on site visits and cost data collection. For school district staff, it assumes 100 percent response on site visits and 91 percent response on follow-up telephone interviews. For State Agency vendor staff, it assumes 100 percent response on site visit interviews. State Child Nutrition Agency, State Medicaid Agency, other State Agency, and district staff are expected to participate in multiple data collection activities, but each individual is counted only once in the total.

A total of 45 State Child Nutrition Agency staff (3 per State) will take part in the on-site interviews, with 30 of those respondents (2 per State) also taking part in on-site observations. Of the 45 State Child Nutrition Agency respondents, 15 (one from each State) will complete the follow-up telephone interview, administrative records request, and collection logs used to track State cost data. A total of 45 State Medicaid Agency staff (3 per State) will also take part in the on-site interviews, with 30 of those respondents (2 per State) also taking part in the on-site observations. Of the 45 State Medicaid Agency respondents, 15 (one from each State) will be asked to complete the follow-up telephone interview and collection logs used to track State cost data (including 14 respondents and 1 non-responder). A total of 3 respondents from other State Agencies (1 in each of 3 States) will take part in the on-site interviews and complete the collection logs used to track State cost data.

A total of 96 district respondents (3 per participating district) will take part in the on-site interviews, with 64 (2 per district) of those respondents also taking part in on-site observations. Of the 96 district respondents, 32 (one per district) will be asked to complete the follow-up telephone interview (including 29 respondents and 3 non-responders).

A total of 4 respondents from State Agency vendors (1 for each of 2 State Child Nutrition Agency vendors and 2 Medicaid Agency vendors) will take part in the on-site interviews.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: The average estimated annual number of responses per respondent is 5.168 (5.217 for respondents and 2.75 for non-respondents). Site visits (including interviews and observations—both preceded by advance letters and scheduling calls) with State- and district-level staff will take place once during the year, and follow-up telephone interviews (preceded by scheduling calls) with State- and district-level staff will take place once later in the year. Administrative records data will be requested via email and collected twice during the year. Cost data will also be requested via email and collected through cost-tracking logs and interviews with State-level administrators four times during the year.

Estimated Total Annual Responses: We estimate that 1,007 total responses will be gathered in SY 2017-2018 (including 1,003 responses from state and local government entities and 4 from businesses) from 193 respondents (189 state and local government entities and 4 business entities). A further 11 responses from 4 non-responders (all from state and local government entities) are anticipated, for a total of 1,018 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: The estimated time per response is 0.879 hours (approximately 53 minutes). The estimated time of response varies from 2 minutes to 4 hours depending upon respondent action, as shown in the table below.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: The total estimated annual burden is 894.675 hours, as shown in the table below.

This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 800-327-5138, conference ID number: 3765784. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.

Members of the public are entitled to make comments during the open period at the end of the meeting. Members of the public may also submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Regional Programs Unit within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Western Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 300 North Los Angeles Street, Suite 2010, Los Angeles, CA 90012. They may be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8311, or emailed Ana Victoria Fortes at [email protected]. Persons who desire additional information may contact the Regional Programs Unit at (213) 894-3437.

Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing prior to and after the meeting at http://facadatabase.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=245. Please click on the “Meeting Details” and “Documents” links. Records generated from this meeting may also be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's Web site, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Regional Programs Unit at the above email or street address.

Background

This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The Department published the notice of initiation of this investigation on August 19, 2016.1 The Department postponed the preliminary determination of this investigation until February 16, 2017.2 For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.3 A list of topics included in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as Appendix II to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov, and to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic version are identical in content.

The product covered by this investigation is ESB rubber from Poland. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix I.

In accordance with the preamble to the Department's regulations,4 the Initiation Notice set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (i.e., scope).5 No interested party commented on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the Initiation Notice. The Department is not preliminarily modifying the scope language as it appeared in the Initiation Notice.

The Department is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. Export prices have been calculated in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act. Normal value (NV) is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our preliminary conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

Sections 733(d)(1)(A)(ii) and 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provide that, in the preliminary determination, the Department shall determine an estimated all-others rate for all exporters and producers not individually investigated, which shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and de minimis margins, and any margins determined entirely under section 776 of the Act.

The Department calculated a company-specific rate for Synthos Dwory (Synthos) that is not zero, de minimis or determined entirely under section 776 of the Act. Therefore, for purposes of determining the “all-others” rate and pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, we are using the weighted-average dumping margin calculated for Synthos as the estimated weighted-average dumping margin assigned to all other producers and exporters of the merchandise under consideration.

The Department preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist:

In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, the Department will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of subject merchandise as described in the scope of the investigation section entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register, as discussed below. Further, pursuant to section 733(d)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(d), the Department will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the weighted-average amount by which normal value exceeds U.S. price. These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.

We intend to disclose the calculations performed to interested parties in this proceeding within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we intend to verify information relied upon in making our final determination.

Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the final verification report is issued in this proceeding, and rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs.6 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, whether any participant is a foreign national, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, the Department intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.

Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, or in the event of a negative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by the petitioners. Section 351.210(e)(2) of the Department's regulations requires that requests by respondents for postponement of a final antidumping determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not more than six months in duration.

On February 3, 2017, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.210(e), Synthos requested that the Department postpone the final determination and that provisional measures be extended to a period not to exceed six months.7 In accordance with section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii), because: (1) Our preliminary determination is affirmative; (2) the requesting exporter accounts for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise; and (3) no compelling reasons for denial exist, we are postponing the final determination and extending the provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not greater than six months. Accordingly, we will make our final determination no later than 135 days after the date of publication of this preliminary determination.

In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we are notifying the International Trade Commission (ITC) of our preliminary determination. If our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.

This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).

Background

On January 4, 2005, the Department published in the Federal Register the AD duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC.1 On November 3, 2015, the Department published in the Federal Register the initiation notice for the second sunset review of the AD duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the “Act”).2 On December 3, 2015, the Department received a substantive response from the domestic industry to participate in the second sunset review; 3 no other parties participated. As a result of its review, the Department determined, pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and 752(b) and (c) of the Act, that revocation of the AD duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and notified the ITC of the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail should the order be revoked.4 On February 14, 2017, the ITC published its determination, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, that revocation of the AD duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.5

The product covered by the Order is wooden bedroom furniture, subject to certain exceptions. Imports of subject merchandise are classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) subheadings: 9403.50.9042 and 9403.50.9045 of the HTSUS as “wooden . . . beds” and under subheading 9403.50.9080 of the HTSUS as “other . . . wooden furniture of a kind used in the bedroom.” In addition, wooden headboards for beds, wooden footboards for beds, wooden side rails for beds, and wooden canopies for beds may also be entered under subheading 9403.50.9042 or 9403.50.9045 of the HTSUS as “parts of wood.” Subject merchandise may also be entered under subheadings 9403.50.9041, 9403.60.8081, or 9403.20.0018. Further, framed glass mirrors may be entered under subheading 7009.92.1000 or 7009.92.5000 of the HTSUS as “glass mirrors . . . framed.” However, the product description, and not the HTSUS classification, is dispositive of whether merchandise imported into the United States falls within the scope of the order.6

As a result of the determinations by the Department and the ITC that revocation of the AD duty order would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(a), the Department hereby orders the continuation of the AD duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC. U.S. Customs and Border Protection will continue to collect AD duty cash deposits at the rates in effect at the time of entry for all imports of subject merchandise. The effective date of the continuation of the order will be the date of publication in the Federal Register of this notice of continuation. Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(c)(2), the Department intends to initiate the next five-year review of the order not later than 30 days prior to the fifth anniversary of the effective date of continuation.

This five-year sunset review and this notice are in accordance with section 751(c) and 751(d)(2) of the Act and published pursuant to section 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4).

This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return/destruction or conversion to judicial protective order of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Failure to comply is a violation of the APO which may be subject to sanctions.

Background

This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The Department published the notice of initiation of this investigation on August 19, 2016.1 The Department postponed the preliminary determination of this investigation until February 16, 2017.2 For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.3 A list of topics included in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as Appendix II to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov, and to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic version are identical in content.

The product covered by this investigation is ESB rubber from Mexico. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix I.

In accordance with the preamble to the Department's regulations,4 the Initiation Notice set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (i.e., scope).5 No interested party commented on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the Initiation Notice. The Department is not preliminarily modifying the scope language as it appeared in the Initiation Notice.

The Department is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. Constructed export prices have been calculated in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act. Normal value (NV) is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our preliminary conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

Sections 733(d)(1)(A)(ii) and 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provide that in the preliminary determination the Department shall determine an estimated all-others rate for all exporters and producers not individually investigated, which shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and de minimis margins, and any margins determined entirely under section 776 of the Act.

The Department calculated a company-specific rate for Industrias Negromex S.A. de C.V.—Planta Altamira (Negromex) that is not zero, de minimis, or determined entirely under section 776 of the Act. Therefore, for purposes of determining the “all-others” rate and pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, we are using the weighted-average dumping margin calculated for Negromex as the estimated weighted-average dumping margin assigned to all other producers and exporters of the merchandise under consideration.

The Department preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist:

In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, the Department will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of subject merchandise as described in the scope of the investigation section entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register, as discussed below. Further, pursuant to section 733(d)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(d), the Department will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the weighted-average amount by which normal value exceeds U.S. price. These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.

We intend to disclose the calculations performed to interested parties in this proceeding within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we intend to verify information relied upon in making our final determination.

Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the final verification report is issued in this proceeding, and rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs.6 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, whether any participant is a foreign national, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, the Department intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.

Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, or in the event of a negative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by the petitioners. Section 351.210(e)(2) of the Department's regulations requires that requests by respondents for postponement of a final antidumping determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not more than six months in duration.

On January 24, 2017, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.210(e), Negromex requested that the Department postpone the final determination and that provisional measures be extended to a period not to exceed six months.7 In accordance with section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii), because: (1) Our preliminary determination is affirmative; (2) the requesting exporter accounts for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise; and (3) no compelling reasons for denial exist, we are postponing the final determination and extending the provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not greater than six months. Accordingly, we will make our final determination no later than 135 days after the date of publication of this preliminary determination.

In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we are notifying the International Trade Commission (ITC) of our preliminary determination. If our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.

This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).

Background

This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The Department published the notice of initiation of this investigation on August 19, 2016.1 The Department postponed the preliminary determination of this investigation until February 16, 2017.2 For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.3 A list of topics included in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as Appendix II to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov, and to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic version are identical in content.

The product covered by this investigation is ESB rubber from Korea. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix I.

In accordance with the preamble to the Department's regulations,4 the Initiation Notice set aside a period of time for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (i.e., scope).5 No interested party commented on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the Initiation Notice. The Department is not preliminarily modifying the scope language as it appeared in the Initiation Notice.

The Department is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. The Department has calculated export prices in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act. Constructed export prices have been calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. Normal value (NV) For a full description of the methodology underlying our preliminary conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

In accordance with section 733(e) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206, we preliminarily find that critical circumstances do not exist for LG Chem, Ltd. (LG Chem). However, because Daewoo International Corporation (Daewoo) and Kumho Petrochemical Co, Ltd (Kumho) did not respond to the Department's questionnaires, we have determined pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act, that critical circumstances exist for both Daewoo and Kumho as adverse facts available (AFA). For a full description of the methodology and results of our critical circumstances analysis, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

Daewoo and Kumho were each selected as a mandatory respondent, but each failed to respond to the Department's questionnaires. Accordingly, we preliminarily determine to based their dumping margins on AFA, in accordance with sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.308. As AFA, we applied the highest dumping margin calculated for Korean exports of subject merchandise contained in the petition,6 44.30 percent. For further discussion, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

Sections 733(d)(1)(A)(ii) and 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provide that in the preliminary determination the Department shall determine an estimated all-others rate for all exporters and producers not individually investigated, which shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and de minimis margins, and any margins determined entirely under section 776 of the Act.

The Department calculated a company-specific rate for LG Chem that is not zero, de minimis or determined entirely under section 776 of the Act. However, the Department is preliminarily applying AFA, pursuant to section 776(a) and (b) of the Act, to Daewoo and Kumho. Therefore, for purposes of determining the “all-others” rate and pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, we are using the weighted-average dumping margin calculated for LG Chem as the estimated weighted-average dumping margin assigned to all other producers and exporters of the merchandise under consideration.

The Department preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist:

In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, the Department will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of subject merchandise as described in the scope of the investigation section entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register, as discussed below. Further, pursuant to section 733(d)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(d), the Department will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the weighted-average amount by which normal value exceeds U.S. price. These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.

Section 733(e)(2) of the Act provides that, given an affirmative determination of critical circumstances, any suspension of liquidation shall apply to unliquidated entries of merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the later of (a) the date which is 90 days before the date on which the suspension of liquidation was first ordered, or (b) the date on which notice of initiation of the investigation was published. The Department preliminarily finds that critical circumstances exist for imports of subject merchandise produced and exported by Daewoo and Kumho. In accordance with section 733(e)(2)(A) of the Act, the suspension of liquidation shall apply to unliquidated entries of merchandise from the exporters identified in this paragraph that were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date which is 90 days before the publication of this notice.

We intend to disclose the calculations performed to interested parties in this proceeding within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we intend to verify information relied upon in making our final determination.

Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the final verification report is issued in this proceeding, and rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs.7 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, whether any participant is a foreign national, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, the Department intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.

Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, or in the event of a negative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by the petitioners. Section 351.210(e)(2) of the Department's regulations requires that requests by respondents for postponement of a final antidumping determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not more than six months in duration.

On January 10, 2017, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.210(e), LG Chem requested that the Department postpone the final determination and that provisional measures be extended to a period not to exceed six months.8 In accordance with section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii), because: (1) Our preliminary determination is affirmative; (2) the requesting exporter accounts for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise; and (3) no compelling reasons for denial exist, we are postponing the final determination and extending the provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not greater than six months. Accordingly, we will make our final determination no later than 135 days after the date of publication of this preliminary determination.

In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we are notifying the International Trade Commission (ITC) of our preliminary affirmative determination. If our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.

This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).

Background

This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The Department published the notice of initiation of this investigation on August 19, 2016.1 The Department postponed the preliminary determination of this investigation until February 16, 2017.2 For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.3 A list of topics included in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as Appendix II to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov, and to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic version are identical in content.

The product covered by this investigation is ESB rubber from Brazil. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix I.

In accordance with the preamble to the Department's regulations,4 the Initiation Notice set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (i.e., scope).5 No interested party commented on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the Initiation Notice. The Department is not preliminarily modifying the scope language as it appeared in the Initiation Notice.

The Department is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. Constructed export prices have been calculated in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act. Normal value (NV) is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our preliminary conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

In accordance with section 733(e) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206, we preliminarily find that critical circumstances do not exist for mandatory respondent, Arlanxeo Brasil S.A. (Arlanxeo Brasil), or for exporters and producers not individually investigated (i.e., “all others”). For a full description of the methodology and results of our critical circumstances analysis, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

Sections 733(d)(1)(A)(ii) and 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provide that in the preliminary determination the Department shall determine an estimated all-others rate for all exporters and producers not individually investigated, which shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and de minimis margins, and any margins determined entirely under section 776 of the Act.

The Department calculated a company-specific rate for Arlanxeo Brasil that is not zero, de minimis or determined entirely under section 776 of the Act. Therefore, for purposes of determining the “all-others” rate and pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, we are using the weighted-average dumping margin calculated for Arlanxeo Brasil as the estimated weighted-average dumping margin assigned to all other producers and exporters of the merchandise under consideration.

The Department preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist:

In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, the Department will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of subject merchandise as described in the scope of the investigation section entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register, as discussed below. Further, pursuant to section 733(d)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(d), the Department will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the weighted-average amount by which normal value exceeds U.S. price. These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.

We intend to disclose the calculations performed to interested parties in this proceeding within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we intend to verify information relied upon in making our final determination.

Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the final verification report is issued in this proceeding, and rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs.6 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, whether any participant is a foreign national, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, the Department intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.

Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, or in the event of a negative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by Petitioners. Section 351.210(e)(2) of the Department's regulations requires that requests by respondents for postponement of a final antidumping determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not more than six months in duration.

On January 17, 2017, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.210(e), Arlanxeo Brasil requested that the Department postpone the final determination and that provisional measures be extended to a period not to exceed six months.7 In accordance with section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii), because: (1) Our preliminary determination is affirmative; (2) the requesting exporter accounts for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise; and (3) no compelling reasons for denial exist, we are postponing the final determination and extending the provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not greater than six months. Accordingly, we will make our final determination no later than 135 days after the date of publication of this preliminary determination.

In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we are notifying the International Trade Commission (ITC) of our preliminary determination. If our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.

This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).

We received a petition, dated May 28, 2015, from Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) and Defenders of Wildlife (DW) requesting that we list a “Northwest Atlantic DPS” of thorny skate as threatened or endangered under the ESA, or, as an alternative, a “U.S. DPS” as threatened or endangered. The petition also requests we designate critical habitat for thorny skate. In response to this petition, we published a “positive” 90-finding on October 26, 2015 (80 FR 65175), in which we concluded that the petition presented substantial scientific and commercial information indicating that listing under the ESA may be warranted, and a review of the status of the species was initiated.

We then performed a detailed review and determined that the best available scientific and commercial information does not support a listing. The resulting status review report included an in-depth review of the available scientific literature, an analysis of the five ESA section 4(a)(1) factors (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1)(A)-(E)), and an assessment of extinction risk. The status review report was independently peer reviewed by external experts. This listing determination is based on the status review report, along with other published and unpublished information.

We are responsible for determining whether the thorny skate is threatened or endangered under the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). To make this determination, we first consider whether a group of organisms constitutes a “species” under section 3 of the ESA, then whether the status of the species qualifies it for listing as either threatened or endangered. Section 3 of the ESA defines species to include “any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.” On February 7, 1996, NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS; together, the Services) adopted a policy describing what constitutes a DPS of a taxonomic species (61 FR 4722). Under the joint DPS policy, we consider the following when identifying a DPS: (1) The discreteness of the population segment in relation to the remainder of the species or subspecies to which it belongs; and (2) the significance of the population segment to the species or subspecies to which it belongs.

Section 3 of the ESA further defines an endangered species as “any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range” and a threatened species as one “which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” Thus, we interpret an “endangered species” to be one that is presently in danger of extinction. A “threatened species,” on the other hand, is not presently in danger of extinction, but is likely to become so in the foreseeable future (that is, at a later time). In other words, the primary statutory difference between a threatened and endangered species is the timing of when a species may be in danger of extinction, either presently (endangered) or in the foreseeable future (threatened). Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA also requires us to determine whether any species is endangered or threatened as a result of any of the following five factors: The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; disease or predation; the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1)(A)-(E)). Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires us to make listing determinations based solely on the best scientific and commercial data available after conducting a review of the status of the species and after taking into account efforts being made by any state or foreign nation or political subdivision thereof to protect the species. In evaluating the efficacy of existing domestic protective efforts, we rely on the Services' joint Policy on Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When Making Listing Decisions (“PECE”; 68 FR 15100; March 28, 2003) for any conservation efforts that have not been implemented or have been implemented but not yet demonstrated effectiveness.

The status review report for thorny skate is composed of two components: (1) A scientific literature review and analysis of the five ESA section 4(a)(1) factors and (2) an assessment of the extinction risk. A biologist in NMFS' Greater Atlantic Region, working in cooperation with NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC), completed the first component, undertaking a scientific review of the life history and ecology, distribution and abundance, and an analysis of the ESA section 4(a)(1) factors. The Extinction Risk Assessment (ERA) was compiled by a biologist in NMFS' Greater Atlantic Region. The ERA was informed by invited workshop participants who based their individual expert opinions on the information contained in the scientific literature review. The workshop participants were comprised of a fisheries management specialist from NMFS' Highly Migratory Species Management Division, two research fishery biologists from NMFS' Northeast Fisheries Science Center, an elasmobranch expert from Sharks International, a fisheries manager from the New England Fishery Management Council, and a research director from the New England Aquarium. The workshop participants had expertise in elasmobranch biology and ecology, population dynamics, fisheries management, climate change and/or stock assessment science. The workshop participants reviewed the information from the scientific literature review. The status review report for thorny skate (NMFS 2017) compiles the best available information on the status of the species as required by the ESA, provides an evaluation of the discreteness and significance of populations in terms of the DPS policy, and assesses the current and future extinction risk, focusing primarily on threats related to the five statutory factors set forth above. We prepared this report to summarize the workshop participants' professional judgments of the extinction risk facing thorny skate. The workshop participants made no recommendations as to the listing status of the species, nor does the status review report. The status review report is available electronically at the Web site listed in ADDRESSES.

The status review report underwent independent peer review as required by the Office of Management and Budget Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (M-05-03; December 16, 2004). The status review report was peer reviewed by three independent specialists selected from government, academic, and scientific communities, with expertise in elasmobranch biology, conservation and management, and specific knowledge of thorny skates. The peer reviewers were asked to evaluate the adequacy, quality, and completeness of the data considered and whether uncertainties in these data were identified and characterized in the status review report, as well as to evaluate the findings made in the “Assessment of Extinction Risk” section of the report. They were also asked to specifically identify any information missing or lacking justification, or whether information was applied incorrectly in reaching conclusions. We addressed all peer reviewer comments prior to finalizing the status review report. Comments received are posted online at www.cio.noaa.gov/services_programs/prplans/ID365.html.

We subsequently reviewed the status review report, the cited references, and the peer review comments, and we concluded that the status review report, upon which this listing determination is based, provides the best available scientific and commercial information on thorny skate. Much of the information discussed below on thorny skate biology, genetic diversity, distribution, abundance, threats, and extinction risk is attributable to the status review report. However, we have independently applied the statutory provisions of the ESA, including evaluation of the factors set forth in section 4(a)(1)(A)-(E); our regulations regarding listing determinations; and, our DPS and Significant Portion of its Range (SPR) policies in making the listing determination.

The thorny skate belongs to the family Rajidae, genus Amblyraja, and species radiata. The thorny skate is a widely distributed boreal species, spanning both sides of the Atlantic. In the western North Atlantic, it ranges from western Greenland to South Carolina. In the eastern North Atlantic, it ranges from the Barents Sea southward to the southwestern coasts of Ireland and England, including Iceland (Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953). Found over a wide variety of substrates including sand, broken shell, gravel, pebbles and soft mud, the thorny skate ranges over depths from 18 to 1400 m (COSEWIC 2012).

Despite its generalist nature, some habitat preferences exist. There is some evidence that the species prefers complex hard bottom habitat instead of sand or mud. Scott (1982) reported that catch rates of thorny skate were highest on coarser grained sediment, and catch rates diminished as grain size decreased on the Scotian Shelf. Also, more skates are caught by longlines in bottom areas that are considered categorized as rough versus those considered smooth (Sosebee et al., in prep).

Generally, thorny skate appear to prefer deeper waters within their range, although the specific depth varies by location and may be impacted by other factors including temperature. Survey data from the inshore waters in the Gulf of Maine stratified by depth indicate catch by trawl survey gear increases sharply in depths greater than 40 meters (m), and peaks at around 95 m. Most individuals are caught between 70 m and the upper depth limit for the survey, 120 m (Sosebee et al., in prep). Generally, within U.S. waters, they range from a depth of 141 to 300 m in spring and 31 to 500 m in fall, with the majority of both spring and fall captures between 141 to 300 m (Packer et al., 2003). Previous studies found thorny skate most abundant between 111 m and 366 m throughout the U.S. range (McEachran and Musick 1975). In Canadian waters from the Labrador Shelf to the Grand Banks, 88 percent of thorny skate are found between 30 and 350 m (COSEWIC 2012). In the Gulf of St. Lawrence, thorny skate have been found to be increasingly concentrated in depths below 100 m since the early 1990s, with the majority of fish greater than 33 centimeters (cm) in length found around 200 m (Swain and Benoit 2006). Fish smaller than 33 cm concentrate in shallower waters around 100 m in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. In Norway, thorny skate show a preference for even deeper waters, being more concentrated between 600 and 650 m (Williams et al., 2008). Within the Barents Sea, average catch is highest between 100 and 200 m but thorny skates are captured all the way to 800 m (Dolgov et al., 2005a). Together, this information demonstrates that thorny skate occur in a wide range of depths throughout their range, but are most likely to occur in deeper waters.

Thorny skate have been caught at temperatures ranging from −1.4 to 14 °Celsius (C) (McEachran and Musick 1975); however, they have a more narrow thermal range than most sympatric species (Hogan et al., 2013). In the U.S. waters of the inshore Gulf of Maine, surveys catch nearly twice as many skates at 2.5 °C as between 4.5 and 9.5 °C, with catch rates dropping off sharply for temperatures warmer than 10 °C (Sosebee et al., in prep). Generally, in U.S. waters during spring, adult thorny skate were found at temperatures between 2 and 13 °C, with the majority between 4 and 7 °C. During the fall, they were found over a temperature range of 3 and 13 °C, with the majority found between 5-8 °C (Packer et al., 2003). Preliminary tagging results are available from a 2016 Gulf of Maine study with data from 23 thorny skate with pop-up satellite archival transmitting (PSAT) tags. The daily (min/max) temperature records from all PSAT-tagged skates indicated that thorny skate occurred in temperatures of 4.5-10.5 °C from November to August and have a broad temperature tolerance (J. Kneebone, pers. comm.). On the Grand Banks, catches of thorny skate are generally highest between 3 and 5 °C, although catch has concentrated on the warmer edge of the Bank since the 1990s (Colbourne and Kulka 2004). A similar concentration on the edge of the banks has been observed in the Gulf of St Lawrence, correlating with temperatures between 2 and 4 °C (Swain and Benoit, 2006). Few thorny skates were caught where temperature was <0 °C. The available information consistently demonstrates that thorny skate are most likely to occur in areas with cooler water temperatures (0 to 14 °C).

Seasonal migrations have been noted on the Scotian Shelf and the Grand Banks, but are not well understood (NEFSC 2003). Within the Gulf of St. Lawrence, skates move into deeper waters in November and December and into shallower waters in April and May, with peak numbers present there in late summer and fall (Clay 1991; Darbyson and Benoit 2003). A change in spring and fall distributions results in higher density and concentration of biomass in deeper waters during the spring, corresponding with areas of warmer temperature in Canadian waters (Kulka and Miri 2003). These may be examples of skates seeking out their preferred temperature range.

Few data are available regarding thorny skates' preferred salinity, although catch is highest between 32 and 35 practical salinity units (PSU) (COSEWIC, 2012). In U.S. waters during the spring, they are primarily caught at salinities of 33-34 PSU and in the fall at salinities of 32-35 parts per thousand (ppt), with more than 60 percent at 33 ppt (Packer et al., 2003). In the Barents Sea, thorny skate are caught at a much larger range of salinities than other species (Dolgov et al., 2004a).

Thorny skates eat a varied diet, with smaller skates consuming copepods, krill, polychaete worms and amphipods, and larger skates eating other fish and larger crustaceans including shrimp and crabs (Skjaeraasen and Bergstad 2000; Dolgov 2002). Thorny skate are opportunistic feeders; important fish prey species can include cod, capelin, and redfish (Pedersen 1995; Dolgov 2002). Within the Gulf of Maine, fish make up the majority of the thorny skate diet (Link and Sosebee 2011).

Overall, thorny skate are considered a habitat generalist, found over a wide variety of substrates, depths and temperatures. Thorny skate vary widely in depth preferences over the range of the species (Dolgov et al., 2005a; COSEWIC 2012; Sosebee et al., in prep), likely indicating an ability to seek out ideal temperatures.

Thorny skate, like other skate, ray and shark species, are relatively slow-growing, late to mature and have low fecundity when compared to bony fishes. An oviparous (egg-laying) species, they reproduce year-round (Kneebone et al., 2007), although more females contain mature egg capsules in the summer (Collette and Klein-MacPhee 2002). In the Gulf of Maine, average egg capsule size is largest in October (Sulikowski et al., 2005a). Mature females are estimated to produce an average of 40.5 eggs per year, with a hatching success of 38 percent (COSEWIC 2012). Others have estimated up to 56 eggs per year, slightly higher than similar species (McPhie and Campana 2009). Incubation time is long and, depending on temperature (low water temperatures slow development), is estimated to take from 2.5-3 years after deposit (Berestovskii 1994).

Lifespan for the species is difficult to estimate, due to the slow growth of the species and limited number of maximum-sized fish available for aging. A limited number of maximum-sized fish may result from fishing and natural mortality or from differential capture rates for different sized skates. Individuals estimated to be up to 16 years of age using vertebral and caudal thorn aging have been observed from the Gulf of Maine (Sulikowski et al., 2005b) and from Greenland (Gallagher et al., 2006), respectively. Long-term tagging indicated these fish may live at least 20 years in Canadian waters (Templeman 1984) and further vertebral aging confirmed with radiocarbon bomb dating methodology indicated a maximum age of at least 28 years for individuals caught off the Scotian Shelf (McPhie and Campana 2009). Theoretical longevity was estimated at up to 39 years, much longer compared to other native skates (McPhie and Campana 2009).

Total length and length at reproductive maturity vary widely over the species' range. Maximum length and length at maturity (L50) decrease with increases in latitude. Maximum lengths range from 90 cm on the Labrador Shelf to 100-110 cm in the Gulf of Maine (COSEWIC 2012). The smallest L50s were reported farthest north, with female L50 reported at 44-47 cm, and male L50 at 44-50 cm reported for skates caught around Baffin Island on the Labrador Shelf (Templeman 1987). In the Gulf of Maine, L50 for females occurred at approximately 11 years and 87.5 cm; for males, L50 was reached at 10.9 years and 85.6 cm (Sulikowski et al., 2005b). A later study on the eastern Scotian Shelf (midway between these populations) noted that female skates could show signs of maturity anywhere from 39.0-74.5 cm and males between 51.0-78.0 cm (McPhie and Campana 2009). The reasons behind variation in total length and length at maturity are unknown but may stem from environmental or genetic factors.

Age at maturity was estimated to be 11 years for females and 10.9 years for males. Size and age at maturity for thorny skate were greater and also demonstrated more variability than for sympatric skate species (Sosebee 2005; McPhie and Campana, 2009). Size and maturity were not found to correlate with depth (Templeman 1987).

Overall, thorny skates were found to have the highest potential reproductive rate and predicted population increase when compared to sympatric skate species (McPhie and Campana 2009); this may indicate a greater ability to recover from fishing for thorny skate than for similar species. Reproductive rate is still considered low overall compared to teleost species.

Tagging data from both sides of the Atlantic show thorny skates remaining in or returning to the same area with 85 percent of individuals traveling less than 120 kilometers (km) from their tagging locations (Templeman 1984; Walker et al., 1997). In both studies, 13 percent of individuals traveled longer distances between 180 and 445 km. Preliminary study results from a 2016 study in the Gulf of Maine recovered data from five thorny skates tagged with PSATs in the vicinity of Cashes Ledge. The tag results indicated movements of 3-26 km at 100 days post-tagging (J. Kneebone, pers.comm). Three thorny skates tagged offshore in the Gulf of Maine near the Hague line exhibited movements of 3.5-6.5 km over 100 days post-tagging. In the western Gulf of Maine (Massachusetts Bay), data from 13 PSAT-tagged skates indicated distance traveled of 2-30 km over 100-day (n=12) and 200-day (n=1) tag deployment periods (J. Kneebone, pers. comm.). Collectively, these preliminary data corroborate previously published data and further demonstrate that thorny skates exhibit limited movements in the Gulf of Maine. However, some thorny skates off the coast of Newfoundland were observed to travel rapidly, with several individuals moving up to 200 km within a few months (Templeman 1984).

Conventional tagging data have several limitations when it comes to accurately monitoring movement for this species, including that all returns are produced from commercial fishing gear. First, these data rely on recaptures and reporting (commercial/recreational fishermen or surveys may report catch of a tagged fish) and the information obtained is generally limited to the location where the fish was recaptured in relation to where it was originally tagged. Second, the information from conventional tagging is limited by the small number of thorny skates tagged and recaptured. Return rates in the western Atlantic were 14 percent (Templeman 1984) and 25 percent in the eastern Atlantic (Walker et al., 1997). The prosecution of fisheries in relatively shallow waters compared to the depth range of the species limits returns and therefore, data, because there are fewer opportunities for recapture. A particularly low rate of return of five percent was observed for skates tagged offshore (Templeman 1984), making it difficult to understand offshore movements. However, based on the available information, thorny skates are capable of occasional long distance movements, and this may be sufficient to promote reproductive mixing across the species' range.

Comparisons with sympatric skate species suggest that the thorny skate has one of the highest levels of haplotype and nucleotide genetic diversity when compared to other western Atlantic skate species, although this can be skewed by some individuals (Coulson et al., 2011). Haplotype and nucleotide diversity are useful metrics for assessing species genetic diversity because they can be influenced by factors such as the size and age of a population and degree of connectivity between populations. High genetic diversity was also detected in studies that examined additional genetic markers (Chevolot et al., 2007, Lynghammar et al., 2014). Overall, barcode gap analysis (an analytical tool wherein the barcoding gap is the difference between interspecific and intraspecific genetic distance within a group of organisms) indicates the genetic distance within the thorny skate species is low compared to the average genetic distance within other species in the skate family (0.93 v. 3.9 percent, Lynghammar et al., 2014). This means that, within the skate species sampled, thorny skates are genetically more similar to each other, suggesting greater gene flow across their range, than all of the other skate species in this study.

Distribution of genetic diversity did not mirror geographic distribution in the thorny skate, with the center of the range having the highest genetic diversity (Lynghammar et al., 2014). Highest diversity in one study occurred between two adjacent sites in the eastern Atlantic, and when these were removed, there was no significant difference in genetic diversity between remaining sites (Chevolot et al., 2007). Thorny skates captured in Iceland had the highest levels of diversity with fourteen different haplotypes present; thorny skates from the eastern and western Atlantic sites had significantly lower levels with three haplotypes each. The distribution of specific genetic haplotypes and the depth range of the species likely indicate gene flow across the range of the species (Chevolot et al., 2007) and indicate that there are not isolated populations, as there is no significant gap in distribution across the species' range (COSEWIC 2012).

Comparisons of haplotype frequencies between the Northwest and Northeast Atlantic alone indicated that there was a statistically significant difference between haplotype frequencies of thorny skates in these two areas; however, when samples from Greenland were included, the differences in haplotype frequencies among thorny skates from these locations were not statistically significant (Lynghammar et al., 2014). Additionally, Greenland represented a higher number of genetic haplotypes than either the Northwest or Northeast Atlantic, confirming previous results and suggesting that genetic mixing is occurring in the center of the species' range (Lynghammar et al., 2014).

Further work comparing individuals of different sizes from two sites in the Gulf of Maine and two sites in Canadian waters found no significant genetic differences (Tsang et al., 2008). Comparison of “late maturing” skates collected mostly north of Newfoundland and “early maturing” skates collected within Canadian waters south of Newfoundland also showed no significant genetic differences (Lynghammar et al., 2014).

In summary, current information indicates thorny skates in the Northwestern Atlantic comprise a single stock, despite the differences in length and length at maturity. Some genetic differentiation is present between the Northwest Atlantic and Northeast Atlantic, but the center of the range appears to have genetic mixing between these two areas. This is likely made possible by the depth range of the species, which allows for continuous distribution as there are no known barriers to migration.

The best available information regarding population abundance and trends is provided by independent trawl surveys within different regions of the species' range. Trawl surveys underestimate thorny skate abundance, however, because skates are able to escape capture by sliding under the foot rope of trawl gear (Templeman 1984). Capture efficiency varies widely with the configuration of the gear and size of the fish, as well as area (COSEWIC 2012), making it difficult to compare results or pool surveys. In addition, surveys are generally conducted to support fisheries management and are designed for other (commercial) species and thus may not be optimal for estimating skate abundance. In Europe, the areas surveyed do not always overlap with areas of known thorny skate abundance, particularly in deeper waters (Templeman 1984; Walker and Hislop 1998). Across the species' range, available data vary widely in survey gear, timing of surveys, and time series, making comparisons between different areas difficult (COSEWIC 2012).

Trawl surveys are limited in the types of bottom they can survey. For trawls, catch efficiency increases with the smoothness of the bottom. The roughest bottoms may be avoided by survey operators to prevent gear hang-ups. The increase in number and length of skates caught by longline surveys, particularly on rough bottom (Sosebee et al., in prep), confirms that trawl gear underestimates total abundance and biomass of thorny skates (Dolgov et al., 2005b) because rough bottom areas are not as efficiently surveyed with trawl gear.

The utility of trawl survey data to provide information on the thorny skate is thus limited in two ways: By location, missing an unknown portion of the species' preferred habitat; and by catch efficiency, underestimating the number of skates in surveyed areas. Trawl survey data, therefore, are an index and represent a minimum estimate of overall thorny skate abundance. Trends are still evident from these data but should be viewed with the sampling caveats described above, given the lack of information collected beyond the survey areas and the unknown proportion of individuals in un-trawlable habitat (see Davies and Jonsen 2011).

In U.S. waters, the relative abundance of the thorny skate is measured via NEFSC bottom trawl surveys. The NEFSC trawl survey has been conducted in the autumn from the Gulf of Maine to Southern New England since 1963 as a method of measuring abundance of groundfish for fishery management purposes. A spring survey was started in 1968. The autumn surveys provide a longer time series and are used for stock assessment purposes.

Numbers and catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE; abundance or biomass per tow) of thorny skates caught by this survey have declined over time. After reaching a peak during the 1970s with 5.3 kilogram (kg) per tow (2.9 fish per tow) during the spring survey and 5.9 kg per tow (1.8 fish per tow) in the autumn survey, catch has declined to less than five percent of these maximum levels, with the average current CPUE from 2013-2015 being 0.17 kg/tow (Sosebee et al., in prep). Average length decreased from a high of 63 cm in 1971 to a low of 23 cm in 2003, but has been stable from 2014-2015 at 40-50 cm. From 1963 to 2015, minimum swept-area abundance and biomass estimates decreased from a high of 10.9 million individuals and 36,393 metric tons (mt) in the 1966 autumn survey to a low of 518,900 individuals (mean length = 19 cm) and 365 mt in autumn 2012 and 485,000 individuals (mean length = 30 cm) and 499 mt in autumn 2013. Spring survey numbers have followed a similar trend. Despite the decline from 1970s levels, recent data demonstrate increased capture. Survey estimates from 2014-2015 have increased from previous lows, with estimates of 865,000 individuals and 1,264 mt in spring 2015 and 628,000 individuals and 844 mt in autumn 2015.

It is important to note that the low efficiency of the gear in capturing skate for these surveys (as described above) indicates minimum abundance and biomass in the survey area, and true abundance and biomass are higher than numbers reflect. Historical survey efforts also likely underestimated thorny skate abundance and biomass. Edwards (1968) estimates the catch efficiency of thorny skates in the NEFSC trawl survey at 0.1. Using this value, the 2015 autumn survey represents an estimated 8,440 mt and 6 million fish within U.S. waters surveyed by NEFSC (Sosebee et al., in prep).

Additional surveys in shallow water show similar patterns regarding trends of thorny skate biomass and abundance, or fluctuations without trend. The Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (MADMF) surveys inshore state waters in spring and autumn. Catch of thorny skates is variable in this survey (1978 to 2015) but demonstrates an overall decreasing trend in thorny skate biomass and abundance. The spring index had stabilized around the median of 0.07 kg/tow throughout the 2000s, but has since declined, and none were caught in 2013. The autumn index has generally been below the median of 0.14 kg/tow since 1994. Average length of fish in this survey is variable but tends toward smaller fish (Sosebee et al., in prep).

The Maine-New Hampshire Inshore Trawl Survey was established in 2000. This survey is stratified by depth and demonstrates low abundance of thorny skates in the inshore area with little trend over the time series (Sosebee et al., in prep).

The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission shrimp survey samples deeper offshore waters within the Gulf of Maine. A decreasing trend is evident here in both abundance and biomass of skate for the duration of the time series (1985-2015); however, recent survey results show stable biomass estimates from 2009-2015. Although average length has varied considerably over the time series (1985-2015), in general it shows a stable trend (Sosebee et al., in prep).

Overall, NEFSC bottom trawl surveys indicate that thorny skates are most abundant in the Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank offshore strata regions, with very few fish caught in inshore (<27 m depth), Southern New England, or MA regions (NEFSC 2007, Sosebee et al., in prep). More recent surveys (2007-2009) show a broadening of thorny skate distribution into deeper water but also a concentration in the western Gulf of Maine (Sosebee et al., in prep).

Where data are available, a decrease in abundance has been observed since the 1970s in Canadian waters; however, recent data indicate an increasing or stable trend in Canadian waters. The thorny skate is widely distributed and is the most common skate species in Canadian waters. The amount of decrease varies widely between different regions, varying from 30 percent on the Southern Labrador Shelf to more than 80 percent on the Scotian Shelf between 1977 and 2010 (COSEWIC 2012). Over the same time period, the average individual weight of commercially targeted demersal fish on the Scotian Shelf declined from 41-51 percent with the larger decline being on the eastern portion of the shelf (Zwanenburg 2000). Most Canadian areas saw a decline in abundance of thorny skates between 50-60 percent during this time period (COSEWIC 2012).

From 1990 to 2011, survey abundance has been mostly stable on the Southern Labrador Shelf and Northern Gulf of St. Lawrence, and has increased 61 percent on the Grand Banks (COSEWIC 2012). More recent information is available for the Grand Banks region, where a fishery persists for skates. Biomass in some Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) subdivisions has been increasing, but overall abundance and biomass remains at low levels, averaging 33,500 tons (t) (30,391 mt) from 1993 to 2012 (DFO 2013). Biomass of thorny skates overall on the Grand Banks has been stable since 2006 (Simpson et al., 2016, Nogueira et al., 2015).

Overall declines in abundance have been higher for larger thorny skates (COSEWIC 2012). In Canadian waters around Newfoundland, mortality for the smallest thorny skates has declined since the 1970s, while mortality has increased for older juveniles and adults in the Gulf of St. Lawrence (Swain et al., 2013). Fishing effort in the area has declined over the same period; suggesting natural mortality factors (not attributable to fishing) are responsible for this change in mortality rates. On the Grand Banks, average length has increased since the 1990s (Nogueira et al., 2015). Recruitment rate has also increased in the Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence since the 1970s (Benoit and Swain 2011).

Despite the overall downward trend in abundance of thorny skates within Canadian waters throughout the entire time series, recent (mid to late 1990s to 2012) trends for abundance, biomass, average length, and recruitment rate have been stable and increasing and thorny skates remain numerous. Estimated minimum abundance for Canada in 2010 was more than 188 million individuals, with recent increases in abundance of 61 percent on the Grand Banks (COSEWIC 2012). The true number is likely much higher because of the limitations of sampling gear and sampling locations and depth (as discussed above). Approximately 30-40 percent of the species' range lies within Canadian waters (COSEWIC 2012).

The thorny skate is widely distributed and is the most common skate species in the Northeast Atlantic. Within the Barents Sea, the population abundance was estimated to average 143 million fish and the biomass 95,000 mt during the period 1998 through 2001 (Dolgov et al., 2005a). In Norway, their numbers fluctuated without trend between 1992 and 2005. They remain the most widely occurring skate species with a mean catch rate in Norwegian waters of 55.2 per km2 (Williams et al., 2008). While not directly comparable given differences in tow length and capture efficiency of different gears, this is relatively high when compared to capture rates in Canada and the United States. In Iceland and East Greenland, population estimates are not available, but abundance in groundfish surveys has remained stable since 2000. Area occupied has likewise remained stable, averaging 50 percent from 2000-2014 (International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) 2015).

In the North Sea off the coast of Scotland, thorny skates comprise eighty percent of the total skate biomass (Walker and Heeseen 1996; Piet et al., 2009). Biomass was estimated to be greater than 100,000 t (90,718 mt) during the early 1980s (Sparholt and Vinther 1991). Abundance of thorny skates in the area increased greatly when comparing the 1906-1909 and 1990-1995 time periods, despite the overall decrease in landings of skates and rays in this region over the same time period (Walker and Hislop 1998). Abundance decreased (1977-2015) but is comparable to the abundances observed during the early 1970s (ICES 2015). Recent abundance estimates of thorny skates in the Northeast Atlantic have been stable (ICES 2015).

Some evidence suggests a contraction of the thorny skate's range over time. In Canadian waters, area occupied has remained stable through much of the species' range. Populations off Labrador, north of Newfoundland and on the St. Pierre Bank have all remained stable. Areas south of Newfoundland and St. Pierre Bank have experienced a decline in area occupied. On the Grand Banks, area occupied has decreased approximately 50 percent from a high of almost 60,000 km2 to approximately 30,000 km2 in 2010 (COSEWIC 2012). It appears fish in this area have been avoiding colder waters present on the top of the Bank, instead moving towards the warmer edge (Kulka and Miri 2003). In the Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence, the area occupied has decreased from about 55,000 km2 in the mid-1970s to approximately 20,000 km2 in 2010. Meanwhile, within the Northern Gulf of St. Lawrence, the area occupied has doubled from 42,300 km2 from 1991-1993 to 90,400 km2 from 2008-2010 (COSEWIC 2012). This supports the conclusion that the range of the thorny skate is shifting within the Gulf of St. Lawrence.

On the Scotian Shelf, area occupancy has declined steadily over the time series, by 58 percent since 1970-1972, and 66 percent since 1974-1976 (when it occupied 150,000 km2). The decline ceased in 2000, and skate in this area now occupy approximately 50,000 km2. There is a strong correlation in this location between area occupied and abundance (Shackell et al., 2005), indicating that remaining skates are using the most suitable habitat. Thorny skate occupancy has also declined on the Canadian side of Georges Bank by about 40 percent. Overall, area occupied for all areas surveyed off Canada (averages for 2007-2009) is approximately 290,000 km2, about 90,000 km2 less than in the 1970s. Most of the decline occurred prior to 1991 with the largest decrease on the Scotian Shelf (COSEWIC 2012).

Within the United States, NEFSC bottom trawl surveys show an approximately 75 percent decrease in number of total tows containing skate from 1965 to 2008. There is an upward trend in the number of positive tows since 2008. There are several distribution indicators of possible contractions or expansions in distribution, such as positive tows, the Gini index (a measure indicating deviation from equal spatial distribution), and design-weighted area of occupancy, which takes into account the area swept by the tows and the proportion of positive tows. Multiple estimates of biomass and abundance versus area also show a moderate increase in concentration of fish (Sosebee et al., in prep).

An example of this is the design-weighted area of occupancy from the spring and fall NEFSC surveys, which incorporate a stratified random survey design (Kulka 2012). This index takes into account the area swept by the tows and the proportion of positive tows (Swain et al., 2012). The calculation is the proportion of positive tows within a stratum multiplied by the area of that stratum and summed over the stock area. For the thorny skate, the design-weighted area of occupancy declined over time, from a high of almost 85,800 km2 in the mid-1970s to 14,000-17,000 km2 in 2008. Area occupied has increased recently, but concentrations of thorny skates remain within the Gulf of Maine (Sosebee et al., in prep).

Abundance of the thorny skate has declined since the highs of the 1970s. The areas of greatest decline have been along the southern portion of their range, including U.S. waters and Canadian waters of the Scotian shelf. Abundance has declined by up to 80 or 95 percent in these areas (COSEWIC 2012), although recent surveys show the number of thorny skates in these areas are stable or slightly increasing (Sosebee et al., in prep; COSEWIC 2012). In more northern parts of the range, decline in abundance has been closer to 60 percent on average and recent surveys show the number of thorny skates in these areas is increasing or stable (ICES 2015).

Biomass has also decreased, in part due to decreased abundance but also due to high average adult mortality. Recent biomass estimates indicate stabilization (at low levels) or increasing trends in some regions (COSEWIC 2012; Sosebee et al., in prep). Thorny skates remain numerous throughout the greater portion of their range, numbering in the hundreds of millions (COSEWIC 2012). Due to low catchability, the species may be even more numerous than estimates predict. Area occupied has declined by approximately half since the 1970s; however, some expansion of area occupied has been observed recently and current estimates have demonstrated an upward trend in recent years (COSEWIC 2012; ICES 2015).

As described above, the ESA's definition of “species” includes “any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.” The term “distinct population segment” is not recognized in the scientific literature and is not defined in the ESA or its implementing regulations. Therefore, the Services adopted a joint policy for recognizing DPSs under the ESA (DPS Policy; 61 FR 4722) on February 7, 1996. Congress has instructed the Secretaries of Interior and Commerce to exercise this authority with regard to DPSs “ * * * . . . sparingly and only when biological evidence indicates such an action is warranted.” The DPS Policy requires the consideration of two elements when evaluating whether a vertebrate population segment qualifies as a DPS under the ESA: (1) The discreteness of the population segment in relation to the remainder of the species or subspecies to which it belongs; and (2) the significance of the population segment to the species or subspecies to which it belongs.

A population segment of a vertebrate species may be discrete if it satisfies either one of the following conditions: (1) It is markedly separated from other populations of the same taxon (an organism or group of organisms) as a result of physical, ecological, or behavioral factors. Quantitative measures of genetic or morphological discontinuity may provide evidence of this separation; or (2) it is delimited by international governmental boundaries within which differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat, conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist that are significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the ESA (e.g., inadequate regulatory mechanisms). If a population segment is found to be discrete under one or both of the above conditions, its biological and ecological significance to the taxon to which it belongs is evaluated. This consideration may include, but is not limited to: (1) Persistence of the discrete population segment in an ecological setting unusual or unique for the taxon; (2) evidence that loss of the discrete population segment would result in a significant gap in the range of a taxon; (3) evidence that the discrete population segment represents the only surviving natural occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant elsewhere as an introduced population outside its historical range; or (4) evidence that the discrete population segment differs markedly from other population segments of the species in its genetic characteristics.

The petition from AWI and DW requested that we list a “Northwest Atlantic DPS” of the thorny skate as threatened or endangered under the ESA, or, as an alternative, a “United States DPS” as threatened or endangered under the ESA.

In May 2016, we convened an ERA workshop with thorny skate experts. The workshop participants provided individual expert opinions regarding the available information to assess whether there are any thorny skate population segments that satisfy the DPS criteria of both discreteness and significance. Data relevant to the discreteness question included physical, ecological, behavioral, tagging, and genetic data. As described above, the thorny skate is widely distributed across the Northern Atlantic, without any significant known gaps or barriers in the species range (COSEWIC 2012) or between the Northwest and Northeast Atlantic. Likewise, populations are considered contiguous between the United States and Canada.

Conventional tagging data suggest that individual movement is limited (Templeman 1984; Walker et al., 1997); however, tagging studies to date have been small and relied upon recapture of individuals by fishing operations. There is a lack of information regarding species' movements in deeper water. However, the long distance movements of some tagged individuals (hundreds of kilometers) suggest that occasional long distance movements by some individuals may be sufficient to promote reproductive mixing across the species' range (Templeman 1984; Chevolot et al., 2007). Connectivity between areas is also supported by high areas of genetic diversity in the center of the range (Lynghammar et al., 2014). There are no physical barriers to thorny skate migration, and migratory pathways appear to be present between all ocean basins (i.e., connected areas of appropriate habitat). Collectively, this information indicates that thorny skates are one contiguous population.

As highlighted in the DPS Policy, quantitative measures of morphological discontinuity or differentiation can serve as evidence of marked separation of populations. No genetic difference was detected between thorny skates caught within Canadian versus U.S. waters (Tsang et al., 2008). Best available genetic information (Lynghammar et al., 2014) suggests a significant amount of genetic diversity between populations in the Northwest and Northeast extremes; however, no significant difference is found when individuals from the center of the range are included, which indicates genetic mixing is occurring in the center of the range (Lynghammar et al., 2014). The center of the species' range around Iceland and Greenland contains the highest amount of genetic diversity, with the edges of the species' range in the Northwest and Northeast Atlantic both having lower levels of diversity. We do not know if the diversity is in neutral genetic markers or is indicative of adaptation. It should be noted that Lynghammar et al. (2014) was not specifically targeting thorny skates; therefore, improved sampling for thorny skates is suggested for future research. However, this study represents the best available scientific information on thorny skate genetics.

In summary, current information indicates thorny skates in the North Atlantic comprise a single species, despite the differences in age and length at maturity. Some genetic differentiation is present between the Northwest Atlantic and Northeast Atlantic, but the center of the range bridges genetic diversity between these two areas, indicating that there is mixing and gene flow across the range. This is likely made possible by the continuous distribution and depth range of the species, as there are no known physical barriers to migration. Morphological differences in thorny skate populations are limited to body size and age at maturity. Comparisons of individuals of different sizes from two sites in the Gulf of Maine and two sites in Canadian waters found no significant genetic differences (Tsang et al., 2008). Comparison of “late maturing” skates collected mostly north of Newfoundland and “early maturing” skates collected within Canadian waters south of Newfoundland also found no significant genetic differences (Lynghammar et al., 2014).

Thorny skates are habitat generalists. None of the populations appear to occur in an ecological setting unusual or unique for the taxon. Thorny skates are well distributed throughout the Atlantic; there is no population that represents the only surviving natural occurrence of the taxon. Thorny skates do not exist as an introduced population outside their historical range.

A population can be determined to be discrete if it is delimited by international governmental boundaries within which differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat, conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist that are significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the ESA. A directed fishery for thorny skates is permitted in the central portion of the species' range comprising the area of the Grand Banks in Canadian waters, as well as Iceland and Greenland. Landings of thorny skates are prohibited in the extreme western (U.S.) and eastern (U.K. eastward) portions of the species' range. In most shallow water areas across the species' range, thorny skates undergo some form of fishing mortality because they are a common bycatch species. There are some differences in management in the Northwestern Atlantic (by the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) and the Northeastern Atlantic (by ICES). In 2004, the NAFO Fisheries Commission set a total allowable catch (TAC) of 13,500 mt for 2005-2009 in Division 3 LNO. This TAC was lowered by NAFO to 12,000 mt for 2010-2011, and to 8,500 mt for 2012. The TAC was further reduced to 7,000 mt for 2013, 2014, 2015 (Simpson et al., 2016). In the Northeastern Atlantic there is a prohibition against landing thorny skates from European Union waters in the Barents Sea and east of the United Kingdom (ICES 2015). A very small fishery exists in Iceland and off East Greenland, where survey numbers have remained stable since 2000 (ICES 2015). With populations within the Northeast Atlantic currently considered stable (ICES 2015), existing regulatory measures appear sufficient to control fishing mortality within this region. Iceland reported 1,625 mt of thorny skate landings in 2014. A 2016 EU regulation prohibits thorny skate landing for EU waters of ICES divisions IIa, IIIa and VIId and ICES subarea IV Subareas II and IV and Division IIIa (Norwegian Sea, North Sea, Skagerrak, and Kattegat), based on ICES advice that a precautionary approach dictates no targeted fishing and measures to reduce bycatch. ICES advice for this species west of the UK is currently pending.

Within U.S. waters, thorny skates are managed under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA). Landings of thorny skates within U.S. waters were unregulated until 2003 when the New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC) established a Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for the skate complex. In 2003, the stock was deemed “overfished” and a landing prohibition was put in place, requiring all catch of thorny skates to be discarded at sea. Compliance with the prohibition against landing thorny and other skates is examined via port sampling. While thorny skates are still considered overfished within the United States, overfishing is no longer occurring (NEFMC 2009), indicating that fishery management measures are successfully controlling fishing mortality in those waters.

Under the Fisheries Act, Canadian fisheries may take thorny skates as bycatch in other fisheries, and a small directed fishery still operates on the Grand Banks. Available information suggests that catch is well below the total allowable catch limits as set by NAFO and Canada, indicating fishing mortality is controlled (Simpson et al., 2016). The Scotian shelf has been closed to directed fishery for skates (thorny and winter) since the early 2000s. In addition to compliance with catch limits, thorny skate abundance has been stable on the Grand Banks and the rest of Canada, yet still below historical levels (COSEWIC 2012). Therefore, existing regulatory measures appear sufficient to control fishing mortality.

Throughout its range, thorny skates cross international governmental boundaries. There are regulatory mechanisms in place across the species' range with respect to conserving and recovering the thorny skate. While there are regulatory differences in different parts of its range, when evaluated as described further below in the Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms section, these regulatory mechanisms are adequate and the effects on thorny skates are similar. These mechanisms include regulating directed catch and bycatch, and result in effective management of the harvest of thorny skates throughout their range.

In summary, thorny skates rangewide exhibit genetic continuity between the Northwest and Northeast Atlantic through a high degree of diversity in the center of their range, a lack of significant differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat, conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms across international borders. We have determined that neither thorny skates in the United States nor thorny skates in the Northwest Atlantic are discrete from thorny skates throughout the rest of the North Atlantic.

The workshop participants provided their individual expert opinions regarding the best available information related to the discreteness criterion for thorny skates. Upon our review of their individual analyses and the DPS policy, we have concluded that there are no populations of the thorny skate that are discrete. Because we do not find any populations that are discrete, we do not go on to the second element of the DPS criteria (significance). Therefore, none of the segments suggested by the petitioners (i.e., Northwest Atlantic or United States) qualifies as a DPS. Because there are no DPSs of the thorny skate, the workshop participants next provided their individual expert opinions regarding extinction risk rangewide for the thorny skate.

The ESA (section 3) defines endangered species as “any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” A threatened species is “any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” We consider the best available information and apply professional judgment in evaluating the level of risk faced by a species in deciding whether the species is currently in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range (endangered) or likely to become so in the foreseeable future (threatened). We evaluate both demographic risks, such as low abundance and productivity, and threats to the species, including those related to the factors specified by the ESA sections 4(a)(1)(A)-(E).

As described above, we convened a workshop of invited experts to provide individual input regarding extinction risk to the species. This section discusses the methods used to evaluate demographic factors, threats, and overall extinction risk to the species now and in the foreseeable future. For this assessment, the term “foreseeable future” was defined as 40 years. The workshop participants reviewed other comparable assessments (which used generation times of either one or two generations) and provided their expert opinions on the appropriate timeframe for the thorny skate. Each of the workshop participants considered thorny skate generation time (16 years), the ability to predict population trends, climate-modeling predictions, and the time for management actions to be realized and reflected in abundance trends when considering a foreseeable future timeline. The individual workshop participants determined that, for the thorny skate, there was reasonable confidence across this time-period (40 years) that the information on threats and management is accurate. We agree that, because of the factors listed above, this is a reasonable definition of “foreseeable future” for the thorny skate, and we use the same definition here.

Often the ability to measure or document risk factors is limited, and information is not quantitative or very often is lacking altogether. Therefore, in assessing risk, it is important to include both qualitative and quantitative information. In previous NMFS status reviews, Biological Review Teams have used a risk matrix method, described in detail by Wainwright and Kope (1999), to organize and summarize the professional judgement of a panel of knowledgeable scientists. The approach of considering demographic risk factors to help frame the consideration of extinction risk has been used in many of our status reviews (see http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species for links to these reviews). In this approach, the collective condition of individual populations is considered at the species level according to four demographic viability factors: Abundance, growth rate/productivity, spatial structure/connectivity, and diversity. Connectivity refers to rates of exchange among populations of organisms. These viability factors reflect concepts that are well founded in conservation biology and that individually and collectively provide strong indicators of extinction risk.

Using these concepts, the workshop participants each evaluated demographic risks by individually assigning a risk score to each of the four demographic criteria (abundance, growth rate/productivity, spatial structure/connectivity, diversity). The scoring for the demographic risk criteria corresponded to the following values: 1—very low risk, 2—low risk, 3—moderate risk, 4—high risk, and 5—very high risk. A demographic factor (or viable population descriptor) was ranked very low if it was unlikely that this descriptor contributed significantly to risk of extinction, either by itself or in combination with other viable population descriptors. A factor was ranked low risk if it was unlikely that this descriptor contributed significantly to long-term or near future risk of extinction by itself, but there was some concern that it may, in combination with other viable population descriptors. A factor was ranked moderate risk if this descriptor contributed significantly to long-term risk of extinction, but did not in itself constitute a danger of extinction in the near future. A factor was ranked high risk if this descriptor contributed significantly to long-term risk of extinction and was likely to contribute to short-term risk of extinction in the near future, and a factor was ranked very high risk if this descriptor by itself indicated danger of extinction in the near future.

Each workshop participant scored each demographic factor individually. Each workshop participant identified other demographic factors and/or threats that would work in combination with factors ranked in the higher categories to increase risk to the species. During the workshop, the participants provided their expert opinions for each of the demographic risks, including considerations outlined in McElhany et al. (2000) and the supporting data on which it was based. Workshop participants were given the opportunity to adjust their individual scores, if desired, after the workshop. The scores were then tallied, reviewed, and considered in our overall extinction risk determination. As noted above, this scoring was carried out for the species rangewide.

Each workshop participant also performed a threats assessment for the thorny skate by evaluating the impact that a particular threat was currently having on the extinction risk of the species. Threats considered included habitat destruction, modification, or curtailment; overutilization; disease or predation; inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and other natural or manmade threats, because these are the five factors identified in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA. Workshop participants each ranked the threats for the thorny skate at a range-wide scale. The workshop participants used the “likelihood point” (FEMAT) method to allow individuals to express uncertainty in determining the contribution to extinction risk of each threat to the species. Each workshop participant was allotted five likelihood points to rank each threat. Workshop participants individually ranked the severity of each threat through the allocation of these five likelihood points across five ranking criteria ranging from a score of “very low contribution” to “very high contribution.” The scoring for the threats correspond to the following values: 1—very low contribution, 2—low contribution, 3—moderate contribution, 4—high contribution, and 5—very high contribution. A threat was given a rank of very low if it is unlikely that this threat contributes significantly to risk of extinction, either by itself or in combination with other threats. That is, it is unlikely that the threat will have population-level impacts that reduce the viability of the species. A threat was ranked as low contribution if it is unlikely that this threat contributes significantly to long-term or near future risk of extinction by itself, but there is some concern that it may, in combination with other threats. A threat was ranked as medium contribution if this threat contributes significantly to long-term risk of extinction, but does not in itself constitute a danger of extinction in the near future. A threat was ranked high contribution if this threat contributes significantly to long-term risk of extinction and is likely to contribute to short-term risk of extinction in the near future. Finally, a threat was ranked very high contribution if the threat by itself indicates a danger of extinction in the near future. Detailed definitions of the risk scores can be found in the status review report (NMFS 2017).

Similar to the demographic parameters, the workshop participants were asked to identify other threat(s) and/or demographic factor(s) that may interact to increase the species' extinction risk. The workshop participants also considered the ranking with respect to the interactions with other factors and threats. For example, workshop participants identified that threats due to the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms may interact with the threat of overutilization and slow population growth rates (a demographic factor) to increase the risk extinction.

Workshop participants were asked to rank the effect that the threat was currently having on the extinction risk of the species. Each workshop participant could allocate all five likelihood points to one ranking criterion or distribute the likelihood points across several ranking criteria to account for any uncertainty. Each individual workshop participant distributed the likelihood points as she/he deemed appropriate with the condition that all five likelihood points had to be used for each threat. Workshop participants also had the option of ranking the threat as “0” to indicate that, in their opinion, there was insufficient data to assign a score, or “N/A” if in their opinion the threat was not relevant to the species either throughout its range or for individual stock complexes. When a workshop participant chose either N/A (Not Applicable) or 0 (Unknown) for a threat, all five likelihood points had to be assigned to that category only.

During the group discussion, the workshop participants were asked to identify other threat(s) or demographic factor(s) that were interacting with the threats or demographic factors to increase the species' extinction risk. As scores were provided by individual workshop participants, each individual stated his or her expert opinion regarding each of the threats, and the supporting data on which it was based. We considered these along with the demographic scores in our overall risk assessment.

The workshop participants were then asked to use their informed professional judgment to individually qualitatively score overall extinction risk for the thorny skate. The results of the demographic risks analysis and threats assessment, described below, informed this ranking. For this analysis, the workshop participants used three levels of extinction risk, consistent with the NMFS (2016) listing guidance: Low risk, moderate risk, and high risk. Low risk was defined as: “A species or DPS is at low risk of extinction if it is not at moderate or high level of extinction risk (see “Moderate risk” and “High risk”). A species or DPS may be at low risk of extinction if it is not facing threats that result in declining trends in abundance, productivity, spatial structure, or diversity. A species or DPS at low risk of extinction is likely to show stable or increasing trends in abundance and productivity with connected, diverse populations.” Moderate risk was defined as: “A species or DPS is at moderate risk of extinction if it is on a trajectory that puts it at a high level of extinction risk in the foreseeable future (see description of “High risk”). A species or DPS may be at moderate risk of extinction due to projected threats or declining trends in abundance, productivity, spatial structure, or diversity. The appropriate time horizon for evaluating whether a species or DPS will be at high risk in the foreseeable future depends on various case- and species-specific factors. For example, the time horizon may reflect certain life history characteristics (e.g., long generation time or late age-at-maturity) and may also reflect the time frame or rate over which identified threats are likely to impact the biological status of the species or DPS (e.g., the rate of disease spread). (The appropriate time horizon is not limited to the period that status can be quantitatively modeled or predicted within predetermined limits of statistical confidence. The biologist (or Team) should, to the extent possible, clearly specify the time horizon over which it has confidence in evaluating moderate risk.).” High Risk was defined as: “A species or DPS with a high risk of extinction is at or near a level of abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and/or diversity that places its continued persistence in question. The demographics of a species or DPS at such a high level of risk may be highly uncertain and strongly influenced by stochastic or depensatory processes. Similarly, a species or DPS may be at high risk of extinction if it faces clear and present threats (e.g., confinement to a small geographic area; imminent destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat; or disease epidemic) that are likely to create imminent and substantial demographic risks.”

The workshop participants adopted the “likelihood point” method for ranking the overall risk of extinction to allow individual workshop participants to express uncertainty. For this approach, each workshop participant distributed 10 `likelihood points' among the extinction risk categories (that is, each workshop participant had 10 points to distribute among the three extinction risk categories). Uncertainty is expressed by assigning points to different risk categories. For example, a workshop participant would assign all 10 points to the `low risk' category if he/she was certain that the definition for `low risk' was met. However, he/she might assign a small number of points to the `moderate risk' category and the majority to the `low risk' category if there was a low level of uncertainty regarding the risk level. The more points assigned to one particular category, the higher the level of certainty. This approach has been used in previous NMFS status reviews (e.g., Pacific salmon, Southern Resident killer whale, Puget Sound rockfish, Pacific herring, black abalone, and common thresher shark) to structure the workshop participant's thinking and express levels of uncertainty when assigning risk categories. Although this process helps to integrate and summarize a large amount of diverse information, there is no simple way to translate the risk matrix scores directly into a determination of overall extinction risk. The workshop participant scores were tallied, discussed, and summarized by NMFS for the thorny skate rangewide.

The workshop participants did not make recommendations as to whether the species should be listed as threatened or endangered. Rather, the workshop participants drew scientific conclusions about the overall risk of extinction faced by the thorny skate under present conditions and in the foreseeable future (as noted above, defined as 40 years) based on his/her evaluation of the species' demographic risks and assessment of threats.

Abundance: The workshop participants individually evaluated the available thorny skate abundance information, which is summarized in the Abundance section of the listing determination. Several workshop participants noted that the available information indicated thorny skate abundance had declined significantly from historical levels in certain parts of its range. However, in all regions where abundance trends and/or indicators are available, declines appear to have been halted, and increases in abundance were apparent in some regions. Further declines are unlikely due to improved management. Abundance estimates from the Northwest Atlantic are currently in the millions of individuals, even where significant declines have occurred. There is no evidence of depensatory processes such as reduced likelihood of finding a mate, and recruitment per spawner has remained stable for thorny skate. The mean score we calculated based on the workshop participants' individual scores corresponds to a very low to low ranking rangewide, as this factor is unlikely to contribute significantly to the thorny skate's risk of extinction.

Growth rate/productivity: The workshop participants individually evaluated the available information on thorny skate life history traits as they relate to this factor. As summarized in the Reproduction, Growth, and Demography section, thorny skates have low inherent productivity due to their late age at maturity, low fecundity, slow population growth rates, and long generation times (16 years). This low productivity makes thorny skate populations vulnerable to overexploitation, and slow to recover from depletion. The mean score we calculated based on the workshop participants' scores corresponds to a low to moderate ranking rangewide, as this factor is unlikely to contribute significantly to the thorny skate's risk of extinction.

Spatial structure/connectivity: The workshop participants individually evaluated the available information on thorny skate spatial structure (tagging and genetics information) summarized in the Population section. The thorny skate has a very broad range, including across the entire North Atlantic Ocean. The species is mobile, and some connectivity across the range is apparent from both tagging and genetics data. At the southern edges, there is an indication that a contraction or northward shift may be occurring; however, recent surveys show an increase in abundance in the southern range in U.S. waters. The mean score we calculated based on the workshop participants' individual scores corresponds to a very low to low ranking rangewide, as this factor is very unlikely to contribute significantly to the thorny skate's risk of extinction.

Diversity: The workshop participants individually evaluated the available information on thorny skate diversity summarized in the Population section. The available genetics studies indicate that thorny skate populations have the highest genetic diversity amongst skate species, and there is reproductive connectivity along a continuum rangewide. Therefore, genetic diversity appears to be sufficiently high and not indicative of isolated or depleted populations. The thorny skate does not appear to be at risk due to substantial changes or loss of variation in life history traits, population demography, morphology, behavior, or genetic characteristics. The mean score we calculated based on the workshop participants' individual scores corresponds to a very low to low ranking rangewide, as this factor is very unlikely to contribute significantly to the thorny skate's risk of extinction.

The workshop participants identified several threats in the low to moderate category for contribution to extinction risk, including: Climate change, manmade non-fishing habitat impacts, commercial discards, commercial landings, global and national climate regulation, and inadequacy of existing NAFO regulations. Both climate change and global or national climate change regulations received the most likelihood points in the moderate contribution to extinction risk category. Only one threat, climate change, received likelihood points in the high contribution category, but the majority of points were in the low to moderate category. We summarize the threats to the thorny skate and provide the workshop participants' expert opinions on their degree of contribution to extinction risk.

Habitat Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment: Workshop participants individually evaluated the available information on habitat use and distributions of the thorny skate summarized in the status review report. Overall, the thorny skate is a habitat generalist in the marine environment, and not substantially dependent on any particular habitat type. It occurs in coastal and offshore waters, and is not dependent during any life stage on more vulnerable estuarine habitats. Thorny skate habitat use is influenced by temperature and prey distributions, but they have broad temperature tolerances and an opportunistic diet, making them less vulnerable to habitat destruction.

Within the Northwest Atlantic, the species' range from Greenland south is a mixing zone for different currents. The Labrador Current flows down the inner shelf, bringing cooler and fresher water from the north, which flows down over the ocean shelves, including the Grand Banks, Scotian Shelf, Georges Bank and into the Gulf of Maine. Meanwhile, the Gulf Stream in deeper offshore waters brings warmer, saltier water up from the south (Saba et al., 2015). The range of the thorny skate covers both of these currents and the mixing zone; thorny skates are able to occur throughout this area due to their tolerance of different temperatures. This mixing zone makes it difficult to predict the impacts of climate change within the area, although recent specific modeling suggests that the Gulf of Maine will warm nearly three times as fast as other areas from a predicted northward shift in the Gulf Stream (Saba et al., 2015). Recently, the Labrador Current has had the opposite effect, decreasing salinity in the shallower parts of the Gulf of Maine and cooling temperatures on the shelves (Townsend et al., 2010). Overall, waters within the range of the thorny skate are expected to get warmer, increase in salinity and decrease in pH (Saba et al., 2015). In marine ecosystems, climate change impacts like these are generally expected to push species distributions northward (Frumhoff et al., 2007), but possible effects on the thorny skate are unclear.

In U.S. waters, the thorny skate has experienced a relatively high amount of range contraction as measured during NEFSC surveys. A small but statistically significant northward shift in range, and increased concentration in deeper waters has been detected (Nye et al., 2009). A possible explanation of the consistent, long-term decline of thorny skates in the NEFSC trawl survey is skates are shifting out of the survey area. The shift in area occupied on the Grand Banks in Canada may also be a response to climate change. In this area, skates have shifted to the warmer edge of the banks, avoiding the cooler temperatures present on the center of the banks (Kulka and Miri 2003) created by the Labrador Current. The lack of skates present in temperatures below 1 or 2° C supports this conclusion.

There is no information regarding the impacts of ocean acidification on the thorny skate. However, a study on the sympatric little skate, Leucoraja erinacea, demonstrates that changes in temperature and acidic concentration can result in complex effects on developmental time, body condition and survival in skate hatchlings (Di Santo 2015). There is currently no information available on how hypoxia or changes in nutrient composition might impact the thorny skate. Given its broad range, generalist feeding habits, and ability to move, localized areas of hypoxia or low prey availability are unlikely to have an impact at a species level.

Since climate change impacts are expected to shift species distributions northward and impact species diversity, recent studies have focused on the impacts of climate change to fish community assemblages, particularly on species richness and diversity. Some impacts have been observed for “coastal” or shallow water communities (<200 m/656 ft in depth) in the Gulf of St. Lawrence (Tamdrari et al., 2014) and Iceland (Stefansdottir et al., 2010). In both these studies, thorny skates were found to associate more with the deeper water fish assemblages, which had only minor, if any, impacts from climate change.

There is some evidence that suggests the species is shifting to deeper waters. Thorny skates comprised 7.97 percent of fish in the “coastal” species assemblage (<200m) in the early 1990s and only 5.58 percent on average from 2004-2010 in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. In the deeper species assemblage (>200m) they went from 3.71 percent in the early 1990s to 4.52 percent averaged from 2004-2010 (Tamdrari et al., 2014). This is a relatively small change for both depths when compared to change for other species, representing half as much decrease in the coastal assemblage as redfish (Sebastes spp.) and an order of magnitude less than the decrease in Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua). Additionally, thorny skates were most abundant between 100 and 350 m of depth before climate change became apparent (McEachran and Musick 1975), and this remains the case in modern surveys (Packer et al., 2003; COSEWIC 2012), though depths in the fall range up to 500 m in U.S. waters (Packer et al., 2003).

Recent climate vulnerability analyses have been performed for fish species in the Northeast United States and for fish assemblages on the Scotian Shelf in Canada. Despite having similar methodologies, these studies came to different conclusions regarding the vulnerability of thorny skates to climate change. Stortini et al. (2015) rated the vulnerability of the thorny skate on the Scotian shelf as “low.” This study scaled the estimated vulnerability relative to thirty-two other species found on the Scotian Shelf; therefore, the “low” vulnerability rating is in relation to other species in that location.

Hare et al. (2016) rated this species as having a “high” biological sensitivity and climate exposure likelihood off the Northeast United States, on a scale of “low” to “very high.” In this effort, vulnerability was equated to the likelihood of the species experiencing either reduced productivity or shifting its distribution out of the region in response to climate change. This vulnerability analysis concluded that there was also a “high” chance of negative impacts and changes in species distribution within its U.S. range. Both assessments used a similar variety of species life history factors to produce a species sensitivity score, but Hare et al., (2016) used a larger variety of climate factors including pH, salinity, precipitation and ocean currents to determine climate exposure, whereas Stortini et al. (2015) looked only at mean temperature under different warming scenarios.

While thorny skates in U.S. waters are at high risk for being impacted by climate change (likely to manifest as loss of cold water habitat in U.S. waters), the best available information indicates that throughout most of the range, the generalist habitat requirements of the thorny skate will limit impacts of climate change. This conclusion is supported by studies on species diversity that indicate impacts to species assemblages have not yet occurred on communities including the thorny skate, due to its depth preferences (Stefansdottir et al., 2010, Tamdarai et al., 2015). In addition, modeling predicts a less than 10 percent loss of thermally appropriate habitat before 2030 in U.S. waters, but almost no habitat loss before 2030 in Canadian waters (Shackell et al., 2014). A ten percent loss is expected in Canada and up to 25 percent loss in U.S. waters may occur before 2060 (Shackell et al., 2014). Although the risk may be high that thorny skates will shift their distribution out of Northeast U.S. waters due to warming ocean conditions (Hare et al., 2016), the species would have the ability to persist in adjacent regions with more suitable habitat.

Ocean temperature changes due to climate change may be contributing to a contraction of the thorny skate's range at its southern edges. Thorny skates appear to have comparatively low exposure to potentially harmful pollutants, and there is no information suggesting their individual fitness or populations are threatened by pollution. The mean score we calculated based on the workshop participants' individual scores indicates that climate change and non-fishing related modifications to habitat (e.g. drilling, offshore windfarm construction) present a low to moderate contribution to extinction risk.

Overutilization: The workshop participants individually evaluated the available information on fishing mortality and abundance trends of thorny skate summarized in the status review report. Overutilization for commercial purposes was once considered one of the primary threats to thorny skate populations. Significant declines have been documented throughout much of the thorny skate's range due to historical fishing pressure. The most recent information suggests that declines in several stocks have halted due to fishing restrictions (COSEWIC 2012; ICES 2015; Sosebee et al., in prep). Populations appear to be stable or slowly increasing, with millions of individuals remaining in the Northwest Atlantic alone. Therefore, there appears to be a low likelihood of further population declines because of stabilization observed after management actions were put into place. The mean score we calculated based on the workshop participants' individual scores corresponds to a very low or low ranking for all threats in this category, with the commercial landings and commercial discards receiving mean scores of slightly higher than low contributions to overall extinction risk.

Thorny skates were and are taken as bycatch by fisheries throughout their range, including those in the North Sea, Barents Sea, Gulf of St. Lawrence and on the Canadian and U.S. continental shelves. Targeted fisheries, particularly by foreign fleets including those of Spain, Portugal and Russia, developed in the 1990s (COSEWIC 2012; Sosebee et al., in prep). The fishery for thorny skates was largely unregulated in the Northwest Atlantic until the 2000s (COSEWIC 2012). Currently, small fisheries exist in the North Sea (Piet et al., 2009) and on the Grand Banks in Canada (Simpson et al., 2016), which is, as mentioned earlier, the first regulated skate fishery in international waters. Since 2003, U.S. vessels have been prohibited from possessing or landing thorny skates (NEFMC 2009). While directed fisheries on the species are currently limited, thorny skates continue to be taken as bycatch and discarded in commercial fisheries within their range.

Total landings for all skate species within U.S. waters reached 9,462 mt in 1969 and declined after that, reaching a low of 847 mt in 1981 (Sosebee et al., in prep). Skate landings increased substantially after that time period for lobster bait and export, rising to a high of 20,342 mt in 2007 (Sosebee et al., in prep). Estimated total catch of thorny skates has declined from over 5,000 mt in the late 1960s and early 1970s to about 200-300 mt in recent years (Sosebee et al., in prep). Thorny skates make up a small overall portion of skate catch, particularly in comparison to winter and little skates. Most of the early catch (1969-1989) was from otter trawl discards, while landings dominated from 1990 to present (Sosebee et at., in prep). Discards from scallop dredges increased in proportion to population estimates during the late 1970s and again during the late 1990s (Sosebee et al., in prep). While landings were generally low, catch of thorny skates likely contributed to the decline of the species over time.

In 2003, the NEFMC implemented a FMP for the seven skates present within the Gulf of Maine. The FMP prohibited landings of thorny skates as the stock status was considered overfished (NEFMC 2009). The limited information regarding species biomass required the NEFSC to develop survey-based overfished and overfishing reference points for the thorny skate: “Thorny skate is in an overfished condition when the three-year moving average of the autumn survey mean weight-per-tow is less than one half of the 75th percentile of the mean weight-per-tow observed in the autumn trawl survey from the selected reference time series. Overfishing occurs when the three year moving average of the autumn survey mean weight per tow declines 20% or more, or when the autumn survey mean weight per tow declines for three consecutive years. The reference points and selected time series may be re-specified through a peer reviewed process and/or as updated stock assessments are completed” (NEFMC 2009). The target biomass for thorny skates is currently set at 4.13 kg/tow and the minimum biomass threshold at 2.06 kg/tow. The most recent 3-year average remains below these figures at 0.17 kg/tow; however, this figure has remained steady since 2011.

The MSA states: “A stock or stock complex is considered “overfished” when its biomass has declined below a level that jeopardizes the capacity of the stock or stock complex to produce Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) on a continuing basis. MSY is defined as the largest long-term average catch or yield that can be taken from a stock or stock complex.” The overfished/overfishing status of a stock is determined relative to its ability to produce continued yield from a fishery. The overfished status of thorny skates within the United States means that fishing mortality rates (including past landings and discards) have been too high, and caused the population to decline below acceptable levels. The stock must be rebuilt to biomass levels that can produce MSY for a fishery to be sustainable. The prohibition on harvest in U.S. waters is expected to help the stock rebuild. This means any thorny skates caught within U.S. waters must be discarded at sea.

Estimated thorny skate discards are low relative to other skates (Sosebee et al., in prep). Landings and dead discards have decreased in recent years (2007-2014) and total discards have stabilized or increased.

Thorny skates comprise the majority of skates caught in commercial fisheries in Canada. The majority of thorny skate catch comes from the coast of Labrador and Newfoundland, including the Grand Banks area. This has ranged from a high of approximately 24,000 mt in the early 1990s to current levels around 6,000 mt. Relative fishing mortality has remained stable (1985- 2009) in this area at approximately ten percent (COSEWIC 2012).

Within the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence, estimated landings of thorny skates peaked in 1994 at approximately 38 t, and have since decreased to an average 1-2.7 t over the period 2006-2011(Benoit 2013). The thorny skate is the most common discarded skate species. On average, 490 t were discarded in the early 1990s, this dropped to 53.7 t on average over the period 2006 -2011 (Benoit 2013). While the majority of discards in the past came from trawl fisheries, currently half are from trawl and half from the gillnet fishery for Greenland halibut (Benoit 2013). Overall fishing effort in this area has declined or remained stable since the 1990s (COSEWIC 2012).

The only remaining directed fishery for the thorny skate is executed within the Grand Banks Area. This area is managed between two areas, 3Ps directly south of Newfoundland and entirely within the Canadian Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), and divisions 3LNO, which comprise the outer banks, some of which lies outside the Canadian EEZ. Quota regulation within the EEZ was enacted in 1995 (Simpson et al., 2014). In 2004, NAFO enacted quota regulation for the entire 3LNO area, making this the first regulated skate fishery in the world in international waters. The regulated areas include areas within and outside the Canadian EEZ; 3Ps remained under Canada's quota system. For most years since the quotas were enacted, catch has remained well below the limits. Relative fishing mortality within the Grand Banks has decreased over time. Within the 3LNO it increased from the late 1980s to a peak of 29 percent in 1997; then stabilized at approximately 17 percent during 1998-2004 (Simpson et al., 2016). In 2005, relative fishing mortality declined to 4 percent and has remained around 5 percent (Simpson et al., 2016). Since 1985, fishing mortality within 3Ps was relatively constant, below 5 percent for most years (Simpson et al., 2016).

There is little directed fishing effort on thorny skates across most of the Northeast Atlantic, with a prohibition against landings currently in place in European Union waters in the Barents Sea and east of the United Kingdom (ICES 2015). There is a small fishery landing thorny skates from Iceland and Greenland. Landings here have increased but still remain below 2,000 mt, or about half that of Canada's yearly landings.

The available information indicates that current thorny skate populations are numerous in many areas and that area occupied is increasing. While the portion of the population within the United States is not currently capable of sustaining a fishery, fisheries for thorny skates are well-controlled throughout the range. Fishing mortality relative to biomass has decreased across the range through time, and is currently rather low in most areas. The mean score we calculated based on the workshop participants' individual scores indicate that commercial landings across the range of the species present a low contribution to extinction risk.

We have also considered the best available information on the mortality rates of thorny skates that are discarded (i.e., returned to the water alive after capture in fishing gear). Factors that impact thorny skate discard survival in trawl fisheries include size, depth of capture, difference in temperature between bottom and surface conditions (Benoit et al., 2013), duration of the tow and degree of injury sustained during the capture event (Mandelman et al., 2013). Skates can have an overall high survival rate following discard, with up to 20 percent mortality predicted for trawl fisheries within the Gulf of St. Lawrence (Benoit, 2013). Mandelman et al. (2013) studied the post-discard mortality of thorny skates captured in trawl gear in the Gulf of Maine. This study indicates that while 72-hour post-discard mortality of a sample of individuals retained in captivity following cage trials was only 22 percent, the condition of many of the individual thorny skates was poor (52 percent injury rate at time of capture; most with listless appearance and lack of vigor at the end of the 72-hour period) and 7-day mortality was 66 percent. The authors note that the species may be less resilient than indicated by the 22 percent 72-hour mortality rate and cautions against the use of the 22 percent mortality rate in management. The effects of captivity on these mortality rates are unknown; however, it is reasonable to expect that captivity contributed to slightly higher mortality rates. The available information indicates a low to moderate risk of mortality to a thorny skate once it is captured (Benoit et al., 2013 and Mandelman et al., 2013). The elimination of most directed fisheries and reductions in catches are expected to reduce overall fishing mortality, including discard mortality. It is also important to note that post-discard mortality is considered in developing fishing management policies for the thorny skate in the United States. Current management measures consider the available information on post-discard mortality. While overutilization had been a primary threat to the species, fishing mortality is being managed throughout the species' range. The available information indicates that current thorny skate populations are numerous in many areas and that area occupied is increasing. While the portion of the population within the United States is not currently capable of sustaining a fishery, fisheries for thorny skates are well-controlled throughout the range. Fishing mortality relative to biomass has decreased across the range through time, and is currently low in most areas. The mean score we calculated based on the workshop participants' individual scores indicates that commercial discards across the range of the species represent a low contribution to overall extinction risk.

Disease and Predation: Workshop participants individually evaluated the available information on disease and predation of thorny skates summarized in the status review report. Overall, there is minimal information available with which to evaluate these threats. In general, thorny skates may be susceptible to diseases, but there is no evidence that disease has ever caused declines in populations. The mean score we calculated based on the workshop participants' individual scores indicates that disease represents a very low contribution to overall extinction risk, as it is very unlikely that this threat contributes or will contribute to the decline of the species.

Regarding predation, there is no indication that this species would be threatened by excessive predation pressure. Egg capsules for the species are reportedly preyed upon by halibut, Greenland shark and goosefish (Collette and Klein-MacPhee 2002). Gastropods may also predate on egg cases, with a predicted predation frequency ranging from 4 to 18 percent (Cox et al., 1999). It is unknown what the effect of this predation may be, but it could contribute to a slower rate of rebuilding.

Skates, including thorny skates, are prey for a number of species: Flounder, other skates, seabirds, marine mammals, sharks, cod and other large demersal fishes, with the last being the most important (Morissette et al., 2006). Overall mortality for small skates has decreased while increasing for larger skates since the 1970s. Currently, recruitment for smaller skates remains high in portions of the Canadian range (Benoit and Swain 2011; Swain et al., 2013). Meanwhile, the numbers of large fishes have decreased. Fishing pressure has also decreased, substantially in some regions, indicating sources of adult skate mortality may be natural. Marine mammal predation, particularly by gray seals, has been suggested as an increasing cause of mortality for some locations (Swain et al., 2013).

Thorny skates are at least a minor source of prey for gray seals, composing up to 6 percent of their diet depending on age and season (Beck et al., 2007). Gray seal energy requirements are high enough that this predator may be responsible for much of the natural mortality of adult thorny skates in some areas, despite the thorny skate being a minor prey source (Swain et al., 2013, Benoit et al., 2011). Energetics modeling has been found to explain a similar pattern of increased adult mortality in other local species (Benoit et al., 2011). Further modeling work found a negative relationship between the gray seal index and thorny skate numbers in the Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence. The harp seal index was more likely to explain population trends in the Northwest portion of the Gulf. Predation by either species was not found to explain trends in thorny skate within the northeast portion of the Gulf (Ouellet et al., 2016).

Predation by gray seals may have increased within the range of the thorny skate. Gray seal populations have recovered during the same time period of decreasing mortality for small thorny skates. Numbering only 15,000 individuals in the 1960s, the gray seal population increased to 350,000 by 2007. In 2014, the population estimate within the Canadian range and Gulf of Maine had increased to 505,000 (Hamill et al. 2014). In addition, gray seals have been expanding their range and are now present in small numbers as far south as Southern New England (DiGiovanni Jr. et al., 2016).

Gray seals stay mostly local (within 50 km) to haul-out sites and forage in mostly shallow depths (~100 m) (McConnell et al., 1999, Schreer et al., 2001). The largest numbers of gray seals are found in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and on Sable Island off the coast of Nova Scotia, where they may impact skates on the Scotian Shelf. Smaller populations are found in coastal Nova Scotia, Seal Island, Maine and on Cape Cod, Massachusetts (Hamill et al., 2014). If gray seal predation is contributing to thorny skate mortality, the impact is likely to be concentrated in the shallowest portions of the thorny skate range around major gray seal population areas.

Harp seals migrate to the Gulf of St. Lawrence to whelp before returning to Artic waters on the overlapping range of thorny skate. They migrate along the coast of Labrador and Greenland northward. Small numbers of harp seals may remain year-round in southern waters, with the majority living in the Artic. Currently there is no evidence that thorny skates comprise more than an incidental portion of the harp seal diet. Harp seal reproductive rates decreased in the latest assessment, with 8.3 million individuals estimated in 2008 and 7.7 million estimated in 2012 (DFO 2012). Harp seal predation on thorny skates is likely stable or slightly decreasing and centered around whelping sites.

Modeling indicates marine mammal predation may contribute to high natural mortality of adult thorny skates in some discrete areas, suppressing recovery of their populations (DFO 2012). For now, high levels of recruitment in small skates are still evident despite this pressure. Recent abundance of thorny skates has also been stable in areas where marine mammal populations are centered. The recent population increase of gray seals in U.S. waters and coinciding stabilization of thorny skate abundance indices suggests that seal predation was not likely responsible for thorny skate declines. The mean score we calculated based on the workshop participants' individual scores indicates that predation represents a very low contribution to extinction risk, as it is very unlikely that this threat contributes or will contribute to the decline of the species.

Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms: The workshop participants individually evaluated the available information on fisheries management regulations and abundance trends of the thorny skate summarized in the status review report. The inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms to control the harvest of thorny skates was once considered a significant threat to their populations. Legal protections for thorny skates vary between outright prohibitions on landings in the United States and much of the Northeast Atlantic, with limited fishing permitted in Canada and Iceland.

Within U.S. waters, thorny skates are managed under the MSA. Landings of thorny skates within U.S. waters were unregulated until 2003 when the NEFMC established an FMP for the skate complex. At that time, the stock was deemed “overfished” and a landing prohibition was put in place, requiring all catch of thorny skates to be discarded at sea. At that time, the same prohibitions were put into place for the sympatric species, barndoor and smooth skates, to help rebuild these stocks. The skate complex FMP does still allow catch of other skate species, and other fisheries may also catch thorny skates but are likewise required to discard them.

MSA regulations are enforced in U.S. waters by the U.S. Coast Guard, NOAA's Office of Law Enforcement and state partners. Fishermen who do not comply with regulations established under the MSA are subject to fines and criminal penalties, depending on the severity of the offense. Compliance with the prohibition against landing thorny and other skates was examined via port sampling. In 2005, 3.61 percent of skate wing landings were identified as thorny skate. In the years since, this declined rapidly with less than 1 percent of wings identified as thorny skate in 2007, and further declined to 0.01 percent in 2012, indicating that compliance with the discard regulations and misidentifications or mislabeling is not an issue in the United States (Curtis and Sosebee 2015). While the thorny skate is still considered overfished within the United States, overfishing is no longer occurring (NEFMC 2009), indicating that fishery management measures are successfully controlling fishing mortality in those waters.

Under the Fisheries Act, Canadian fisheries may take thorny skates as bycatch in other fisheries, and a small, directed fishery still operates on the Grand Banks. Available information suggests that catch is well below the total allowable catch limits as set by NAFO and Canada, indicating fishing mortality is controlled (Simpson et al., 2016). The Scotian shelf has been closed to directed fishery for skates (thorny and winter) since the early 2000s. In addition to compliance with catch limits, thorny skate abundance has been stable on the Grand Banks and the rest of Canada, yet still below historical levels (COSEWIC 2012). Recruitment in this portion of the species' range remains relatively high. Therefore, existing regulatory measures appear sufficient to control fishing mortality.

There is a prohibition against landing thorny skates from European Union waters in the Barents Sea and east of the United Kingdom (ICES 2015). A very small fishery exists in Iceland and off East Greenland, where survey numbers have remained stable since 2000 (ICES 2015). With populations within the Northeast Atlantic currently considered stable (ICES 2015), existing regulatory measures appear sufficient to control fishing mortality within this region. Iceland reported 1625 t of thorny skate landings in 2014. A 2016 EU regulation prohibits thorny skate landings in EU waters of ICES divisions IIa, IIIa and VIId and ICES subarea IV Subareas II and IV and Division IIIa (Norwegian Sea, North Sea, Skagerrak, and Kattegat), based on ICES advice that a precautionary approach dictates no targeted fishing and measures to reduce bycatch. ICES advice for this species west of the UK is currently pending. Thorny skates taken from these EU waters are counted under a regional EU skate quota that lacks a robust scientific basis. EU limits on these species have been generally trending toward more precautionary over the last decade.

Legal protections for thorny skates vary between outright prohibitions on landings in the United States and much of the Northeast Atlantic, with limited fishing permitted in Canada and Iceland. While thorny skates are also a bycatch species within many fisheries, stable population numbers indicate existing protections are sufficient through its range. The mean score we calculated based on workshop participants' individual scores for both global/national climate change regulations and NAFO fishing regulations indicate that inadequacy of these regulations represents a low to moderate contribution to extinction risk. However, workshop participants also noted uncertainty related to other global or national environmental regulations in this category because there is more uncertainty in their effectiveness to result in protections for marine ecosystems.

The workshop participants individually evaluated the available information on other potential threats as summarized in the status review report. Natural threats focused on the thorny skate's inherent biological vulnerability, which is also reflected in the demographic factors described above. The species has low productivity because of its life history characteristics and is vulnerable to exploitation and population perturbations. Populations can be quickly depleted and take many years to recover. However, their mobility, high genetic diversity, and generalist habitat and diet strategy contribute to a low risk of extinction. The mean scores we calculated based on workshop participants' individual scores indicate that both manmade catastrophic events and stochastic events represent very low contributions to extinction risk because of the wide geographic distribution of the species.

Both demographic factors and threats were qualitatively ranked on a scale from very low to very high by the workshop participants (NMFS 2017). No demographic factors or threats were ranked high or very high. Abundance, diversity and spatial structure/connectivity were ranked very low to low, and growth rate/productivity was ranked low to moderate risk. For the workshop participants' threats assessments, both climate change and global or national climate change regulations received the most likelihood points in the moderate contribution to extinction risk category. Only one threat, climate change, received likelihood points in the high contribution category, though the majority of points were in the moderate contribution category. No threats considered by workshop participants were given an overall average score of medium, high or very high contributions to extinction risk of thorny skate. All workshop participants placed their individual point allocations in the very low contribution to extinction risk category for the following threats: Recreational fishing, recreational discards, educational collection, and stochastic events.

The only demographic factor ranked above low was growth rate/productivity (low to moderate risk). The thorny skate's life history traits make the populations vulnerable to threats and slow to recover from depletion. Once we compiled the individual workshop participant scores and calculated the mean score, only six threats were ranked in the low to moderate category, all others were in the very low to low categories. The threats ranked low to moderate included: Climate change, manmade non-fishing habitat impacts, commercial discards, commercial landings, global and national climate regulation, and inadequacy of existing NAFO regulations. Fishing for thorny skates is managed throughout the species' range. Efforts to manage the harvest of the species include regulations put forth by the United States, Canada, NAFO, and ICES, though workshop participants expressed uncertainty in the adequacy of NAFO regulation. Due to these recent management efforts, thorny skate abundance has stabilized in the several regions (e.g., United States, South Labrador Shelf, North Gulf of St. Lawrence, Norway) and has increased in some waters (e.g. Grand Banks). Given its life history traits, return to historical abundances may take decades, but demographic risks are mostly low and significant threats have been reduced.

As described previously, the workshop participants used a “likelihood analysis” to evaluate the overall risk of extinction. Each workshop participant had 10 likelihood points to distribute among the following overall extinction risk categories: Low risk, moderate risk or high risk.

Overall, the mean scores we calculated based on the workshop participants' individual scores indicate that rangewide, thorny skates have a 93.3 percent likelihood of being at low risk of extinction, 6.6 percent likelihood of moderate risk of extinction, and 0 percent likelihood of high risk of extinction.

The mean scores we calculated based on the workshop participants' individual scores indicate that, overall, the thorny skate is at low risk of extinction. None of the workshop participants indicated that there was any likelihood of the thorny skate having a high risk of extinction. Additionally, there was very little likelihood of a moderate risk of extinction (4 points out of 60 total).

Thorny skates have been subjected to considerable fishing pressure for many decades, but improved fisheries management efforts in recent years have reduced fishing mortality rates on thorny skate stocks, and populations are no longer declining. Return to historical abundance may take decades, but demographic risks are mostly low and significant threats have been reduced. Based upon the available information summarized here, the mean scores we calculated based on the workshop participants' individual scores indicate that the thorny skate has a low risk of extinction, assuming the dominant threats to its populations continue to be managed. We have no reason to believe that these dominant threats will not continue to be managed.

We have independently reviewed the best available scientific and commercial information, including the status review report (NMFS 2017) and other published and unpublished information. We conclude that the thorny skate is not in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future throughout its range. As described earlier, an endangered species is “any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range” and a threatened species is one “which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” The workshop participants individually ranked the demographic criteria and the five factors identified in the ESA, completed an assessment of overall extinction risk, and each submitted his/her individual expert opinions to us. We reviewed the results of the ERA and concurred with the workshop participant's individual expert opinions regarding extinction risk. We then applied the statutory definitions of “threatened species” and “endangered species” to the ERA results and other available information to determine if listing the thorny skate was warranted.

The mean scores we calculated based on the ERA workshop participant scores indicate that the level of extinction risk to the thorny skate is low, with 93.3 percent of the workshop participants' likelihood points allocated to the “low risk” category. The workshop participants allocated only 6.6 percent of their likelihood points to the “moderate extinction risk” category. Given this low level of extinction risk, which is based on an evaluation of the contribution of the thorny skate's demographic parameters and threats to extinction risk, we have determined that the thorny skate does not meet the definition of an endangered or threatened species and, as such, listing under the ESA is not warranted at this time.

Though we find that the thorny skate rangewide is not in danger of extinction now or in the foreseeable future, under the SPR Policy, we must go on to evaluate whether these species are in danger of extinction, or likely to become so in the foreseeable future, in a “significant portion of its range” (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014).

When we conduct an SPR analysis, we first identify any portions of the range that warrant further consideration. The range of a species can theoretically be divided into portions in an infinite number of ways. However, there is no purpose to analyzing portions of the range that are not reasonably likely to be significant or in which a species may not be endangered or threatened. To identify only those portions that warrant further consideration, we determine whether there is substantial information indicating that (1) the portions may be significant and (2) the species may be in danger of extinction in those portions or likely to become so within the foreseeable future. We emphasize that answering these questions in the affirmative is not a determination that the species is endangered or threatened throughout a significant portion of its range—rather, it is a step in determining whether a more detailed analysis of the issue is required (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014). Making this preliminary determination triggers a need for further review, but does not prejudge whether the portion actually meets these standards such that the species should be listed.

If this preliminary determination identifies a particular portion or portions for potential listing, those portions are then fully evaluated under the “significant portion of its range” authority as to whether the portion is both biologically significant and endangered or threatened. In making a determination of significance, we consider the contribution of the individuals in that portion to the viability of the species. That is, we determine whether the portion's contribution to the viability is so important that, without the members in that portion, the species would be in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future.

The SPR policy further explains that, depending on the particular facts of each situation, we may find it is more efficient to address the significance issue first, but in other cases, it will make more sense to examine the status of the species in the potentially significant portions first. Whichever question is asked first, an affirmative answer is required to proceed to the second question. Id. “[I]f we determine that a portion of the range is not `significant,' we will not need to determine whether the species is endangered or threatened there; if we determine that the species is not endangered or threatened in a portion of its range, we will not need to determine if that portion is `significant' ” (79 FR 37587). Thus, if the answer to the first question is negative—whether it addresses the significance question or the status question—then the analysis concludes, and listing is not warranted.

As described previously, we determined that there are no DPSs of the thorny skate, and rangewide, the thorny skate is at a low risk of extinction. Applying the SPR policy to the thorny skate, we first evaluated whether there is substantial information indicating that any portions of the species' range may be significant. After a review of the best available information and invited experts' opinions, as described below, we find that the data do not indicate any portion of the thorny skate's range as being more significant than another. Thorny skates are distributed across the North Atlantic and have very few restrictions governing their movements. Movements are restricted by depth and temperature; however, there are no known gaps in suitable habitat, thus allowing a continuous range. Because the Northwest Atlantic and the Northeast Atlantic are the two largest portions of the species' range, the workshop participants individually considered the SPR questions related to abundance, productivity, spatial distribution, and diversity outlined in the NMFS listing guidance. As explained below, we determined that neither the Northwest Atlantic nor the Northeast Atlantic were significant portions. Given that neither the Northwest Atlantic nor the Northeast Atlantic represents a significant portion of the range, we do not find that thorny skate in U.S. waters represent a significant portion of the range of the thorny skate. The following questions related to significance of portions were considered:

• Without that portion, would the level of abundance of the remainder of the species cause the species to be at moderate or high risk of extinction due to environmental variation or anthropogenic perturbations (of the patterns and magnitudes observed in the past and expected in the future)?

• Without that portion, would the abundance of the remainder of the species be so low, or variability in abundance so high, that it would be at moderate or high risk of extinction due to depensatory processes?

• Without that portion, would abundance of the remainder of the species be so low that its genetic diversity would be at risk due to inbreeding depression, loss of genetic variation, or fixation of deleterious alleles?

• Without that portion, would abundance of the remainder of the species be so low that it would be at moderate or high risk of extinction due to its inability to provide important ecological functions throughout its life-cycle?

• Without that portion, would the abundance of the remainder of the species be so low that it would be at risk due to demographic stochasticity?

• Without that portion, would the average population growth rate of the remainder of the species be below replacement such that it would be at moderate or high risk of satisfying the abundance conditions described above?

• Without that portion, would the average population growth rate of the remainder of the species be below replacement such that it is unable to exploit requisite habitats/niches/etc. or at risk due to depensatory processes during any life-history stage?

• Without that portion, would the remainder of the species exhibit trends or shifts in demographic or reproductive traits that portend declines in the per capita growth rate, which pose a risk of satisfying any of the preceding conditions?

• Will the loss of one or more of the portions significantly increase the risk of extinction to the species as a whole by making the species more vulnerable to catastrophic events such as storms, disease or temperature anomalies?

• Will connectivity between portions of the species' range be maintained if a portion is lost (e.g., does the loss of one portion of the range of the species create isolated groups or populations?)?

• Are there particular habitat types that the species occupies that are only found in certain portions of the species' range? If so, would these habitat types be accessible if a portion or portions of the range of the species are lost?

• Are threats to the species concentrated in particular portions of the species' range and if so, do these threats pose an increased risk of extinction to those portions' persistence?

• Will unique genetic diversity be lost if a portion of the range of the species is lost?

• Does the loss of this genetic diversity pose an increased risk of extinction to the species?

As described more fully in the status review report and below, the workshop participants individually answered “no” to all of the abundance, productivity and diversity questions related to whether the Northwest Atlantic or the Northeast Atlantic portion represent a significant portion of the species' range. One workshop participant answered “yes” to two spatial distribution questions.

Given estimates of 1.8 billion animals in Northwest Atlantic waters, which represent 30-40 percent of the overall population, loss of the Northwest Atlantic population would have a large impact on the species rangewide, but would not put the species at a moderate or high risk of extinction because of the remaining large population size and wide geographic distribution. When considering productivity, the group noted that the average growth rate for the species does not depend on the growth rate in the Northwest Atlantic and vice versa for the Northeast Atlantic and that the areas do not exhibit source-sink dynamics. There was no evidence that without either area the average population growth rate of the remainder of the species would drop below replacement, resulting in the population being unable to exploit requisite habitat, nor was there any evidence that the remainder of the species would be at risk due to depensatory processes. Regarding shifts in demographic or reproductive traits, the group could not identify evidence that a decline in the Northwest Atlantic would result in a decline in the Northeast Atlantic. Given the large spatial distribution of the thorny skate and the foreseeable future of 40 years, the group could not identify a stochastic event that could impact the entire Northwest Atlantic or Northeast Atlantic distribution of the thorny skate. There is no information to suggest that loss of any portion would severely fragment and isolate the species to the point where individuals would be precluded from moving to suitable habitats or have an increased vulnerability to threats. The loss of either the Northwest Atlantic population or the Northeast Atlantic population would result in the loss of connectivity rangewide, given that it is a continuous population. However, loss of the Northwest Atlantic population would not affect spatial connectivity of the Northeast Atlantic population and vice versa. Some genetic differentiation is present between the Northwest and Northeast Atlantic, but the central portion of the range appears to bridge diversity between these two areas. This is likely made possible by the continuous distribution and depth range of the species. There is no substantial evidence to indicate that the loss of genetic diversity from one portion of the species' range would result in the remaining populations lacking enough genetic diversity to allow for adaptations to changing environmental conditions. Based on the best available genetic research, thorny skates have the highest genetic diversity out of 15 studied skate species (Lynghammar et al., 2014), and the highest diversity occurs in waters near Iceland and Greenland. Due to the genetic diversity present in thorny skates across the species' range, loss of either the Northeast Atlantic population or Northwest Atlantic population would not present a significant increase in the extinction risk to the species.

The petitioners identified the U.S. population as a potential DPS. As noted above, this portion does not qualify as a DPS. We considered whether U.S. waters could be a significant portion of the species' range. However, due to the workshop participants individual expert opinions related to abundance, productivity, spatial distribution, and diversity questions for the larger Northwest Atlantic and Northeast Atlantic populations and our findings that neither of these constitute a significant portion of the species' range, and given the United States represents only a small portion of the global range of the thorny skate, there is little evidence for concluding that the U.S. population is significant to the entire species under the SPR policy. Furthermore, there is no indication that loss of the U.S. portion of the species' range would result in a moderate or high extinction risk to the global species. As was mentioned previously, the available population and trend data do not indicate that past declines in the United States have affected global populations of thorny skate. Thus, the United States population would not qualify as “significant” under the SPR Policy. Likewise, there is no substantial evidence to indicate that the loss of genetic diversity from one portion of the species' range would result in the remaining populations lacking enough genetic diversity to allow for adaptations to changing environmental conditions. Similarly, there is no information to suggest that loss of any portion would severely fragment and isolate the species to the point where individuals would be precluded from moving to suitable habitats or have an increased vulnerability to threats. In other words, loss of any portion of its range would not likely isolate the species to the point where the remaining populations would be at risk of extinction from demographic processes.

In summary, areas exhibiting source-sink dynamics, which could affect the survival of the species, were not evident in any part of the thorny skate's range. There is also no evidence of a portion that encompasses aspects that are important to specific life history stages, but another portion that does not, where loss of the former portion would severely impact the growth, reproduction, or survival of the entire species. In other words, the viability of the species does not appear to depend on the productivity of the population or the environmental characteristics in any one portion. It is important to note that the overall distribution of the thorny skate is still uncertain. As better data become available, the species' distribution (and potentially significant portions of its range) will become better resolved. However, at this time, there is no evidence to suggest that any specific portion of the species' range has increased importance over another with respect to the species' survival. We reviewed the individual workshop participants' expert opinions and application of the SPR policy. We conclude that under the SPR policy, the preliminary determination that a portion of the species' range may be both significant and endangered or threatened has not been met. Therefore, listing the thorny skate based on it being threatened or endangered in a significant portion of its range is not warranted under the SPR policy.

Section 4(b)(1) of the ESA requires that listing determinations be based solely on the best scientific and commercial data available after conducting a review of the status of the species and taking into account those efforts, if any, being made by any state or foreign nation, or political subdivisions thereof, to protect and conserve the species. We have independently reviewed the best available scientific and commercial information, including the petition, information submitted in response to the 90-day finding (80 FR 65175; October 28, 2015), the status review report (NMFS 2017), and other published and unpublished information cited herein, and we have consulted with species experts and individuals familiar with the thorny skate. We identified no DPSs of the thorny skate and therefore considered the species rangewide. We considered each of the section 4(a)(1) factors to determine whether any one of the factors contributed significantly to the extinction risk of the species. We also considered the combination of those factors to determine whether they collectively contributed significantly to extinction risk. As previously explained, we could not identify any portion of the species' range that met both criteria of the SPR policy. Therefore, our determination set forth below is based on a synthesis and integration of the foregoing information, factors and considerations, and their effects on the status of the species throughout its range.

We conclude that the thorny skate is not in danger of extinction, nor is it likely to become so in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. We summarize the factors supporting this conclusion as follows: (1) The species is broadly distributed over a large geographic range within the North Atlantic Ocean, with no barrier to dispersal; (2) genetic data indicate that populations are not isolated and that the species has high genetic diversity, (3) while the species possesses life history characteristics that increase its vulnerability to overutilization, overfishing is not currently occurring within the range; (4) the best available information indicates that abundance and biomass has stabilized rangewide and on the edge of the range in U.S. waters; (5) current thorny skate populations are numerous in many areas and the area occupied is increasing; (6) while the current population size has declined from historical numbers, the population size is sufficient to maintain population viability into the foreseeable future and consists of at least millions of individuals; (7) a main threat to the species is fishery-related mortality from incidental catch (bycatch); however, there are strict management measures in place to minimize this threat throughout the species' range, and these measures appear to be effective in addressing this threat as evidenced by stabilizing numbers of thorny skates; (8) there is no evidence that disease or predation is contributing to increasing the risk of extinction; and (9) there is no evidence that the species is currently suffering from depensatory processes (such as reduced likelihood of finding a mate or mate choice or diminished fertilization and recruitment success) or is at risk of extinction due to environmental variation or anthropogenic perturbations.

Since the thorny skate is not in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range or likely to become so within the foreseeable future, it does not meet the definition of a threatened species or an endangered species. Therefore, the thorny skate does not warrant listing as threatened or endangered at this time.

Thorny skates in the Atlantic Ocean from West Greenland to New York were identified as a NMFS “species of concern” in 2006. A species of concern is one for which we have concerns regarding status and threats but for which insufficient information is available to indicate a need to list the species under the ESA. In identifying species of concern, we consider demographic and genetic diversity concerns; abundance and productivity; distribution; life history characteristics and threats to the species. Given the information presented in the status review report and the findings of this listing determination, we are removing the thorny skate from the “species of concern” list.

A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon request (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

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

Agenda

The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is conducting a peer review of the Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE) of Atlantic Herring Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) Control Rules. Atlantic herring, predators, and economic models were developed to evaluate control rules and performance metrics. Experts have been invited by the Council to evaluate the MSE methods, data, and results. The panel will evaluate whether the MSE is sufficient for the Council to use when identifying and analyzing a range of ABC control rule alternatives in Amendment 8 to the Atlantic Herring Fishery Management Plan. This public meeting will have designated times on the agenda when public comment is welcome.

This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. This meeting will be recorded. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is available upon request.

The purpose of this meeting is to make multi-year ABC recommendations for golden and blueline tilefish based on updated stock assessment information recently complied for both species. In addition, topics to be discussed include the NEFSC Ecosystem Status Report, SSC OFL CV Progress Report, MRIP Evaluation Report and establishing status determination criteria for chub mackerel.

These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to M. Jan Saunders, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Office of Coast Survey and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Geospatial Program plan to conduct a follow-on study to the National Enhanced Elevation Assessment (NEEA) white paper finalized in 2012 (NEEA overview can be found at https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2012/3088/). This NEEA follow-on study will incorporate coastal and ocean requirements for elevation data along with a revisit of the terrestrial elevation data needs assessed via a similar survey in 2010 (OMB Control No. 1028-0099). The primary tool to gather information will be a questionnaire covering a wide range of business uses that depend on 3D data to inform policy, regulation, scientific research, and management decisions. For purposes of this questionnaire, 3D data refers to topographic data (precise three-dimensional measurements of the terrestrial terrain) and bathymetric data (three-dimensional surface of the underwater terrain). Questions will be asked about how 3D data relate to other data types such as the shoreline; characteristics of tides, currents, and waves; and the physical and chemical properties of the water itself. A series of questions will be asked as they relate to specific Mission Critical Activities. These will include questions about the area (geographic extent), 3D data accuracy requirements, linkages to other data to support a wide range of analysis, and benefits of having the required data.

NOAA, USGS and partner mapping agencies are working to improve the technology systems, data, and services that provide information about 3D data and related applications within the United States. By learning more about business uses and associated benefits that would be realized from improved 3D data, the agencies will be able to prioritize and direct investments that will best serve user needs. This questionnaire is part of an effort to develop and refine future program alternatives that would provide enhanced 3D data to meet many Federal, State, and other national business needs.

Because 3D data are collected and used to meet a wide range of mission critical needs, we are seeking input from managers and data users from a variety of government entities (e.g., Federal, State, local, Tribal) as well as not for profit, academic, and private/commercial entities. The findings are expected to establish a baseline of national business needs and associated benefits for 3D data and associated technologies. This baseline will enhance the responsiveness of NOAA, USGS, and partner agency programs to stakeholder needs, and inform the design of directed future programs that balance requirements, benefits, and costs at a national scale. Collected responses will be aggregated at the agency and national levels. Responses associated with individuals will not be distributed. The information collection process will be guided by an interagency management team led by NOAA and USGS with support from a professional services contractor. The information collection will be conducted using a standardized template. Responses are one-time and voluntary. In-person interviews to clarify questionnaire results may also be arranged. The draft questionnaire will be posted for the duration of this public comment period at the NOAA Integrated Ocean and Coastal Mapping site (https://iocm.noaa.gov/).

Emails will be sent to a comprehensive list of stakeholders, with requests to forward to any other interested participants. The emails will include a link to the online survey, which can also be provided upon request by paper or other means. In-person interviews may follow to resolve questions, clarify answers and add more detail to responses.

OMB Control Number: 0648-xxxx.

Form Number(s): None.

Type of Review: Regular (request for a new information collection).

Affected Public: Federal government, State, local or tribal governments; not-for-profit institutions, academia, business or other for-profit organizations.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 600.

Estimated Time per Response: 2 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1,200.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0 in recordkeeping/reporting activities.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

On November 16, 2004, NMFS published a proposed rule in the Federal Register (69 FR 67100) proposing to implement an industry fee system for repaying the Washington coastal Dungeness crab Buyback sub-loan. The final rule was published July 13, 2005 (70 FR 40225) and fee collection began on September 8, 2005. Interested persons should review these for further program details.

The Washington coastal Dungeness crab Buyback sub-loan in the amount of $369,425.93 will be repaid in full upon receipt of buyback fees on landings through January 31, 2017. NMFS has received $620,742.30 to repay the principal and interest on this sub-loan since fee collection began September 8, 2005. Based on Buyback fees received to date, landings after January 31, 2017, will not be subject to the Buyback fee. Therefore, Buyback fees will no longer be collected in the Washington coastal Dungeness crab fishery on future landings.

Buyback fees not yet forwarded to NMFS for Washington coastal Dungeness crab landings through January 31, 2017, should be forwarded to NMFS immediately. Any overpayment of Buyback fees submitted to NMFS will be refunded on a pro-rata basis to the fish buyers based upon best available fish ticket landings data. The fish buyers should return excess Buyback fees collected to the harvesters, including Buyback fees collected but not yet remitted to NMFS for landings after January 31, 2017. Any discrepancies in fees owed and fees paid must be resolved immediately. After the sub-loan is closed, no further adjustments to fees paid and fees received can be made.

Agenda

The Council is developing management areas to protect deep-sea or cold water corals found offshore New England from impacts due to fishing gear interactions. Concentrations of corals occur in the canyons, continental slope, and seamounts south of Georges Bank, and also in deep waters of the Gulf of Maine, including some inshore sites (Mt. Desert Rock and Outer Schoodic Ridge) as well as in Jordan and Georges Basins offshore. Some coral habitats appear to be actively fished, while others appear to be beyond the current footprint of bottom-tending gear operations.

In developing these coral management areas, the Council is seeking to minimize their impacts on existing fisheries. Designing these areas to accommodate fishing activity requires a detailed understanding of where different gears are used in relation to the potential coral management areas. Therefore, the Council is seeking guidance from active fishermen who use bottom-tending gears (trawls, traps, and other gear types) offshore in the Gulf of Maine and in the slope and canyon region south of Georges Bank. Other stakeholders interested in coral management are also welcome to attend the workshops and provide their input. Specifically, the Council is seeking: (1) Industry information on fishing activities within proposed coral protection zones; and (2) suggestions about how to refine management area boundaries to limit impacts to fishing operations while still providing protection for corals.

Three days of discussion in two locations are scheduled:

• In New Bedford (March 13 and 14) the workshop will focus on fishing activity in and around the draft deep-sea coral zones south of Georges Bank (canyons and continental slope). These zones are generally deeper than 150 fathoms. Note that large pelagic fishermen who work in the canyon/slope region are not proposed to be impacted by the Coral Amendment. The discussion is intended to carry over between the two days, so participants are encouraged to attend on both Monday and Tuesday if possible.

• In Portsmouth (March 15) the workshop will focus on fishing activity in Jordan Basin and the Lindenkohl Knoll area of Georges Basin. Proposals for the inshore areas around Outer Schoodic Ridge and Mount Desert Rock are not the intended focus of this Portsmouth gathering.

The purpose of these workshops is to refine the boundaries of the Council's existing proposals. Public hearings will be conducted later this spring to solicit comments, including general support of or opposition to, all areas proposed in the amendment.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. This meeting will be recorded. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is available upon request.

Recognizing the vital importance of the Internet to U.S. innovation, prosperity, education, and civic and cultural life, the Department of Commerce (Department) has made it a top priority to encourage growth of the digital economy and ensure that the Internet remains an open platform for innovation. Thus, as part of the Department's Digital Economy Agenda, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) issued a green paper “Fostering the Advancement of the Internet of Things” that lays out an approach and areas of engagement for the Department's possible future work on the Internet of Things (IoT). Through the request for comments, NTIA seeks broad input from all interested stakeholders—including the private industry, researchers, academia, and civil society—on the issues and proposed approach, current initiatives, and next steps laid out in this paper. These comments will help inform Department leadership on possible future Department action regarding IoT. Instructions for commenters, including specific questions for discussion, are available in the original notice. 82 FR 4313 (Jan. 13, 2017), available at https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/fr_iot_notice_rfc_01132017.pdf.

The original deadline for submission of comments was February 27, 2017. With this notice, NTIA announces that the closing deadline for submission of comments has been extended until March 13, 2017, at 5:00 p.m. EDT.

Additions

On 5/27/2016 (81 FR 33665- 33666), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed addition to the Procurement List.

After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agency to provide the service and impact of the addition on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the service listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organization that will provide the service to the Government.

2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to provide the service to the Government.

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the service proposed for addition to the Procurement List.

Accordingly, the following service is added to the Procurement List:

This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503 (a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.

The following products are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:

This public meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150.

Purpose of the Meeting: In section 576(a)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Pub. L. 112-239), as amended, Congress tasked the Judicial Proceedings Panel to conduct an independent review and assessment of judicial proceedings conducted under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) involving adult sexual assault and related offenses since the amendments made to the UCMJ by section 541 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Pub. L. 112-81; 125 Stat. 1404), for the purpose of developing recommendations for improvements to such proceedings. At this meeting, the Panel will receive a presentation from the JPP Subcommittee on the Subcommittee's site visit observations regarding the Department of Defense withholding policy for initial disposition of certain sexual assault offenses, military attorney training, and Military Rules of Evidence (M.R.E.) 412 and 513 relating to a victim's prior sexual history and the psychotherapist-patient privilege. The Panel will then conduct final deliberations on its draft Military Defense Counsel Resources and Experience in Sexual Assault Cases Report and Victims' Appellate Rights Report. For the last session, the Panel will deliberate on the M.R.E. 412 and 513 issues identified during the January 6, 2017, public meeting.

Availability of Materials for the Meeting: A copy of the March 10, 2017, public meeting agenda and any updates or changes to the agenda, including the location and individual speakers not identified at the time of this notice, as well as other materials provided to Panel members for use at the public meeting, may be obtained at the meeting or from the Panel's Web site at http://jpp.whs.mil.

Public's Accessibility to the Meeting: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165, and the availability of space, this meeting is open to the public. Seating is limited and is on a first-come basis. Visitors are required to sign in at the One Liberty Center security desk and must leave government-issued photo identification on file while in the building. Department of Defense Common Access Card (CAC) holders who do not have authorized access to One Liberty Center must provide an alternate form of government-issued photo identification to leave on file with security while in the building. All visitors must pass through a metal detection security screening. In the event the Office of Personnel Management closes the government due to inclement weather or for any other reason, please consult the Web site for any changes to the public meeting date or time.

Special Accommodations: Individuals requiring special accommodations to access the public meeting should contact the Judicial Proceedings Panel at [email protected] at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made.

Procedures for Providing Public Comments: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.140 and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the public or interested organizations may submit written comments to the Panel about its mission and topics pertaining to this public session. Written comments must be received by the JPP at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting date so that they may be made available to the Judicial Proceedings Panel for their consideration prior to the meeting. Written comments should be submitted via email to the Judicial Proceedings Panel at [email protected] in the following formats: Adobe Acrobat or Microsoft Word. Please note that since the Judicial Proceedings Panel operates under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, all written comments will be treated as public documents and will be made available for public inspection. If members of the public are interested in making an oral statement pertaining to the agenda for the public meeting, a written statement must be submitted as above along with a request to provide an oral statement. After reviewing the written comments and the oral statement, the Chair and the Designated Federal Official will determine who will be permitted to make an oral presentation of their issue during the public comment portion of this meeting. This determination is at the sole discretion of the Chair and Designated Federal Official, will depend on the time available and relevance to the Panel's activities for that meeting, and will be on a first-come basis. When approved in advance, oral presentations by members of the public will be permitted from 4:15 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. on March 10, 2017, in front of the Panel members.

Committee's Designated Federal Official: The Panel's Designated Federal Official is Ms. Maria Fried, Department of Defense, Office of the General Counsel, 1600 Defense Pentagon, Room 3B747, Washington, DC 20301-1600.

This notice of open meeting is provided in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2). The meeting will include discussions on ocean research, resource management, and other current issues in the ocean science and management communities.

Pursuant to Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, 42 United States Code 4321-4370h, as implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality regulations, 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 1500-1508, the DoN NEPA regulations (32 CFR part 775), and Marine Corps Order P5090.2A (with Changes 1-3) Marine Corps Environmental Compliance and Protection Manual, Chapter 12, the DoN, after carefully considering the operational and environmental consequences of the proposed action and alternatives analyzed in a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS), announces the availability of its ROD to translocate a population of the federal-listed threatened Agassiz's desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii, hereinafter “desert tortoise”) from high- and moderate-impact training areas at the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center at Twentynine Palms, California (hereinafter, “the Combat Center”). In its ROD, the DoN has selected the preferred alternative (Alternative 2) from the Final SEIS, which provides for the implementation of a June 2016 Desert Tortoise Translocation Plan. The Plan will guide translocation of desert tortoises in accordance with requirements of a January 2017 United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Biological Opinion (hereinafter the “2017 BO,” which superseded a previous 2012 BO), and a 2013 DoN ROD associated with the 2012 Final EIS for Land Acquisition and Airspace Establishment to Support Large-Scale Marine Air Ground Task Force Live-Fire and Maneuver Training at the Combat Center (hereinafter the “2012 Final EIS”).

The DoN ROD documents why the DoN has chosen to implement the preferred alternative as described in the 2017 Final SEIS. This decision adopts all of the special conservation measures that were identified in the Final SEIS to avoid or minimize adverse environmental impacts from the preferred alternative. The ROD also includes descriptions and discussions of the anticipated environmental impacts of the proposed action, and responds to substantive comments received since the Final SEIS was released.

The BLM, which served as a Cooperating Agency during preparation of the SEIS, adopted the SEIS and prepared a separate ROD regarding the SEIS actions proposed on BLM-managed lands. The BLM's involvement as a cooperating agency in the development of the SEIS was triggered by its current jurisdiction by law and special expertise over a portion of lands considered for translocation of desert tortoises. The BLM has unique knowledge of the public lands under its management and has the expertise essential to help evaluate appropriate parcels of land to meet translocation requirements. The BLM conducted frequent coordination with DON throughout the SEIS process. The BLM ROD explains the rationale for its independent selection of Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) of the SEIS. The BLM decision is subject to a 30-day appeal period commencing with the publication of this Notice. A party that is adversely affected by the BLM's decision may file an appeal in accordance with the procedures in 43 CFR part 4.

The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

Title of Collection: William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program—150% Limitation.

OMB Control Number: 1845-0116.

Type of Review: A revision of an existing information collection.

Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local, and Tribal Governments; Individuals or Households; Private Sector.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 7,770,494.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 282,713.

Abstract: These data will allow the Department to calculate the borrowers maximum eligibility period, subsidized usage period, and remaining eligibility period as described in 685.200(f)(1)(ii)-(f)(1)(iv), determine whether the borrower is eligible to receive an additional Direct Subsidized Loan, and ensure that borrowers do not receive Direct Subsidized Loans if they are no longer eligible to receive a Direct Subsidized Loan under 685.200(f)(2). The Department will determine whether the borrower is responsible for accruing interest on their previously received Direct Subsidized Loans. To ensure that the Department has the information to necessary to make that determination, institutions will be required to report additional information to NSLDS. For example, institutions will be required to report: The CIP code and the credential level for the program in which a borrower is enrolled; the length of the program in academic years, weeks, or months (consistent with current institutional reporting in the COD System); and a more detailed enrollment status of the borrower (e.g., full-time, three-quarter-time, half-time, or less-than-half-time). These data will allow the Department to determine whether a borrower who is not eligible for additional Direct Subsidized Loans is responsible for accruing interest on his or her previously received Direct Subsidized Loans. The regulations implement a new statutory requirement that significantly limits a borrowers eligibility for Direct Subsidized Loans and potentially results in the borrower becoming responsible for accruing interest on existing Direct Subsidized Loans. Under section 485(l) of the HEA, which requires that borrowers be provided with entrance and exit counseling on the provisions governing federal student aid, institutions will be required to revise the entrance and exit counseling provided to borrowers. For entrance counseling, the added counseling requirements under 685.304 will require institutions to explain the new provisions to borrowers.

Type of Request: Three-year extension of the information collection requirements for all collections described below with no changes to the current reporting requirements. Please note that each collection is distinct from the next.

Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burden and cost of the collections of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collections; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collections of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

OMB Control No.: 1902-0253.

Abstract: The reporting requirements under FERC-549D are required to carry out the Commission's policies in accordance with the general authority in Sections 1(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) 1 and Sections 311 of the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 (NGPA).2 This collection promotes transparency by collecting and making available intrastate and Hinshaw pipeline transactional information. The Commission collects the data upon a standardized form with all requirements outlined in 18 CFR 284.126.

The FERC Form 549D collects the following information:

• Full legal name and identification number of the shipper receiving service;

• Type of service performed for each transaction;

• The rate charged under each transaction;

• The primary receipt and delivery points for the transaction, specifying the rate schedule/name of service and docket were approved;

• The quantity of natural gas the shipper is entitled to transport, store, and deliver for each transaction;

• The term of the transaction, specifying the beginning and ending month and year of current agreement;

• Total volumes transported, stored, injected or withdrawn for the shipper; and

• Annual revenues received for each shipper, excluding revenues from storage services.

Filers submit the Form-549D on a quarterly basis.

Access to the FERC-549D Information Collection Materials: A copy of the current form and related materials can be found at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/forms.asp#549d, but will not be included in the Federal Register. The Commission will not publish these materials in the Federal Register.

Type of Respondent: Intrastate natural gas and Hinshaw pipelines.

Estimate of Annual Burden: The Commission estimates the annual public reporting burden for the information collection as:

OMB Control No.: 1902-0271.

Abstract: Section 1252(e)(3) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005,4 requires the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) to prepare and publish an annual report, by appropriate region, that assesses demand response resources, including those available from all consumer classes. Specifically, EPAct 2005 Section 1252(e)(3) requires that the Commission identify and review:

(A) saturation and penetration rate of advanced meters and communications technologies, devices and systems;

(B) existing demand response programs and time-based rate programs;

(C) the annual resource contribution of demand resources;

(D) the potential for demand response as a quantifiable, reliable resource for regional planning purposes;

(E) steps taken to ensure that, in regional transmission planning and operations, demand resources are provided equitable treatment as a quantifiable, reliable resource relative to the resource obligations of any load-serving entity, transmission provider, or transmitting party; and

(F) regulatory barriers to improved customer participation in demand response, peak reduction and critical period pricing programs.

Type of Respondent: Persons interested in the above topics.

Estimate of Annual Burden: The Commission estimates the annual public reporting burden for the information collection as:

In accordance with the Final Rule published in the Federal Register (FR) of February 27, 2013 (78 FR 13268), the Director, Bureau of Certification and Licensing is required to calculate the Adjusted Cap amount for Financial Responsibility for Indemnification of Passengers for Nonperformance of Transportation and transmit that information to the Commission's Office of the Secretary for publication on the Commission's Web site and in the Federal Register. The cap will automatically adjust every two years after the cap on required financial responsibility reaches $30 million, which it did on April 2, 2015, and will be rounded to the nearest $1 million based on changes in the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics's (BLS) Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U).

The formula used to determine the percent change is as follows:

The index percent change for use in 2017 was calculated to be 1.26 and the Adjusted Cap was calculated to be $30.4 million. The Adjusted Cap rounded to the nearest $1 million is $30 million. For 2017 and 2018, the cap for Financial Responsibility for Indemnification of Passengers for Nonperformance of Transportation shall remain at $30 million. The next adjustment will be conducted in 2019 and will continue to use $30 million as the Base Cap for adjustment.

Inspection of Public Comments: All comments received before the close of the comment period are available for viewing by the public, including any personally identifiable or confidential business information that is included in a comment. We post all comments received before the close of the comment period on the following Web site as soon as possible after they have been received: http://www.regulations.gov . Follow the search instructions on that Web site to view public comments.

Comments received timely will also be available for public inspection as they are received, generally beginning approximately 3 weeks after publication of a document, at the headquarters of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244, Monday through Friday of each week from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. To schedule an appointment to view public comments, phone 1-800-743-3951.

Under the Medicare program, eligible beneficiaries may receive covered services from a hospital, provided that certain requirements are met. Section 1861(e) of the Social Security Act (the Act), establishes distinct criteria for facilities seeking designation as a hospital. Regulations concerning provider agreements are at 42 CFR part 489 and those pertaining to activities relating to the survey and certification of facilities are at 42 CFR part 488. The regulations at 42 CFR part 482 specify the minimum conditions that a hospital must meet to participate in the Medicare program.

Generally, to enter into an agreement, a hospital must first be certified by a State survey agency as complying with the conditions or requirements set forth in part 482 of our regulations. Thereafter, the hospital is subject to regular surveys by a State survey agency to determine whether it continues to meet these requirements

Section 1865(a)(1) of the Act provides that, if a provider entity demonstrates through accreditation by an approved national accrediting organization that all applicable Medicare conditions are met or exceeded, we may deem those provider entities as having met the requirements. Accreditation by an accrediting organization is voluntary and is not required for Medicare participation.

If an accrediting organization is recognized by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) as having standards for accreditation that meet or exceed Medicare requirements, any provider entity accredited by the national accrediting body's approved program may be deemed to meet the Medicare conditions. A national accrediting organization applying for approval of its accreditation program under part 488, subpart A, must provide the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) with reasonable assurance that the accrediting organization requires the accredited provider entities to meet requirements that are at least as stringent as the Medicare conditions. Our regulations concerning the approval of accrediting organizations are set forth at § 488.5. The regulations at § 488.5(e)(2)(i) require accrediting organizations to reapply for continued approval of its accreditation program every 6 years or sooner as determined by CMS.

The Center for Improvement in Healthcare Quality (CIHQ's) current term of approval for their hospital accreditation program expires July 26, 2017.

Section 1865(a)(2) of the Act and our regulations at § 488.5 require that our findings concerning review and approval of a national accrediting organization's requirements consider, among other factors, the applying accrediting organization's requirements for accreditation; survey procedures; resources for conducting required surveys; capacity to furnish information for use in enforcement activities; monitoring procedures for provider entities found not in compliance with the conditions or requirements; and ability to provide CMS with the necessary data for validation.

Section 1865(a)(3)(A) of the Act further requires that we publish, within 60 days of receipt of an organization's complete application, a notice identifying the national accrediting body making the request, describing the nature of the request, and providing at least a 30-day public comment period. We have 210 days from the receipt of a complete application to publish notice of approval or denial of the application.

The purpose of this proposed notice is to inform the public of CIHQ's request for continued approval of its hospital accreditation program. This notice also solicits public comment on whether CIHQ's requirements meet or exceed the Medicare Conditions of Participation (CoPs) for hospitals.

CIHQ submitted all the necessary materials to enable us to make a determination concerning its request for continued approval of its hospital accreditation program. This application was determined to be complete on December 28, 2016. Under section 1865(a)(2) of the Act and our regulations at § 488.5 (Application and re-application procedures for national accrediting organizations), our review and evaluation of CIHQ's will be conducted in accordance with, but not necessarily limited to, the following factors:

• The equivalency of CIHQ's standards for hospitals as compared with CMS' hospital CoPs.

• CIHQ's survey process to determine the following:

++ The composition of the survey team, surveyor qualifications, and the ability of the organization to provide continuing surveyor training.

++ The comparability of CIHQ's processes to those of state agencies, including survey frequency, and the ability to investigate and respond appropriately to complaints against accredited facilities.

++ CIHQ's processes and procedures for monitoring a hospital found out of compliance with the CIHQ's program requirements. These monitoring procedures are used only when the CIHQ identifies noncompliance. If noncompliance is identified through validation reviews or complaint surveys, the state survey agency monitors corrections as specified at § 488.9(c).

++ CIHQ's capacity to report deficiencies to the surveyed facilities and respond to the facility's plan of correction in a timely manner.

++ CIHQ's capacity to provide CMS with electronic data and reports necessary for effective validation and assessment of the organization's survey process.

++ The adequacy of CIHQ's staff and other resources, and its financial viability.

++ CIHQ's capacity to adequately fund required surveys.

++ CIHQ's policies with respect to whether surveys are announced or unannounced, to assure that surveys are unannounced.

++ CIHQ's agreement to provide CMS with a copy of the most current accreditation survey together with any other information related to the survey as we may require (including corrective action plans).

This document does not impose information collection requirements, that is reporting, recordkeeping or third-party disclosure requirements. Consequently, there is no need for review by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

Because of the large number of public comments we normally receive on Federal Register documents, we are not able to acknowledge or respond to them individually. We will consider all comments we receive by the date and time specified in the “DATES” section of this preamble, and, when we proceed with a subsequent document, we will respond to the comments in the preamble to that document.

Upon completion of our evaluation, including evaluation of comments received as a result of this notice, we will publish a final notice in the Federal Register announcing the result of our evaluation.

I. Background

On December 21, 2000, the Congress passed the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2000 (BIPA) (Pub. L. 106-554). Section 531(b) of BIPA mandated that we establish procedures that permit public consultation for coding and payment determinations for new durable medical equipment (DME) under Medicare Part B of title XVIII of the Social Security Act (the Act). In the November 23, 2001 Federal Register (66 FR 58743), we published a notice providing information regarding the establishment of the public meeting process for DME. The procedures and public meetings announced in this notice for new DME are in response to the mandate of section 531(b) of BIPA. As part of HCPCS reform, we expanded the public meeting forum to include all public requests as of the 2005-2006 coding cycle.

It is our intent to distribute any materials submitted to us to the Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) workgroup members for their consideration. CMS and the HCPCS workgroup members require sufficient preparation time to review all relevant materials. Therefore, we implemented a 10-page submission limit and firm deadlines for receipt of any presentation materials a meeting speaker wishes us to consider. For this reason, our HCPCS Public Meeting Coordinators will only accept and review presentation materials received by the deadline for each public meeting, as specified in the DATES section of this notice.

The following information must be provided when registering:

• Name.

• Company name and address.

• Direct-dial telephone and fax numbers.

• Email address.

• Special needs information.

A CMS staff member will confirm your registration by email.

Individuals must also indicate whether they are the “primary speaker” for an agenda item. Primary speakers must be designated by the entity that submitted the HCPCS coding request. When registering, primary speakers must provide a brief written statement regarding the nature of the information they intend to provide, and advise one of the HCPCS Public Meeting Coordinators regarding needs for audio/visual support. To avoid disruption of the meeting and ensure compatibility with our systems, tapes and disk files are tested and arranged in speaker sequence well in advance of the meeting. We will accept tapes and disk files that are received by the deadline for submissions for each public meeting as specified in the DATES section of this notice. Late submissions and updates of electronic materials after our deadline cannot be accommodated.

Please note CMS' page limit for primary speaker presentation materials. The sum of all presentation materials and additional supporting documentation may not exceed 10 pages (each side of a page counts as 1 page). An exception will be made to the 10-page limit only for relevant studies newly published between the application deadline and the public meeting date, in which case, we would like a copy of the complete publication as soon as possible. This exception applies only to the page limit and not the submission deadline.

The materials may be emailed or delivered by regular mail to the HCPCS Public Meeting Coordinator as specified in the ADDRESSES section of this notice. The materials must be emailed or postmarked no later than the deadline specified in the DATES section of this notice. Individuals will need to provide 35 copies if materials are delivered by mail.

To afford the same opportunity to all attendees, 5-minute speakers are not required to register as primary speakers. However, 5-minute speakers must still register as attendees by the deadline set forth under “Registration Deadlines for all Other Attendees” in the DATES section of this notice. Attendees can sign up only on the day of the meeting to do a presentation of up to 5 minutes. Individuals must provide their name, company name and address, contact information as specified on the sign-up sheet, and identify the specific agenda item that they will address.

Please note that all of the CMS' 2017 HCPCS public meetings will begin at 9:00 a.m. each day as noted in the DATES section of this notice.

The product category reported in the HCPCS code application by the applicant may not be the same as that assigned by us. Prior to registering to attend a public meeting, all participants are advised to review the public meeting agendas at www.cms.hhs.gov/medhcpcsgeninfo which identify our category determinations, and the dates each item will be discussed. Draft public meeting agendas, including a summary of each request and our preliminary decision, will be posted on our HCPCS Web site at www.cms.hhs.gov/medhcpcsgeninfo at least 4 weeks before each meeting.

Additional details regarding the public meeting process for all new public requests for revisions to the HCPCS, along with information on how to register and guidelines for an effective presentation, will be posted at least 4 weeks before the first meeting date on the official HCPCS Web site at www.cms.hhs.gov/medhcpcsgeninfo. The document titled “Guidelines for Participation in Public Meetings for All New Public Requests for Revisions to the Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS)” will be made available on the HCPCS Web site at least 4 weeks before the first public meeting in 2017 for all new public requests for revisions to the HCPCS. Individuals who intend to provide a presentation at a public meeting need to familiarize themselves with the HCPCS Web site and the valuable information it provides to prospective registrants. The HCPCS Web site also contains a document titled “Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) Level II Coding Procedures,” which is a description of the HCPCS coding process, including a detailed explanation of the procedures used to make coding determinations for all the products, supplies, and services that are coded in the HCPCS.

The HCPCS Web site also contains a document titled “HCPCS Decision Tree & Definitions” which illustrates, in flow diagram format, HCPCS coding standards as described in our Coding Procedures document.

A summary of each public meeting will be posted on the HCPCS Web site by the end of August 2017.

We can only estimate the amount of meeting time that will be needed since it is difficult to anticipate the total number of speakers that will register for each meeting. Meeting participants should arrive early to allow time to clear security and sign-in. Each meeting is expected to begin promptly as scheduled. Meetings may end earlier than the stated ending time.

All primary speakers must register as provided under the section titled “Meeting Registration.” Materials and writings that will be used in support of an oral presentation should be submitted to the CMS' HCPCS Public Meeting Coordinator.

The materials may be emailed or delivered by regular mail to the HCPCS Public Meeting Coordinator as specified in the ADDRESSES section of this notice. The materials must be emailed or postmarked no later than the deadline specified in the DATES section of this notice. Individuals will need to include 35 copies if materials are delivered by mail.

The individual or entity requesting revisions to the HCPCS coding system for a particular agenda item may designate one “primary speaker” to make a presentation for a maximum of 15 minutes. Fifteen minutes is the total time interval for the presentation, and the presentation must incorporate any demonstration, set-up, and distribution of material. In establishing the public meeting agenda, we may group multiple, related requests under the same agenda item. In that case, we will decide whether additional time will be allotted, and may opt to increase the amount of time allotted to the speaker by increments of less than 15 minutes.

Individuals designated to be the primary speaker must register to attend the meeting using the registration procedures described under the “Meeting Registration” section of this notice and contact one of the HCPCS Public Meeting Coordinators, specified in the ADDRESSES section. Primary speakers must also separately register as primary speakers by the date specified in the DATES section of this notice.

Meeting attendees can sign up in-person only on the date of the meeting, on a first-come, first-served basis, to make presentations for up to 5 minutes on individual agenda items. Based on the number of items on the agenda and the progress of the meeting, a determination will be made at the meeting by the meeting coordinator and the meeting moderator regarding how many “5-minute speakers” can be accommodated and whether the 5-minute time allocation would be reduced, to accommodate the number of speakers.

On the day of the assigned public meeting, and no later than the end of the meeting, all primary speakers and 5-minute speakers must provide a brief written summary of their comments and conclusions to the HCPCS Public Meeting Coordinator.

Every primary speaker and 5-minute speaker must declare at the beginning of their presentation at the meeting, as well as in their written summary, whether they have any financial involvement with the manufacturers or competitors of any items being discussed; this includes any payment, salary, remuneration, or benefit provided to that speaker by the manufacturer or the manufacturer's representatives.

Written comments will be accepted from the general public and meeting registrants anytime up to the date of the public meeting at which a request is discussed. Comments must be sent to the address listed in the ADDRESSES section of this notice.

Meeting attendees may also submit their written comments at the meeting. Due to the close timing of the public meetings, subsequent workgroup reconsiderations, and final decisions, we are able to consider only those comments received in writing by the close of the public meeting at which the request is discussed.

The meetings are held within the CMS Complex which is not open to the general public. Visitors to the complex are required to show a valid Government issued photo identification at the time of entry. As of October, 10, 2015, visitors seeking access to federal agency facilities using their state-issued driver's license or identification cards must present proper identification issued by a state that is compliant with the REAL ID Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-13, 119 Statute 302, enacted on May 11, 2005) or a state that has received an extension. What constitutes proper identification and whether a driver's license is acceptable identification for accessing a federal facility may vary, based on which state issued the driver's license. For detailed information, please refer to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Web site at: http://www.dhs.gov. When planning to visit a federal facility, visitors who have further questions about acceptable forms of identification are encouraged to contact the facility to determine acceptable identification.

Visitors will also be subject to a vehicle security inspection before access to the complex is granted. Participants not in possession of a valid identification or who are in possession of prohibited items will be denied access to the complex. Prohibited items on federal property include but are not limited to, alcoholic beverages, illegal narcotics, explosives, firearms or other dangerous weapons (including pocket knives), dogs or other animals except service animals. Once cleared for entry to the complex participants will be directed to visitor parking by a security officer.

To ensure expedited entry into the building it is recommended that participants have their government ID and a copy of their written meeting registration confirmation readily available and that they do not bring large/bulky items into the building. Participants are reminded that photography on the CMS complex is prohibited. We have also been declared a tobacco free campus and violators are subject to legal action. In planning arrival time, we recommend allowing additional time to clear security. Individuals who are not registered in advance will not be permitted to enter the building and will be unable to attend the meeting. The invited guests may not enter the building earlier than 45 minutes before the convening of the meeting each day.

Guest access to the complex is limited to the meeting area, the main entrance lobby, and the cafeteria. If a visitor is found outside of those areas without proper escort they may be escorted off of the premises. Also, be mindful that there will be an opportunity for everyone to speak and we request that everyone waits for the appropriate time to present their product and opinions. Disruptive behavior will not be tolerated and may result in removal from the meetings and escort from the complex. No visitor is allowed to attach USB cables, thumb drives or any other equipment to any CMS information technology (IT) system or hardware for any purpose at any time. Additionally, our staff is prohibited from taking such actions on behalf of a visitor or utilizing any removable media provided by a visitor.

We cannot assume responsibility for coordinating the receipt, transfer, transport, storage, set-up, safety, or timely arrival of any personal belongings or items used for demonstration or to support a presentation. Special arrangements and approvals are required at least 2 weeks prior to each public meeting to bring pieces of equipment or medical devices. These arrangements need to be made directly with the CMS' Public Meeting Coordinator. It is possible that certain requests made in advance of the public meeting could be denied because of unique safety, security or handling issues related to the equipment. A minimum of 2 weeks is required for approvals and security procedures. Any request not submitted at least 2 weeks in advance of the public meeting will be denied.

Foreign National Visitors are defined as Non-US Citizens, and non-lawful permanent residents, non-resident aliens or non-green-card holders.

Attendees that are foreign nationals must identify themselves as such, and provide the following information for security clearance to the public meeting coordinator by the date specified in the DATES section of this notice:

• Building to Visit/Destination.

• Visit start date, start time, end date, end time.

• Visitor full name.

• Gender.

• Visitor Title.

• Visitor Organization/Employer.

• Citizenship.

• Birth Place (City, Country).

• Date of Birth.

• ID Type (Passport or State Department ID).

• Passport issued by Country.

• ID (passport) Number.

• ID (passport) issue date.

• ID (passport) expiration date.

• Visa Type.

• Visa Number.

• Purpose of Visit.

I. Background

The Advisory Panel for Outreach and Education (APOE) (the Panel) is governed by the provisions of Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (Pub. L. 92-463), as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), which sets forth standards for the formation and use of federal advisory committees. The Panel is authorized by section 1114(f) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1314(f)) and section 222 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 217a) and sec. 10(a) of Public Law 92-463 (5 U.S.C. App. 2, sec. 10(a) and 41 CFR 102-3).

The Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) (the Secretary) signed the charter establishing the Citizen's Advisory Panel on Medicare Education 2 (the predecessor to the APOE) on January 21, 1999 (64 FR 7899, February 17, 1999) to advise and make recommendations to the Secretary and the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) on the effective implementation of national Medicare education programs, including with respect to the Medicare+Choice (M+C) program added by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105-33).

The Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) (Pub. L. 108-173) expanded the existing health plan options and benefits available under the M+C program and renamed it the Medicare Advantage (MA) program. We have had substantial responsibilities to provide information to Medicare beneficiaries about the range of health plan options available and better tools to evaluate these options. The successful MA program implementation required CMS to consider the views and policy input from a variety of private sector constituents and to develop a broad range of public-private partnerships.

In addition, Title I of the MMA authorized the Secretary and the Administrator of CMS (by delegation) to establish the Medicare prescription drug benefit. The drug benefit allows beneficiaries to obtain qualified prescription drug coverage. In order to effectively administer the MA program and the Medicare prescription drug benefit, we have substantial responsibilities to provide information to Medicare beneficiaries about the range of health plan options and benefits available, and to develop better tools to evaluate these plans and benefits.

The Affordable Care Act (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. 111-148, and Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, Pub. L. 111-152) expanded the availability of other options for health care coverage and enacted a number of changes to Medicare as well as to Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). Qualified individuals and qualified employers are now able to purchase private health insurance coverage through a competitive marketplace, called an Affordable Insurance Exchange (also called Health Insurance MarketplaceSM or MarketplaceSM). In order to effectively implement and administer these changes, we must provide information to consumers, providers, and other stakeholders through education and outreach programs regarding how existing programs will change and the expanded range of health coverage options available, including private health insurance coverage through the MarketplaceSM. The Panel allows us to consider a broad range of views and information from interested audiences in connection with this effort and to identify opportunities to enhance the effectiveness of education strategies concerning the Affordable Care Act.

The scope of this panel also includes advising on issues pertaining to the education of providers and stakeholders with respect to the Affordable Care Act and certain provisions of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act enacted as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA).

On January 21, 2011, the Panel's charter was renewed and the Panel was renamed the Advisory Panel for Outreach and Education. The Panel's charter was most recently renewed on January 21, 2017, and will terminate on January 21, 2019 unless renewed by appropriate action.

Under the current charter, the APOE will advise the Secretary and the Administrator on optimal strategies for the following:

• Developing and implementing education and outreach programs for individuals enrolled in, or eligible for, Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), or coverage available through the Health Insurance MarketplaceSM.

• Enhancing the federal government's effectiveness in informing Health Insurance MarketplaceSM, Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP consumers, issuers, providers, and stakeholders, through education and outreach programs, on issues regarding these programs, including the appropriate use of public-private partnerships to leverage the resources of the private sector in educating beneficiaries, providers, and stakeholders.

• Expanding outreach to vulnerable and underserved communities, including racial and ethnic minorities, in the context of Health Insurance MarketplaceSM, Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP education programs.

• Assembling and sharing an information base of “best practices” for helping consumers evaluate health coverage options.

• Building and leveraging existing community infrastructures for information, counseling, and assistance.

• Drawing the program link between outreach and education, promoting consumer understanding of health care coverage choices, and facilitating consumer selection/enrollment, which in turn support the overarching goal of improved access to quality care, including prevention services, envisioned under the Affordable Care Act.

The current members of the Panel are: Kellan Baker, Associate Director, Center for American Progress; Robert Blancato, President, Matz, Blancato & Associates; Dale Blasier, Professor of Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of Orthopaedics, Arkansas Children's Hospital; Deborah Britt, Executive Director of Community & Public Relations, Piedmont Fayette Hospital; Deena Chisolm, Associate Professor of Pediatrics & Public Health, The Ohio State University, Nationwide Children's Hospital; Josephine DeLeon, Director, Anti-Poverty Initiatives, Catholic Charities of California; Robert Espinoza, Vice President of Policy, Paraprofessional Healthcare Institute; Louise Scherer Knight, Director, The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins; Roanne Osborne-Gaskin, M.D., Senior Medical Director, MDWise, Inc.; Cathy Phan, Outreach and Education Coordinator, Asian American Health Coalition DBA HOPE Clinic; Kamilah Pickett, Litigation Support, Independent Contractor; Brendan Riley, Outreach and Enrollment Coordinator, NC Community Health Center Association; Alvia Siddiqi, Medicaid Managed Care Community Network (MCCN) Medical Director, Advocate Physician Partners, Carla Smith, Executive Vice President, Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS); Tobin Van Ostern, Vice President and Co-Founder, Young Invincibles Advisors; and Paula Villescaz, Senior Consultant, Assembly Health Committee, California State Legislature.

In accordance with section 10(a) of the FACA, this notice announces a meeting of the APOE. The agenda for the March 22, 2017 meeting will include the following:

Individuals or organizations that wish to make a 5-minute oral presentation on an agenda topic should submit a written copy of the oral presentation to the DFO at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section of this notice by the date listed in the DATES section of this notice. The number of oral presentations may be limited by the time available. Individuals not wishing to make an oral presentation may submit written comments to the DFO at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section of this notice by the date listed in the DATES section of this notice.

This meeting will be held in a federal government building; therefore, federal security measures are applicable. The Real ID Act, enacted in 2005, establishes minimum standards for the issuance of state-issued driver's licenses and identification (ID) cards. It prohibits federal agencies from accepting an official driver's license or ID card from a state unless the Department of Homeland Security determines that the state meets these standards. Beginning October 2015, photo IDs (such as a valid driver's license) issued by a state or territory not in compliance with the Real ID Act will not be accepted as identification to enter federal buildings. Visitors from these states/territories will need to provide alternative proof of identification (such as a valid passport) to gain entrance into CMS buildings. The current list of states from which a federal agency may accept driver's licenses for an official purpose is found at http://www.dhs.gov/real-id-enforcement-brief. We recommend that confirmed registrants arrive reasonably early, but no earlier than 45 minutes prior to the start of the meeting, to allow additional time to clear security. Security measures include the following:

• Presentation of government issued photographic identification to the Federal Protective Service or Guard Service personnel.

• Inspection of vehicle's interior and exterior (this includes engine and trunk inspection) at the entrance to the grounds. Parking permits and instructions will be issued after the vehicle inspection.

• Inspection, via metal detector or other applicable means, of all persons entering the building. We note that all items brought into CMS, whether personal or for the purpose of presentation or to support a presentation, are subject to inspection. We cannot assume responsibility for coordinating the receipt, transfer, transport, storage, set up, safety, or timely arrival of any personal belongings or items used for presentation or to support a presentation.

All visitors must be escorted in areas other than the lower and first floor levels in the Central Building.

Authority:

42 U.S.C. 7384q(b). 42 U.S.C. 7384l(14)(C).

On January 4, 2017, as provided for under 42 U.S.C. 7384l(14)(C), the Secretary of HHS designated the following class of employees as an addition to the SEC:

This designation became effective on February 3, 2017. Therefore, beginning on February 3, 2017, members of this class of employees, defined as reported in this notice, became members of the SEC.

Authority:

42 CFR 83.9-83.12.

Pursuant to 42 CFR 83.12, the initial proposed definition for the class being evaluated, subject to revision as warranted by the evaluation, is as follows:

Facility: Area IV of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory.

Location: Eastern Ventura County, California.

Job Titles and/or Job Duties: All employees of North American Aviation, including corporate successors and subcontractors, who worked at site Area IV of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory (SSFL).

Period of Employment: August 1, 1991 through June 30, 1993.

Authority:

42 U.S.C. 7384q(b). 42 U.S.C. 7384l(14)(C).

On January 6, 2017, as provided for under 42 U.S.C. 7384l(14)(C), the Secretary of HHS designated the following class of employees as an addition to the SEC:

This designation became effective on February 5, 2017. Therefore, beginning on February 5, 2017, members of this class of employees, defined as reported in this notice, became members of the SEC.

Notice is hereby given pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13, that Intertek USA, Inc., 1881 W. State Rd. 84, Bay 105, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33315, has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13. Intertek USA, Inc., is approved for the following gauging procedures for petroleum and certain petroleum products from the American Petroleum Institute (API):

Intertek USA, Inc., is accredited for the following laboratory analysis procedures and methods for petroleum and certain petroleum products set forth by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Laboratory Methods (CBPL) and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM):

Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to [email protected]. Please reference the Web site listed below for a complete listing of CBP approved gaugers and accredited laboratories. http://www.cbp.gov/about/labs-scientific/commercial-gaugers-and-laboratories

Notice is hereby given pursuant to 19 CFR 151.13, that Intertek USA, Inc., 4951A East Adamo Drive, Suite 130, Tampa, FL 33605, has been approved to gauge petroleum and petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.13. Intertek USA, Inc., is approved for the following gauging procedures for petroleum and certain petroleum products set forth by the American Petroleum Institute (API):

Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to [email protected]. Please reference the Web site listed below for a complete listing of CBP approved gaugers and accredited laboratories. http://www.cbp.gov/about/labs-scientific/commercial-gaugers-and-laboratories.

Notice is hereby given pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13, that Camin Cargo Control, Inc., 201 Texas Ave., La Marque, TX 77568, has been approved to gauge and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13. Camin Cargo Control, Inc., is approved for the following gauging procedures for petroleum and certain petroleum products set forth by the American Petroleum Institute (API):

Camin Cargo Control, Inc., is accredited for the following laboratory analysis procedures and methods for petroleum and certain petroleum products set forth by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Laboratory Methods (CBPL) and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM):