64824 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–HQ–ES–2023–0027; 

FXES1113090FEDR–234–FF09E22000] 

RIN 1018–BA54 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Technical Corrections for 

Eight Species of Endangered and 

Threatened Fish and Wildlife 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), correct the 

information provided in the ‘‘Where 

listed’’ column of the List of Endangered 

and Threatened Wildlife (List) for eight 

species listed as endangered species 

under the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended (Act). Errors 

introduced into the List may be 

interpreted as indicating that only some 

populations of these species are listed. 

We are correcting the List to clarify that 

protections apply to these species 

wherever found. 

DATES: This rule is effective December 

19, 2023 without further action, unless 

significant adverse comment is received 

by October 20, 2023. If significant 

adverse comment is received, we will 

publish a timely withdrawal of the 

applicable portions of this rule in the 

Federal Register. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by one of the following methods: 

• Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: https://

www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, 

enter FWS–HQ–ES–2023–0027, which 

is the docket number for this 

rulemaking. Then, click the Search 

button. In the Search panel on the left 

side of the screen, under the Document 

Type heading, click on the box next to 

Rule to locate this document. You may 

submit a comment by clicking on 

‘‘Comment.’’ 

• By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail 

or hand-delivery to: Public Comments 

Processing, Attn: FWS–HQ–ES–2023– 

0027, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

MS: PRB (JAO/3W); 5275 Leesburg Pike, 

Falls Church, VA 22041–3803. 

See Public Comments under 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for more 

information about submitting 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Elizabeth Maclin, Chief, Division of 

Restoration and Recovery, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, 

MS:ES, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls 

Church, VA 22041–3803; telephone 

703–358–2646. Individuals in the 

United States who are deaf, deafblind, 

hard of hearing, or have a speech 

disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or 

TeleBraille) to access 

telecommunications relay services. 

Individuals outside the United States 

should use the relay services offered 

within their country to make 

international calls to the point-ofcontact in the United States. For 

information on a particular species, 

contact the appropriate person listed in 

table 1 under SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION, below. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Purpose of Direct Final Rule and Next 

Steps 

The purpose of this direct final rule 

is to revise the List to reflect the correct 

geographical scope of the listing of eight 

endangered wildlife species under 

section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq.). The List is set forth in title 50 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 

§ 17.11(h) (50 CFR 17.11(h)). Table 1 

shows the species for which we are 

correcting the information provided in 

the ‘‘Where listed’’ column of the List, 

as well as the name, telephone number, 

and U.S. mail address of the person to 

contact for additional information on a 

particular species. 

TABLE 1—SPECIES WITH CORRECTED ENTRIES AND CONTACT INFORMATION

Common name Scientific name Contact person, phone Contact person’s U.S. mail address 

Margay ..................................... Leopardus (=Felis) wiedii ....... Rachel London, Branch Chief, 

703–358–2491.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041. 

Condor, California .................... Gymnogyps californianus ....... Ashleigh Blackford, California 

Condor Coordinator, 916– 

414–6464.

Pacific Southwest Regional Office, 2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento, CA 95825. 

Kite, Everglade snail ................ Rostrhamus sociabilis 

plumbeus.

Victoria Garcia, 772–562– 

3909.

Vero Beach Fish and Wildlife Office, 1339 

20th Street, Vero Beach, FL 32960–3559. 

Parrot, thick-billed .................... Rhynchopsitta pachyrhyncha Heather Whitlaw, Field Supervisor, 602–242–0210.Arizona Ecological Services Office, 9828 

North 31st Avenue, #C3, Phoenix, AZ 

85051–2517. 

Rail, light-footed Ridgway’s ...... Rallus obsoletus levipes ......... Lauren Kershek and Sandra 

Hamilton, 760–431–9440.

Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, 2177 Salk 

Avenue, Suite 250, Carlsbad, CA 92008. 

Rail, Yuma Ridgway’s .............. Rallus obsoletus yumanensis Heather Whitlaw, Field Supervisor, 602–242–0210.Arizona Ecological Services Office, 9828 

North 31st Avenue, #C3, Phoenix, AZ 

85051–2517. 

Topminnow, Gila ...................... Poeciliopsis occidentalis ......... Heather Whitlaw, Field Supervisor, 602–242–0210.Arizona Ecological Services Office, 9828 

North 31st Avenue, #C3, Phoenix, AZ 

85051–2517. 

Skipper, Carson wandering ...... Pseudocopaeodes eunus 

obscurus.

Lara Enders, 775–861–6300 .. Reno Fish and Wildlife Office, 1340 Financial 

Boulevard, Suite 234, Reno, NV 89502– 

7147. 

We are publishing this rule without a 

prior proposal because this is a 

noncontroversial action that, in the best 

interest of the public, should be 

undertaken as quickly as possible. This 

rule will be effective, as published in 

this document, on the effective date 

specified above in DATES, unless we 

receive significant adverse comments on 

or before the comment due date 

specified above in DATES. Significant 

adverse comments are comments that 

provide strong justification as to why 

our rule should not be adopted or why 

it should be changed. 

If we receive significant adverse 

comments, we will publish a document 

in the Federal Register withdrawing 

this rule for the species in question 

before the effective date, and we will 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 64825 

determine whether to engage in the 

normal rulemaking process to 

promulgate changes to 50 CFR 17.11(h) 

for that species. 

Public Comments 

You may submit your comments and 

materials regarding this direct final rule 

by one of the methods listed in 

ADDRESSES. Please include sufficient 

information with your comments that 

allows us to verify any scientific or 

commercial information you include. 

We will not consider comments sent by 

email or fax, or to an address not listed 

in ADDRESSES. We will not consider 

hand-delivered comments that we do 

not receive, or mailed comments that 

are not postmarked, by the date 

specified in DATES. 

We will post all comments on https:// 

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information you provide us. Before 

including your address, phone number, 

email address, or other personal 

information in your comment, you 

should be aware that your entire 

comment—including your personal 

identifying information—may be made 

publicly available at any time. While 

you can ask us in your comment to 

withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

Comments and materials we receive, 

as well as supporting documentation we 

use in preparing this direct final rule, 

will be available for public inspection 

on the internet at https://

www.regulations.gov or by appointment, 

during normal business hours at the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Please 

note that comments posted to https://

www.regulations.gov are not 

immediately viewable. When you 

submit a comment, the system receives 

it immediately. However, the comment 

will not be publicly viewable until we 

post it, which might not occur until 

several days after submission. 

Information regarding this rule is 

available in alternative formats upon 

request (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT). 

Background for the Current List 

In accordance with 50 CFR 17.11(a), 

the ‘‘Common name,’’ ‘‘Scientific 

name,’’ ‘‘Where listed,’’ and ‘‘Status’’ 

columns of the List provide regulatory 

information; together, they identify 

listed wildlife species within the 

meaning of the Act and describe where 

they are protected. Under 50 CFR 

17.11(d), the ‘‘Where listed’’ column 

sets forth the geographic area where the 

species is listed for purposes of the Act. 

Except when providing a geographic 

description of a distinct population 

segment (DPS) of vertebrate fish or 

wildlife, an evolutionary significant unit 

of salmon stock, or an experimental 

population designation, ‘‘Wherever 

found’’ is used to indicate that the Act’s 

protections apply to all individuals of 

the species, wherever found. If only 

specific populations of the species are 

included in the listed entity, then those 

populations are specifically described in 

the ‘‘Where listed’’ column and the 

name of the population listed is 

included in brackets in the ‘‘Common 

name’’ column. 

We note that in 2016 we revised the 

format of the List at 50 CFR 17.11(h) and 

the List of Endangered and Threatened 

Plants at 50 CFR 17.12(h) (2016 

revision; 81 FR 51550, August 4, 2016). 

Among other things, the 2016 revision 

changed the former column heading of 

‘‘Vertebrate population where 

threatened or endangered’’ to ‘‘Where 

listed.’’ Information in this column for 

non-DPS listings was changed from 

‘‘Entire’’ (or ‘‘do’’ for ‘‘ditto’’) to 

‘‘Wherever found.’’ The 2016 revision 

revised this column heading and its 

information to reflect their meaning and 

usage more accurately, but also to 

provide equivalent information and 

have the same regulatory effect. For a 

detailed description of the changes to 

the format of the Lists, see the 2016 

revision. 

In this rule, discussion of entries in 

the List prior to the 2016 revision may 

reference the column headings and 

information of the previous format. The 

columns ‘‘Where listed’’ and 

‘‘Vertebrate population where 

endangered or threatened,’’ and the 

information ‘‘Wherever found’’ and 

‘‘Entire’’ (or ‘‘do’’), are synonymous. 

Background for the Corrections in This 

Direct Final Rule 

The Service has identified several 

species that appear in the List as if they 

are listed under the Act as a DPS even 

though we listed them as endangered 

species in their entirety. Information in 

the ‘‘Where listed’’ column in the List 

erroneously describes these species as 

population listings. Review of the listing 

histories of these species indicates that 

they are protected in their entirety 

despite their appearance in the List as 

DPS listings that protect only certain 

populations of the taxonomic species or 

subspecies. These species are the 

Mexican grizzly bear (Ursus arctos), 

northern swift fox (Vulpes velox hebes), 

margay (Leopardus wiedii), California 

condor (Gymnogyps californianus), 

Everglade snail kite (Rostrhamus 

sociabilis plumbeus), thick-billed parrot 

(Rhynchopsitta pachyrhyncha), lightfooted Ridgway’s rail (Rallus obsoletus 

levipes), Yuma Ridgway’s rail (Rallus 

obsoletus yumanensis), Gila topminnow 

(Poeciliopsis occidentalis), and Carson 

wandering skipper (Pseudocopaeodes 

eunus obscurus). 

In this direct final rule, we are 

correcting the entries for 8 of these 10 

species. We are correcting the List at 50 

CFR 17.11(h) by revising the 

information in the ‘‘Where listed’’ 

column to ‘‘Wherever found’’ for 

margay, California condor, Everglade 

snail kite, thick-billed parrot, lightfooted Ridgway’s rail, Yuma Ridgway’s 

rail, Gila topminnow, and Carson 

wandering skipper. This action is based 

on a review of changes to the List made 

in the 1980s that erroneously altered the 

listed ranges for these species from 

‘‘Entire’’ (equivalent to ‘‘Wherever 

found’’ in the 2016 revision) to 

geographically defined DPS listings. 

We are not correcting the entries for 

Mexican grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) and 

northern swift fox (Vulpes velox hebes) 

at this time because we believe they 

may no longer be valid taxonomic 

subspecies and, therefore, may warrant 

delisting as a result. Because removal of 

Mexican grizzly bear and northern swift 

fox from the List would require 

publication of a proposed rule and 

request for public comment, it would be 

inappropriate to include those actions 

in this administrative direct final rule, 

which merely corrects errors without 

changing the listed entities or their 

statuses. Therefore, we will not correct 

the entries for Mexican grizzly bear and 

northern swift fox pending further 

review of their appropriate listing 

statuses. 

Below, we explain the nature and 

information known about the errors we 

are correcting in this document. 

Pre-Act Listings 

Prior to the Act, two statutes allowed 

listing of, and certain protections for, 

endangered species. In 1966, the 

Endangered Species Preservation Act 

(ESPA; Pub. L. 89–669, October 15, 

1966) provided for the listing of species 

of native fish and wildlife found to be 

threatened with extinction (see section 

1(c), 80 Stat. 926 (1966)). In 1969, the 

ESPA was amended and renamed the 

Endangered Species Conservation Act 

(ESCA; Pub. L. 91–135, December 5, 

1969). The ESCA retained, without 

change, the ESPA’s standard for listing 

native species found to be threatened 

with extinction. In addition, section 3(a) 

of the ESCA called for the Secretary to 

list species or subspecies of fish or 

wildlife deemed to be threatened with 

worldwide extinction (see Pub. L. 91– 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
64826 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

135, section 3(a), 83 Stat. 275 (1969)). 

The new standard for listing foreign 

species was codified separately from the 

standard for listing native species. 

Five species (California condor, 

Everglade snail kite, light-footed 

Ridgway’s rail, Yuma Ridgway’s rail, 

and Gila topminnow) were all listed as 

endangered native wildlife under the 

ESPA (32 FR 4001, March 11, 1967; 34 

FR 5034, March 8, 1969). These five 

species listed under the ESPA were 

transferred to the new list of endangered 

native fish and wildlife promulgated 

under the ESCA (35 FR 16047; October 

13, 1970). On June 2, 1970, we 

published a final rule adding the 

Mexican grizzly bear, northern swift fox, 

and thick-billed parrot to the list of 

endangered foreign fish and wildlife 

under the ESCA (35 FR 8491), and we 

added the margay on March 30, 1972 

(37 FR 6476). 

The Service’s new regulations 

implementing the ESCA explained, in 

particular for species listed under the 

new authority, that the entire species or 

subspecies was protected under the 

ESCA. For foreign species listings, the 

definition of ‘‘Endangered Species List’’ 

explained that it included species or 

subspecies of fish and wildlife found in 

other countries that are threatened with 

worldwide extinction (see § 17.2(g) in 

35 FR 8491, June 2, 1970). The foreign 

species list included geographic 

descriptions for each species in a 

‘‘Where found’’ column, but the 

introduction also explained that this 

information was a general guide to the 

native countries or regions where the 

named animals are found. It was not 

intended to be definitive. For domestic 

listings, the definition of ‘‘Native 

Endangered Species List’’ explained that 

it included species or subspecies of fish 

and wildlife native to the United States 

that are threatened with extinction (see 

§ 17.2(h) in 35 FR 8491, June 2, 1970). 

Listings Under the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973, as Amended 

On December 28, 1973, the current 

Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) was enacted 

and repealed the ESCA. However, 

section 4(c)(3) of the Act provided that 

any list of endangered species issued 

under the ESCA was to be republished, 

without public hearing or comment, as 

the initial list of species under the Act 

(Pub. L. 93–205, section 4(c)(3), 87 Stat. 

884, 888 (1973)). (Section 4(c)(3) was 

repealed in a subsequent amendment of 

the Act because it had no legal effect 

once the earlier lists had been 

republished.) Thus, those species 

previously listed under the ESPA or 

ESCA were automatically provided 

protection under the newly enacted 

Endangered Species Act. Accordingly, 

these species were transferred to the 

lists of endangered species published 

pursuant to the Act, with the Service 

originally keeping separate lists for 

native and foreign species (see the 1974 

issue of the CFR at 50 CFR 17.11 

(Endangered foreign wildlife) and 50 

CFR 17.12 (Endangered native 

wildlife)). 

One of the major changes between the 

Act and the prior ESPA and ESCA was 

that it provided the legal authority for 

population-based listings. Similar to the 

ESPA and the ESCA, the Act provided 

for the listing of species (or subspecies), 

but the new definition of ‘‘species’’ 

included any subspecies of fish or 

wildlife or plants and any other group 

of fish or wildlife of the same species or 

smaller taxa in common spatial 

arrangement that interbreed when 

mature (Pub. L. 93–205, section 3(11), 

87 Stat. 884, 886 (1973)). (This 

definition was amended in 1978 to the 

current statutory language in which 

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 original 

lists under the Act did not 

accommodate this option, with the 

native endangered species list 

containing only the scientific and 

common names of each protected 

species. The foreign endangered species 

list continued to include a ‘‘Where 

found’’ column, now with the further 

clarification that the information 

provided there was for the convenience 

of the public, was not exhaustive, was 

not required to be given by law, and had 

no legal significance (see 39 FR 1158, 

January 4, 1974, p. 1171). 

Consistent with the new listing option 

under the Act, the first unified list of 

native and foreign wildlife contained a 

new column, ‘‘Population’’, to provide 

for population-based listings (see 40 FR 

44412; September 26, 1975). In the 

September 26, 1975, rule, at 50 CFR 

17.11(b), the regulations explained that 

the columns entitled ‘‘Common name’’, 

‘‘Scientific name’’, and ‘‘Population’’ 

defined the ‘‘species’’ of wildlife within 

the meaning of the Act. Thus, for 

example, in that rule, the ‘‘Population’’ 

column indicated that the grizzly bear 

was listed only in the ‘‘USA (48 

conterminous States).’’ The 

‘‘Population’’ column read ‘‘N/A’’ (for 

‘‘not applicable’’) for the Mexican 

grizzly bear, northern swift fox, margay, 

California condor, Everglade snail kite, 

thick-billed parrot, light-footed 

Ridgway’s rail, Yuma Ridgway’s rail, 

and Gila topminnow, indicating that 

these were not population-based listings 

and each species was listed in its 

entirety. The September 26, 1975, rule, 

at 50 CFR 17.11(b), noted that the 

prohibitions of the Act and regulations 

apply to all specimens of the ‘‘species’’ 

listed, wherever they are found, and to 

their progeny. The September 26, 1975, 

rule also established a new column, 

‘‘Known Distribution,’’ with countries 

or geographic regions included for each 

listed species similar to the previous 

‘‘Where found’’ column; however, the 

rule explained at 50 CFR 17.11(d) that 

this column was for informational 

purposes only and did not imply any 

limitation on the application of the 

prohibitions in the Act and 50 CFR part 

17. 

It is clear, therefore, that all of these 

listed species were originally listed in 

their entirety. All were originally listed 

as endangered under either the ESPA or 

the ESCA, statutes that did not provide 

the legal authority for population-based 

listings. The ESCA and the Service’s 

regulations implementing the statute 

made it clear, especially for species 

listed under the ESCA, that listed 

species were those threatened with 

worldwide extinction. When the Act 

was enacted in 1973 (with its authority 

for population-based listings), the 

Service’s first regulations to 

accommodate population-based listings 

(through the addition of the 

‘‘Population’’ column to the List) 

indicated that the listing of these 

species was not based on the authority 

for population-based listings (through 

the use of ‘‘N/A,’’ or not applicable, in 

the ‘‘Population’’ column). The CFR 

continued to reflect that all these 

species were listed in their entirety for 

a number of years. In 1980, the Service 

adopted the organization of the List (see 

the 1980 edition of the CFR at 50 CFR 

17.11(h)) that immediately preceded the 

current format adopted in 2016. The 

‘‘Population’’ column was removed and 

a new column—‘‘Vertebrate population 

where endangered or threatened’’— 

indicated whether a species was listed 

in its entirety or whether it was a DPS 

listing. 

For six of these species, the Mexican 

grizzly bear, California condor, 

Everglade snail kite, light-footed 

Ridgway’s rail, Yuma Ridgway’s rail, 

and Gila topminnow, the 1980 list 

indicated that all six of the species at 

issue here were listed in their entirety 

(i.e., the word ‘‘Entire’’ appears for each 

one in the ‘‘Vertebrate population where 

endangered or threatened’’ column of 

the List) (see the 1980 edition of the 

CFR at 50 CFR 17.11(h)). Then in the 

mid-1980s, the information in the 

‘‘Vertebrate population where 

endangered or threatened’’ column was 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 64827 

inadvertently changed from ‘‘Entire’’ (or 

its equivalent of ‘‘do’’ for ‘‘ditto’’) for 

each of the six species to new 

information that indicated 

geographically limited listings. The only 

manner in which the scope of a listed 

entity (a taxonomic species, subspecies, 

or DPS) can be changed is through the 

rulemaking procedures specified in 

section 553 of the Administrative 

Procedure Act (APA; 5 U.S.C. 551 et 

seq.) and section 4(b)(4) of the Act, and 

those procedures were never undertaken 

for these six species. 

On July 25, 1979, we published in the 

Federal Register (44 FR 43705) a 

‘‘notification’’ document announcing 

that for seven listed species, including 

the northern swift fox, margay, and 

thick-billed parrot, with the 

consolidation of the ‘‘foreign’’ and 

‘‘native’’ species lists under the Act, the 

native populations of these species were 

not listed as endangered, although the 

foreign populations were listed and 

received all the protections of the Act. 

The document stated that the ESCA 

requires consultation with States prior 

to listing native species as endangered, 

and for the seven species, the Service 

had failed to consult with the governors 

of the States with U.S. populations of 

these species; therefore, the Service 

concluded that the U.S. populations 

were not listed under the Act. That July 

25, 1979, document went on to say that 

it has always been the intent of the 

Service that all populations of those 

species deserve to be listed as 

endangered, whether they occur in the 

United States or in foreign countries; 

that the status of these native 

populations is truly endangered; and 

that it is only as a result of an oversight 

that the native populations of these 

species are currently excluded from the 

protections of the Act. 

No rulemakings to change the scope 

of the northern swift fox, margay, or 

thick-billed parrot listings that meet the 

requirements of section 4(b)(5) and 

4(b)(6) of the Act were ever 

promulgated, yet on May 20, 1980, we 

published a final rule (45 FR 33768) that 

republished the Lists, and in that rule, 

the entries for northern swift fox, 

margay, and thick-billed parrot were 

amended to indicate that only 

populations of the species outside the 

United States were listed under the Act. 

Specifically, the northern swift fox 

appeared as a DPS listing in ‘‘Canada,’’ 

the margay appeared as a DPS listing in 

‘‘Mexico southward,’’ and the thickbilled parrot appeared as a DPS listing 

in ‘‘Mexico.’’ The entries for the other 

four species addressed in the July 25, 

1979, ‘‘notification’’ document (44 FR 

43705) have already been corrected in 

other rulemakings and are therefore not 

addressed further in this document. 

In an April 30, 2009, memorandum 

from the Assistant Solicitor for Fish and 

Wildlife to the Director of the Fish and 

Wildlife Service, the Solicitor’s Office 

explained that these species are listed in 

their entirety despite their appearance 

as DPS listings in the List at 50 CFR 

17.11(h) (DOI 2009). As explained in the 

2009 memorandum, the Service did not 

have the legal authority to change the 

scope of the listed entity through a 

Federal Register notice. The memo 

advised us that, without going through 

the proper rulemaking procedures 

required under section 553 of the APA 

and section 4(b)(4) of the Act, the 

Service had no authority to simply 

remove the U.S. populations of the 

northern swift fox, margay, and thickbilled parrot, along with the other 

species, from their protected status 

under the Act. As a result, the 

Solicitor’s Office instructed us that the 

July 25, 1979, ‘‘notification’’ document 

(44 FR 43705) was without legal effect, 

and no other rulemakings consistent 

with the Act’s requirements occurred to 

change the listings from the species or 

subspecies level to DPSs. 

Furthermore, we were advised that 

failure to consult with a State under the 

ESCA did not invalidate the species’ 

legal status under the Act. In fact, in 

1973, Congress validated the lists under 

the ESCA by its explicit incorporation of 

them into the Act through section 

4(c)(3) of the Act. Also, for species 

where there were no populations within 

the United States at the time of the 

listing, there were no States with which 

to consult. This may have been the case 

with at least two of the species at issue 

here. For example, the last verified 

report of the thick-billed parrot in the 

United States was in the 1930s, decades 

before it was listed as endangered under 

the ESCA (see 45 FR 49844, July 25, 

1980). The margay was known in the 

United States from a single specimen 

taken in Texas, and by 1980, there were 

almost certainly no resident populations 

in the United States (see 45 FR 49844, 

July 25, 1980). 

The 2009 memorandum concluded 

that the changes to the CFR in the 

1980s, indicating that only a particular 

DPS of each of these species is 

endangered while the remainder of the 

species is not protected under the Act, 

are without legal effect because the 

Service had no authority to change the 

scope of the listed entity without 

following the rulemaking procedures 

required by section 553 of the APA and 

section 4(b)(4) of the Act. Therefore, 

these species continue to be listed in 

their entirety despite their appearance 

as DPS listings in the CFR. As such, we 

are correcting the List to read 

‘‘Wherever found’’ in the ‘‘Where 

listed’’ column for the following 

species: margay, Everglade snail kite, 

thick-billed parrot, light-footed 

Ridgway’s rail, Yuma Ridgway’s rail, 

and Gila topminnow. Likewise, we are 

correcting the information in the 

‘‘Where listed’’ column of the California 

condor’s entry to read, ‘‘Wherever 

found, except where listed as an 

experimental population.’’ (As noted 

above, we are not correcting the entries 

for Mexican grizzly bear and northern 

swift fox at this time due to the 

likelihood that they are not valid 

subspecies.) 

The final species with an erroneous 

entry is the Carson wandering skipper, 

a subspecies of butterfly, which 

incorrectly appears as a DPS listing 

despite being listed in its entirety. The 

Service listed the Carson wandering 

skipper as an endangered species on 

August 7, 2002 (67 FR 51116). The final 

rule amended the List to indicate 

‘‘U.S.A., (Lassen County, CA; Washoe 

County, NV)’’ in the ‘‘Vertebrate 

population where endangered or 

threatened’’ column. However, the 

Service intended to list the subspecies 

in its entirety. The rulemaking analyzed 

the status of the species rangewide and 

did not include a DPS analysis. In 

addition, the locations included in the 

‘‘Vertebrate population where 

endangered or threatened’’ column 

encompassed the entire known range of 

the species at the time of its listing. 

The Service also lacks the legal 

authority to list a DPS of this or any 

invertebrate subspecies. The Act’s 

section 4(a)(1) authorizes the Service to 

determine whether any species is an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species. The term ‘‘species,’’ as defined 

in the Act (see section 3(16)), includes 

any distinct population segment of any 

species of vertebrate fish or wildlife 

which interbreeds when mature. 

Distinct population segments of 

invertebrate wildlife do not fall within 

the Act’s definition of ‘‘species.’’ 

Accordingly, DPSs of invertebrate 

wildlife cannot be included on the List. 

Instead, when the Service determines 

that a species of invertebrate wildlife is 

endangered or threatened, the species 

may only be listed in its entirety. 

Because the rulemaking analyzed the 

species in its entirety and the Service 

was without legal authority to list a 

subspecies of butterfly as a DPS, the 

subspecies is in fact listed in its entirety 

despite its appearance as a DPS listing 

in the CFR. Therefore, we are correcting 

the List by replacing ‘‘U.S.A., (Lassen 

County, CA; Washoe County, NV)’’ with 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
64828 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

‘‘Wherever found’’ in the ‘‘Where 

listed’’ column in the entry for the 

Carson wandering skipper. 

Correction of Listed Range 

The table below summarizes 

information regarding the entries in the 

List at 50 CFR 17.11(h) for each of the 

species, followed by a narrative 

description of the changes being made 

to the entries. Please note that we do not 

include a narrative description for the 

Carson wandering skipper, as that 

description is provided above. 

TABLE 2—LIST OF CORRECTIONS

Species Scientific name Original listing Date of incorporated 

error 

Current ‘‘where listed’’ 

information 

Corrected ‘‘where listed’’ 

information 

Margay ............................. Leopardus (=Felis) wiedii 37 FR 6476; 3/30/1972 .. 5/20/1980 (45 FR 33768) Mexico southward .......... Wherever found. 

California condor ............. Gymnogyps californianus 32 FR 4001; 3/11/1967 .. 1987 (1987 edition of 

CFR).

U.S.A. only, except 

where listed as an experimental population.

Wherever found, except 

where listed as an experimental population. 

Everglade snail kite ......... Rostrhamus sociabilis 

plumbeus.

32 FR 4001; 3/11/1967 .. 1986 (1986 edition of 

CFR).

U.S.A. (FL) ..................... Wherever found. 

Thick-billed parrot ............ Rhynchopsitta 

pachyrhyncha.

35 FR 8491; 6/2/1970 .... 5/20/1980 (45 FR 33768) Mexico ............................ Wherever found. 

Light-footed Ridgway’s 

rail.

Rallus obsoletus levipes 34 FR 5034; 3/8/1969 .... 1988 (1988 edition of 

CFR).

U.S.A. only ..................... Wherever found. 

Yuma Ridgway’s rail ........ Rallus obsoletus 

yumanensis.

32 FR 4001; 3/11/1967 .. 1988 (1988 edition of 

CFR).

U.S.A. only ..................... Wherever found. 

Gila topminnow ................ Poeciliopsis occidentalis 32 FR 4001; 3/11/1967 .. 1988 (1988 edition of 

CFR).

U.S.A. only ..................... Wherever found. 

Carson wandering skipper Pseudocopaeodes eunus 

obscurus.

67 FR 51116; 8/7/2002 .. 8/7/2002 (67 FR 51116) U.S.A., (Lassen County, 

CA; Washoe County, 

NV).

Wherever found. 

Corrected Species Where Listed 

Margay (Leopardus (=Felis) Wiedii) 

The margay was originally listed as 

endangered under the ESCA of 1969 (37 

FR 6476; March 30, 1972). Currently, 

the information in the ‘‘Where listed’’ 

column for this species reads, ‘‘Mexico 

southward.’’ As explained above, this 

current information erroneously 

indicates that protections are afforded 

only to a subset of the species as a DPS. 

We are correcting the margay’s entry in 

the List at 50 CFR 17.11(h) so that the 

information in the ‘‘Where listed’’ 

column reads, ‘‘Wherever found.’’ This 

correction reflects the intent of the 

original listing that the species, not a 

DPS, is in danger of extinction and that 

protections of the Act extend to all 

individuals of the species wherever 

found. Currently, the species is known 

to occur in Mexico and southward in 

Central and South America. There is a 

single record of a specimen taken in 

United States in Texas, and it is 

believed that there are no resident 

margay populations in the United 

States. Regardless, because the species 

is listed in its entirety and protections 

of the Act extend to all individuals of 

the species wherever found, any 

individual of the species found in the 

United States would be afforded the full 

protections of the Act. This correction 

does not change the description, 

distribution, or endangered status of the 

margay. 

California Condor (Gymnogyps 

Californianus) 

The California condor was originally 

listed as endangered under the ESPA of 

1966 (32 FR 4001; March 11, 1967). In 

1996, a nonessential experimental 

population of condors was established 

in Arizona, and special regulations 

pursuant to that rulemaking apply to the 

population of California condors found 

in parts of Arizona, Utah, and Nevada 

(61 FR 54044; October 16, 1996). 

Subsequently, another nonessential 

experimental population of condors was 

established in the Pacific Northwest, 

and special regulations pursuant to that 

rulemaking apply to the population of 

California condors found in Oregon, and 

specific portions of northern California 

and northwest Nevada (86 FR 15602; 

March 24, 2021). 

Currently, in the California condor’s 

first (original) entry on the List, the 

information in the ‘‘Where listed’’ 

column reads, ‘‘U.S.A. only, except 

where listed as an experimental 

population.’’ As explained above, this 

current information erroneously 

indicates that protections are afforded 

only to a subset of the species as a DPS. 

We are correcting that entry’s ‘‘Where 

listed’’ information to read, ‘‘Wherever 

found, except where listed as an 

experimental population.’’ This 

correction reflects the intent of the 

original listing that the species, not a 

DPS, is in danger of extinction and that 

protections of the Act extend to all 

individuals of the species wherever 

found, except as modified by the current 

nonessential experimental population 

designations and their associated rules. 

Currently, the species is known to occur 

in the United States in California, 

northern Arizona, southern Utah, 

Nevada, and Oregon. This correction 

does not change the description, 

distribution, or endangered status of the 

California condor. 

In addition, in the California condor’s 

first (original) entry on the List, in the 

‘‘Listing citations and applicable rules’’ 

column, we are removing the Federal 

Register citation for the rule 

establishing the nonessential 

experimental population of condors in 

Arizona. The subject rule will continue 

to be cited under the appropriate entry 

in the List. This correction ensures 

consistency in our presentation of 

citations in the List. 

Everglade Snail Kite (Rostrhamus 

Sociabilis Plumbeus) 

The Everglade snail kite was 

originally listed as endangered under 

the ESPA of 1966 (32 FR 4001; March 

11, 1967). Currently, the information in 

the ‘‘Where listed’’ column for this 

subspecies reads, ‘‘U.S.A. (FL).’’ As 

explained above, this current 

information erroneously indicates that 

protections are afforded only to a subset 

of the subspecies as a DPS. We are 

correcting the Everglade snail kite’s 

entry in the List at 50 CFR 17.11(h) so 

that the information in the ‘‘Where 

listed’’ column reads, ‘‘Wherever 

found.’’ This correction reflects the 

intent of the original listing that the 

subspecies, not a DPS, is in danger of 

extinction and that protections of the 

Act extend to all individuals of the 

subspecies wherever found. Currently, 

the subspecies is known to occur in the 

United States in Florida and in Cuba. 

This correction does not change the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 64829 

description, distribution, or endangered 

status of the Everglade snail kite. 

In addition, we are making a 

nonsubstantive correction to the 

information in the ‘‘Common name’’ 

column of the Everglade snail kite’s 

entry to present the standard usage. 

Thick-Billed Parrot (Rhynchopsitta 

Pachyrhyncha) 

The thick-billed parrot was originally 

listed as endangered under the ESCA of 

1969 (35 FR 8491; June 2, 1970). 

Currently, the information in the 

‘‘Where listed’’ column for this species 

reads, ‘‘Mexico.’’ As explained above, 

this current information erroneously 

indicates that protections are afforded 

only to a subset of the species as a DPS. 

We are correcting the thick-billed 

parrot’s entry in the List at 50 CFR 

17.11(h) so that the information in the 

‘‘Where listed’’ column reads, 

‘‘Wherever found.’’ This correction 

reflects the intent of the original listing 

that the species, not a DPS, is in danger 

of extinction and that protections of the 

Act extend to all individuals of the 

species wherever found. Currently, the 

species is known to occur primarily in 

Mexico. Historically the thick-billed 

parrot’s range extended as far north as 

the mountains of southeastern Arizona 

and possibly southwestern New Mexico, 

but whether the species ever bred 

historically in the United States has not 

been confirmed. The last confirmed 

sighting of a naturally occurring flock in 

the United States was in 1938, in the 

Chiricahua Mountains of Arizona. 

However, should individuals of the 

species be found in the United States in 

the future, pursuant to the original 

listing, they will be afforded the full 

protections of the Act. This correction 

does not change the description, 

distribution, or endangered status of the 

thick-billed parrot. 

Light-Footed Ridgway’s Rail (Rallus 

Obsoletus Levipes) 

The light-footed Ridgway’s rail was 

originally listed as endangered under 

the ESPA of 1966 (34 FR 5034; March 

8, 1969). The species name on the List 

was recently revised to reflect the 

current scientifically accepted 

taxonomy and nomenclature (88 FR 

49314; July 31, 2023). Currently, the 

information in the ‘‘Where listed’’ 

column for this subspecies reads, 

‘‘U.S.A. only.’’ As explained above, this 

current information erroneously 

indicates that protections are afforded 

only to a subset of the subspecies as a 

DPS. We are correcting the light-footed 

Ridgway’s rail’s entry in the List at 50 

CFR 17.11(h) so that the information in 

the ‘‘Where listed’’ column reads, 

‘‘Wherever found.’’ This correction 

reflects the intent of the original listing 

that the subspecies, not a DPS, is in 

danger of extinction and that 

protections of the Act extend to all 

individuals of the subspecies wherever 

found. Currently, the subspecies is 

known to occur in the United States in 

California and in Mexico in Baja 

California. This correction does not 

change the description, distribution, or 

endangered status of the light-footed 

Ridgway’s rail. 

Yuma Ridgway’s Rail (Rallus Obsoletus 

Yumanensis) 

The Yuma Ridgway’s rail was 

originally listed as endangered under 

the ESPA of 1966 (32 FR 4001; March 

11, 1967). Currently the information in 

the ‘‘Where listed’’ column for this 

subspecies reads, ‘‘U.S.A. only.’’ As 

explained above, this current 

information erroneously indicates that 

protections are afforded only to a subset 

of the subspecies as a DPS. We are 

correcting the Yuma Ridgway’s rail’s 

entry in the List at 50 CFR 17.11(h) so 

that the information in the ‘‘Where 

listed’’ column reads, ‘‘Wherever 

found.’’ This correction reflects the 

intent of the original listing that the 

subspecies, not a DPS, is in danger of 

extinction and that protections of the 

Act extend to all individuals of the 

subspecies wherever found. Currently, 

the subspecies is known to occur in the 

United States in Arizona and California 

and in Mexico. This correction does not 

change the description, distribution, or 

endangered status of the Yuma 

Ridgway’s rail. 

Gila Topminnow (Poeciliopsis 

Occidentalis) 

The Gila topminnow was originally 

listed as endangered under the ESPA of 

1966 (32 FR 4001; March 11, 1967). 

Currently, the information in the 

‘‘Where listed’’ column for this species 

reads, ‘‘U.S.A. only.’’ As explained 

above, this current information 

erroneously indicates that protections 

are afforded only to a subset of the 

species as a DPS. We are correcting the 

Gila topminnow’s entry in the List at 50 

CFR 17.11(h) so that the information in 

the ‘‘Where listed’’ column reads, 

‘‘Wherever found.’’ This correction 

reflects the intent of the original listing 

that the species, not a DPS, is in danger 

of extinction and that protections of the 

Act extend to all individuals of the 

species wherever found. Currently, the 

species is known to occur in Arizona 

and New Mexico in the United States, 

and in Sonora in Mexico. This 

correction does not change the 

description, distribution, or endangered 

status of the Gila topminnow. 

Determinations 

Clarity of the Rule 

We are required by Executive Orders 

12866 and 12988 and by the 

Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 

1998, to write all rules in plain 

language. This means that each rule we 

publish must: 

(a) Be logically organized; 

(b) Use the active voice to address 

readers directly; 

(c) Use clear language rather than 

jargon; 

(d) Be divided into short sections and 

sentences; and 

(e) Use lists and tables wherever 

possible. 

If you feel that we have not met these 

requirements, send us comments by one 

of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To 

help us to revise this rule, your 

comments should be as specific as 

possible. For example, you should tell 

us the numbers of the sections or 

paragraphs that are unclearly written, 

which sections or sentences are too 

long, the sections where you feel lists or 

tables would be useful, etc. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

We have determined that 

environmental assessments and 

environmental impact statements, as 

defined under the authority of the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), 

need not be prepared in connection 

with regulations issued pursuant to 

section 4(a) of the Act. We published a 

notice outlining our reasons for this 

determination in the Federal Register 

on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). 

Even if NEPA were to apply, this 

amendment of the regulations is purely 

administrative in nature, and therefore 

is categorically excluded under the 

Department of the Interior’s NEPA 

procedures in 43 CFR 46.210(i); no 

exceptional circumstances apply. 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994, 

‘‘Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments’’ (59 FR 22951), Executive 

Order 13175, and the Department of the 

Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we 

readily acknowledge our responsibility 

to communicate meaningfully with 

recognized Federal Tribes on a 

government-to-government basis. In 

accordance with Secretary’s Order 3206 

of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
64830 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust 

Responsibilities, and the Endangered 

Species Act), we readily acknowledge 

our responsibilities to work directly 

with Tribes in developing programs for 

healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that 

Tribal lands are not subject to the same 

controls as Federal public lands, to 

remain sensitive to Indian culture, and 

to make information available to Tribes. 

We have determined that this rule will 

not affect Tribes or Tribal lands. 

References Cited 

A complete list of the referenced 

materials is provided in Docket No. 

FWS–HQ–ES–2023–0027 at https://

regulations.gov or is available upon 

request from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT). 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Plants, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation, Wildlife. 

Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we amend part 17, 

subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth 

below: 

PART 17—ENDANGERED AND 

THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– 

1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise 

noted. 

■ 2. In § 17.11, amend paragraph (h), in 

the List of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife, by: 

■ a. Under MAMMALS, revising the 

entry for ‘‘Margay’’; 

■ b. Under BIRDS, revising the first 

entry for ‘‘Condor, California’’, and the 

entries for ‘‘Kite, snail (Everglade)’’’’, 

‘‘Parrot, thick-billed’’, ‘‘Rail, light-footed 

Ridgway’s’’, and ‘‘Rail, Yuma 

Ridgway’s’’; 

■ c. Under FISHES, revising the entry 

for ‘‘Topminnow, Gila (incl. Yaqui)’’; 

and 

■ d. Under INSECTS, revising the entry 

for ‘‘Skipper, Carson wandering’’. 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

Common name Scientific name Where listed Status Listing citations and applicable rules 

MAMMALS

* * * * * * * 

Margay .................................... Leopardus (=Felis) wiedii ...... Wherever found ..................... E .................... 37 FR 6476, 3/30/1972. 

* * * * * * * 

BIRDS

*******

Condor, California .................. Gymnogyps californianus ...... Wherever found, except 

where listed as an experimental population.

E .................... 32 FR 4001, 3/11/1967; 50 

CFR 17.95(b).CH

* * * * * * * 

Kite, Everglade snail .............. Rostrhamus sociabilis 

plumbeus.

Wherever found ..................... E .................... 32 FR 4001, 3/11/1967; 50 

CFR 17.95(b).CH

* * * * * * * 

Parrot, thick-billed ................... Rhynchopsitta pachyrhyncha Wherever found ..................... E .................... 35 FR 8491, 6/2/1970. 

* * * * * * * 

Rail, light-footed Ridgway’s .... Rallus obsoletus levipes ........ Wherever found ..................... E .................... 34 FR 5034, 3/8/1969; 35 FR 

16047, 10/13/1970. 

* * * * * * * 

Rail, Yuma Ridgway’s ............ Rallus obsoletus yumanensis Wherever found ..................... E .................... 32 FR 4001, 3/11/1967. 

* * * * * * * 

FISHES

*******

Topminnow, Gila (incl. Yaqui) Poeciliopsis occidentalis ........ Wherever found ..................... E .................... 32 FR 4001, 3/11/1967. 

* * * * * * * 

INSECTS

* * * * * * * 

Skipper, Carson wandering .... Pseudo copaeodes eunus 

obscurus.

Wherever found ..................... E .................... 67 FR 51116, 8/7/2002. 

* * * * * * * 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 64831 

Martha Williams, 

Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2023–20291 Filed 9–19–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 635 

[Docket No. 230911–0216] 

RTID 0648–XC870 

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; 

Adjustments to 2023 North Atlantic 

Albacore Tuna, North and South 

Atlantic Swordfish, and Atlantic 

Bluefin Tuna Reserve Category Quotas 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary final rule. 

SUMMARY: NMFS adjusts the 2023 

baseline quotas for U.S. North Atlantic 

albacore tuna (northern albacore), North 

and South Atlantic swordfish, and the 

Atlantic bluefin Reserve category based 

on available underharvest of the 2022 

adjusted U.S. quotas. This action is 

necessary to implement binding 

recommendations of the International 

Commission for the Conservation of 

Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), as required by 

the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act 

(ATCA), and to achieve domestic 

management objectives under the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act). This action to 

adjust the quotas is only temporary and 

will be effective through December 31, 

2023. On January 1, 2024, full annual 

baseline allocations of northern 

albacore, North and South Atlantic 

swordfish, and the Atlantic bluefin tuna 

will be available to the U.S. harvest. 

DATES: Effective September 20, 2023, 

through December 31, 2023. 

ADDRESSES: Supporting documents, 

including environmental assessments 

and environmental impact statements, 

as well as the 2006 Consolidated 

Atlantic HMS Fishery Management Plan 

(FMP) and its amendments, may be 

downloaded from the Highly Migratory 

Species (HMS) website at https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/atlantichighly-migratory-species. These 

documents also are available upon 

request from Lisa Crawford or Steve 

Durkee at the email addresses and 

telephone numbers below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa 

Crawford (301–427–8503, 

lisa.crawford@noaa.gov) or Steve 

Durkee (301–427–8503, steve.durkee@

noaa.gov). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Atlantic 

HMS fisheries, including northern 

albacore, swordfish, and bluefin tuna 

fisheries, are managed under the 

authority of ATCA (16 U.S.C. 971 et 

seq.) and the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 

U.S.C. 1801 et seq.). The HMS FMP and 

its amendments are implemented by 

regulations at 50 CFR part 635. Section 

635.27(e) implements the northern 

albacore annual quota recommended by 

ICCAT and describes the annual 

northern albacore quota adjustment 

process. Section 635.27(c) implements 

the ICCAT-recommended quotas and 

describes the quota adjustment process 

for both North and South Atlantic 

swordfish. Section 635.27(a) 

implements the ICCAT-recommended 

quota and describes the annual quota 

adjustment process for bluefin tuna. 

NMFS is required under the MagnusonStevens Act to provide U.S. fishing 

vessels with a reasonable opportunity to 

harvest quotas under relevant 

international fishery agreements such as 

the ICCAT Convention, which is 

implemented domestically pursuant to 

ATCA. 

Note that, consistent with how the 

quotas are established, weight 

information for northern albacore and 

bluefin tuna below is shown in metric 

tons (mt) whole weight (ww), and 

weight information for swordfish is 

shown in both dressed weight (dw) and 

ww. 

Northern Albacore Annual Quota and 

Adjustment Process 

Consistent with the northern albacore 

quota regulations at 50 CFR 635.27(e), 

NMFS adjusts the U.S. annual northern 

albacore quota for allowable 

underharvest, if any, in the previous 

year. NMFS makes such adjustments 

consistent with ICCAT carryover limits 

and when complete catch information 

for the prior year is available and 

finalized. Consistent with ICCAT 

Recommendation 21–04, on June 1, 

2022, NMFS finalized a final rule that 

implemented a management procedure 

for northern albacore (87 FR 33049). 

This management procedure established 

a total allowable catch (TAC) of 37,801 

mt and maintained the 711.5-mt U.S. 

northern albacore quota for 2022 and 

2023. The annual baseline quota of 

711.5 mt is codified at § 635.27(e). 

Relevant to the northern albacore 

quota adjustment in this action, and as 

codified at § 635.27(e)(2), the maximum 

underharvest that an ICCAT Contracting 

Party may carry forward from one year 

to the next is 25 percent of its baseline 

quota, which equates to 177.9 mt for the 

United States. For 2022, the adjusted 

quota was 889.4 mt (711.5 mt plus 177.9 

mt of 2021 underharvest). In 2022, U.S. 

landings of northern albacore were 

310.6 mt, which is an underharvest of 

578.8 mt of the 2022 adjusted quota. 

This underharvest exceeds the 177.9-mt 

underharvest carryover limit allowed 

under Recommendation 21–04; 

therefore, only 177.9 mt may be carried 

forward to the 2023 fishing year. Thus, 

the adjusted 2023 northern albacore 

quota will be 889.4 mt (711.5 mt plus 

177.9 mt) (Table 1). 

TABLE 1—2023 NORTHERN ALBACORE QUOTA

Northern albacore quota 

(mt ww) 2022 2023 

Baseline Quota ........................................................................................................................................................ 711.5 711.5 

Underharvest from Previous Year ........................................................................................................................... 573.7 578.8 

Underharvest Carryover from Previous Year † ....................................................................................................... (+)177.9 (+)177.9 

Adjusted Quota (Baseline + Underharvest) ............................................................................................................. 889.4 889.4 

† Allowable underharvest carryover is capped at 25 percent of the baseline quota allocation (177.9 mt ww). 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1