52564 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 171 / Thursday, September 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the OPPT 

Docket is (202) 566–0280. Please review 

the visitor instructions and additional 

information about the docket available 

at http://www.epa.gov/dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical information contact: Kenneth 

Moss, Chemical Control Division 

(7405M), Office of Pollution Prevention 

and Toxics, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone 

number: (202) 564–9232; email address: 

moss.kenneth@epa.gov. 

For general information contact: The 

TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 

South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 

14620; telephone number: (202) 554– 

1404; email address: TSCAHotline@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Does this action apply to me? 

A list of potentially affected entities is 

provided in the Federal Register of July 

8, 2014 (79 FR 38464) (FRL–9911–05) 

and July 9, 2014 (79 FR 39268) (FRL– 

9910–01). If you have questions 

regarding the applicability of this action 

to a particular entity, consult the 

technical person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

II. What rules are being withdrawn? 

In the Federal Register of July 8, 2014 

(79 FR 38464) and July 9, 2014 (79 FR 

39268), EPA issued several direct final 

SNURs, including SNURs for the 

chemical substances that are the subject 

of this withdrawal. These direct final 

rules were issued pursuant to the 

procedures in 40 CFR part 721, subpart 

D. In accordance with § 721.160(c)(3)(ii), 

EPA is withdrawing the rules issued for 

chemical substances generically 

identified as 1,1’- 

methylenebis[isocyanatobenzene], 

polymer with polycarboxylic acids in 

alkane polyols; aromatic dibenzoate; 

propylene glycol, alpha isocyanate, 

omega silane; aromatic dicarboxylic 

acid polymer with alkanediol, alkyl 

alkyl-2-alkenoate,1,4- dialkyl aromatic 

dicarboxylate, alkanedioic acid, 

alkanediol, .alpha.- hydro-.omega.- 

hydroxypoly[oxy(alkyl- alkanediyl)], 

hydroxyalkyl 2-alkyl-2- alkenoate, 

aromatic diisocyanate, alkyl 2-alkyl-2- 

alkenoate and 2-alkyl-2- alkenoic acid; 

alkanedioic acid, polymer with alkyl 2- 

alkyl-2-alkenoate, alkanedioic acid, 

alkanediol, .alpha.-hydro-.omega.- 

hydroxypoly[oxy(alkyl-1 2-alkanediyl)], 

hydroxyalkyl 2-alkyl-2-alkenoate, 

aromatic diisocyanate, alkyl 2-alkyl-2- 

alkenoate and 2-alkyl-2-alkenoic acid; 

and alkanedioic acid, polymer with 

alkyl alkyl- alkenoate, alkanedioic acid, 

alkanediol, .alpha.-hydro-.omega.- 

hydroxypoly[oxy(alkyl-1,2-alkanediyl)], 

aromatic diisocyanate, alkyl alkylalkeneoate and alkyl-alkenoic acid, 

which were the subject of PMNs P–14– 

60, P–13–270, P–13–563, P–13–617, P– 

13–618, and P–13–619 respectively, 

because the Agency received notices of 

intent to submit adverse comments. EPA 

intends to publish proposed SNURs for 

these chemical substances under 

separate notice and comment 

procedures. 

For further information regarding 

EPA’s expedited process for issuing 

SNURs, interested parties are directed to 

40 CFR part 721, subpart D, and the 

Federal Register of July 27, 1989 (54 FR 

31314). The record for the direct final 

SNURs for the chemical substances that 

are being removed were established at 

EPA–HQ–OPPT–2014–0277 and EPA– 

HQ–OPPT–2014–0166. These records 

include information considered by the 

Agency in developing these rules and 

the notices of intent to submit adverse 

comments. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This final rule revokes or eliminates 

an existing regulatory requirement and 

does not contain any new or amended 

requirements. As such, the Agency has 

determined that this withdrawal will 

not have any adverse impacts, economic 

or otherwise. The statutory and 

executive order review requirements 

applicable to the direct final rule were 

discussed in the Federal Register of July 

8, 2014 and July 9, 2014. Those review 

requirements do not apply to this action 

because it is a withdrawal and does not 

contain any new or amended 

requirements. 

IV. Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

Pursuant to the Congressional Review 

Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), EPA will 

submit a report containing this rule and 

other required information to the U.S. 

Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of the rule in the Federal 

Register. This action is not a ‘‘major 

rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 9 

Environmental protection, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

40 CFR Part 721 

Environmental protection, Chemicals, 

Hazardous substances, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: August 28, 2014. 

Maria J. Doa, 

Director, Chemical Control Division, Office 

of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. 

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is 

amended as follows: 

PART 9—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 9 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 136–136y; 

15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2601–2671; 

21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33 

U.S.C. 1251 et seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1318, 

1321, 1326, 1330, 1342, 1344, 1345 (d) and 

(e), 1361; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR, 

1971–1975 Comp. p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241, 

242b, 243, 246, 300f, 300g, 300g–1, 300g–2, 

300g–3, 300g–4, 300g–5, 300g–6, 300j–1, 

300j–2, 300j–3, 300j–4, 300j–9, 1857 et seq., 

6901–6992k, 7401–7671q, 7542, 9601–9657, 

11023, 11048. 

§ 9.1 [Amended] 

■ 2. In § 9.1, under the undesignated 

center heading ‘‘Significant New Uses of 

Chemical Substances,’’ remove 

§§ 721.10735, 721.10741, 721.10742, 

721.10743, 721.10744 and 721.10762. 

PART 721—[AMENDED] 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 721 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: –15. U.S.C. 2604, 2607, and 

2625(c). 

§ 721.10735 [Removed] 

■ 4. Remove § 721.10735. 

§§ 721.10741 through 721.10744 

[Removed] 

■ 5. Remove §§ 721.10741 through 

721.10744. 

§ 721.10762 [Removed] 

■ 6. Remove § 721.10762. 

[FR Doc. 2014–21091 Filed 9–3–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2014–0595; FRL–9916–10- 

Region 7] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; State of 

Missouri, Control of Gasoline Reid 

Vapor Pressure 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 171 / Thursday, September 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 52565 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking direct final 

action to approve a revision to the State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by 

the State of Missouri and received by 

EPA on July 18, 2013, related to the 

Missouri rule that controls Gasoline 

Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) in the 

Kansas City metropolitan area. This 

action amends the SIP by updating no 

longer existing references to certain 

sampling procedures and test 

procedures. 

DATES: This direct final rule will be 

effective November 3, 2014, without 

further notice, unless EPA receives 

adverse comment by October 6, 2014. If 

EPA receives adverse comment, we will 

publish a timely withdrawal of the 

direct final rule in the Federal Register 

informing the public that the rule will 

not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07– 

OAR–2014–0595, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: bhesania.amy@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or Hand Delivery: Amy 

Bhesania, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Air Planning and Development 

Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, 

Lenexa, Kansas 66219. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R07–OAR–2014– 

0595. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit through 

www.regulations.gov or email 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

Air Planning and Development Branch, 

11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, 

Kansas 66219. The Regional Office’s 

official hours of business are Monday 

through Friday, 8:00 to 4:30 excluding 

legal holidays. The interested persons 

wanting to examine these documents 

should make an appointment with the 

office at least 24 hours in advance. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Amy Bhesania, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Air Planning and 

Development Branch, 11201 Renner 

Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at 

(913) 551–7147, or by email at 

bhesania.amy@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ 

or ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. This section 

provides additional information by 

addressing the following: 

I. What is being addressed in this document? 

II. Have the requirements for approval of a 

SIP revision been met? 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

I. What is being addressed in this 

document? 

EPA is taking direct final action to 

approve a revision to the Missouri SIP 

received on July 18, 2013, related to 

Missouri rule 10–CSR 10–2.330, 

‘‘Control of Gasoline Reid Vapor 

Pressure (RVP).’’ This rule limits the 

volatility of motor vehicle gasoline in 

the previous 1-hour ozone Kansas City 

maintenance area of Clay, Jackson and 

Platte counties in Missouri and Johnson 

and Wyandotte counties in Kansas. This 

action amends the SIP by updating no 

longer existing references to certain 

sampling procedures and test 

procedures. 

Specifically, prior to this revision, the 

gasoline sampling procedure in section 

(4) of the rule references 40 CFR part 80, 

appendix D, which is outdated. This 

reference is being replaced by the 

Federally approved American Society 

for Testing and Materials (ASTM) 

standard reference (ASTM D4057–06 

(2011)). Similarly, prior to this revision, 

the gasoline testing procedures for RVP 

and determination of compliance 

reference in section (5)(A) of the rule 

was also outdated. This reference is 

being replaced by the Federally 

approved ASTM standard reference 

(ASTM D6378–10 or ASTM D5191– 

10b). In addition, minor administrative 

corrections are being made to 

subsections (6)(A) and (6)(D), and 

section (7). 

II. Have the requirements for approval 

of a SIP revision been met? 

The state submission has met the 

public notice requirements for SIP 

submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 

51.102. The submission also satisfied 

the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 

51, appendix V. In addition, the revision 

meets the substantive SIP requirements 

of the CAA, including section 110 and 

implementing regulations. 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is taking direct final action to 

approve this SIP revision. We are 

publishing this rule without a prior 

proposed rule because we view this as 

a noncontroversial action and anticipate 

no adverse comment. However, in the 

‘‘Proposed Rules’’ section of this 

Federal Register, we are publishing a 

separate document that will serve as the 

proposed rule to approve this SIP 

revision if adverse comments are 

received on this direct final rule. We 

will not institute a second comment 

period on this action. Any parties 

interested in commenting must do so at 

this time. For further information about 

commenting on this rule, see the 

ADDRESSES section of this document. 

If EPA receives adverse comment, we 

will publish a timely withdrawal in the 

Federal Register informing the public 

that this direct final rule will not take 

effect. We will address all public 

comments in any subsequent final rule 

based on the proposed rule. 

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

52566 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 171 / Thursday, September 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under the terms of Executive 

Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 

1993) and is therefore not subject to 

review under Executive Orders 12866 

and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 

2011); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by November 3, 2014. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. Parties with 

objections to this direct final rule are 

encouraged to file a comment in 

response to the parallel notice of 

proposed rulemaking for this action 

published in the proposed rules section 

of this Federal Register, rather than file 

an immediate petition for judicial 

review of this direct final rule, so that 

EPA can withdraw this direct final rule 

and address the comment in the 

proposed rulemaking. This action may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: August 20, 2014. 

Mark Hague, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the Environmental Protection 

Agency amends 40 CFR part 52 as set 

forth below: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart AA—Missouri 

■ 2. In § 52.1320, the table in paragraph 

(c) is amended by revising the entry for 

10–2.330 to read as follows: 

§ 52.1320 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED MISSOURI REGULATIONS

Missouri 

citation Title 

State 

effective 

date 

EPA approval date Explanation 

Missouri Department of Natural Resources 

*******

Chapter 2—Air Quality Standards and Air Pollution Control Regulations for the Kansas City Metropolitan Area 

*******

10–2.330 ............... Control of Gasoline Reid Vapor Pressure.07/30/2013 ............ 09/04/2014 [Insert Federal Register citation].

*******

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 171 / Thursday, September 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 52567 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–20915 Filed 9–3–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2013–0033; 

4500030113] 

RIN 1018–AZ15 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Endangered Species 

Status for Brickellia mosieri (Florida 

Brickell-bush) and Linum carteri var. 

carteri (Carter’s Small-flowered Flax) 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), determine 

endangered species status under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), 

as amended, for Brickellia mosieri 

(Florida brickell-bush) and Linum 

carteri var. carteri (Carter’s smallflowered flax), two plants from MiamiDade County, Florida. The effect of this 

regulation will be to add these plants to 

the List of Endangered and Threatened 

Plants. 

DATES: This rule becomes effective 

October 6, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: This final rule is available 

on the internet at http://

www.regulations.gov and at http://

www.fws.gov/verobeach/. Comments 

and materials we received, as well as 

supporting documentation we used in 

preparing this rule, are available for 

public inspection at http://

www.regulations.gov. All of the 

comments, materials, and 

documentation that we considered in 

this rulemaking are available by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

South Florida Ecological Services 

Office, 1339 20th Street, Vero Beach, FL 

32960; telephone 772–562–3909; 

facsimile 772–562–4288. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Craig Aubrey, Field Supervisor, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, South Florida 

Ecological Services Office, 1339 20th 

Street, Vero Beach, FL 32960, by 

telephone 772–562–3909, or by 

facsimile 772–562–4288. Persons who 

use a telecommunications device for the 

deaf (TDD) may call the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 

800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

Why we need to publish a rule. Under 

the Act, a species may warrant 

protection through listing if we find that 

it is an endangered or threatened 

species throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range. Listing a species as 

endangered or threatened can only be 

completed by issuing a rule. We will 

also be finalizing the designation of 

critical habitat for Brickellia mosieri and 

Linum carteri var. carteri under the Act 

in the near future. 

This rule will finalize the listing of 

Brickellia mosieri and Linum carteri var. 

carteri as endangered species. 

The basis for our action. Under the 

Act, we may determine that a species is 

an endangered or threatened species 

based on any of five factors: (A) The 

present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat or range; (B) overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes; (C) disease or 

predation; (D) the inadequacy of 

existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) 

other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. We 

have determined that Brickellia mosieri 

and Linum carteri var. carteri meet the 

definition of an endangered species 

based on Factors A, D, and E. 

Peer review and public comment. We 

sought comments from six independent 

specialists to ensure that our action is 

based on scientifically sound data, 

assumptions, and analyses. We invited 

these peer reviewers to comment on our 

listing proposal. We also considered all 

other comments and information 

received during the comment period. 

Previous Federal Action 

Please refer to the proposed listing 

rule for Brickellia mosieri and Linum 

carteri var. carteri (78 FR 61273; 

October 3, 2013) for a detailed 

description of previous Federal actions 

concerning these plants. 

Summary of Comments and 

Recommendations 

In the proposed rule published on 

October 2, 2013 (78 FR 61273), we 

requested that all interested parties 

submit written comments on the 

proposal by December 2, 2013. We also 

contacted appropriate Federal and State 

agencies, scientific experts and 

organizations, and other interested 

parties and invited them to comment on 

the proposal. Newspaper notices 

inviting general public comment were 

published in the Miami Herald. 

Peer Reviewer Comments 

In accordance with our peer review 

policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 

34270), we solicited expert opinion 

from six knowledgeable individuals 

with scientific expertise that included 

familiarity with Brickellia mosieri and 

Linum carteri var. carteri and/or their 

habitat, biological needs, and threats; 

the geographical region of South Florida 

in which these plants occur; and 

conservation biology principles. We 

received responses from all six of the 

peer reviewers we contacted. 

We reviewed all comments received 

from the peer reviewers for substantive 

issues and new information regarding 

the listing of Brickellia mosieri and 

Linum carteri var. carteri. The peer 

reviewers generally concurred with our 

methods and conclusions, and provided 

additional information, clarifications, 

and suggestions to improve the final 

listing rule. Peer reviewer comments are 

addressed in the following summary 

and incorporated into the final rule as 

appropriate. 

(1) Comment: One peer reviewer 

commented on the lack of discussion 

related to the threat of herbivory from 

invertebrates, both native and 

nonnative, and noted that Brickellia 

cordifolia, a north Florida species, 

experiences considerable damage on an 

annual basis from a not-yet-identified, 

leaf-boring-type arthropod. The 

reviewer also noted the possible threat 

of unnaturally high herbivory from deer, 

rabbits, and other vertebrates, as well as 

threats associated with feral hogs, both 

of which he stated are threats 

throughout most of Florida. 

Our Response: We appreciate the 

information provided; however, 

biologists monitoring Brickellia mosieri 

in Miami-Dade County have not 

observed any significant damage to the 

species from invertebrates or 

vertebrates, native or nonnative. In 

addition, another peer reviewer noted 

that deer no longer occur in the areas 

where these plants exist, and rabbits 

occur only sparingly, and not in all 

areas. Based on the information 

available at this time, the Service does 

believe that predation poses a threat to 

Brickellia mosieri. 

(2) Comment: One peer reviewer 

noted that two specimens of Brickellia 

mosieri (filed as B. eupatorioides and 

annotated by K.A. Bradley as B. 

eupatorioides var. floridana) in the 

collection at the Fairchild Tropical 

Botanic Garden Herbarium indicate that 

the historical range of this species 

probably extended north of South 

Miami. Based on these specimens, the 

reviewer stated that the historical range 

is better characterized as extending from 

approximately Coconut Grove to Florida 

City, while allowing that these 

observations may have been included 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES