Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 72 / Thursday, April 14, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 22137 

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 

804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by June 13, 2022. 

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. 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: April 7, 2022. 

Martha Guzman Aceves, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

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 D—Arizona 

■ 2. Section 52.120, paragraph (c), Table 

4, under the heading ‘‘Post-July 1988 

Rule Codification’’, is amended by: 

■ a. Revising the entry for Rule 314 

under the table heading ‘‘Regulation 

III—Control of Air Contaminants’’; and 

■ b. Adding a heading for ‘‘Maricopa 

County Ordinances’’ and an entry for 

‘‘Ordinance P–26’’ under the table 

heading ‘‘Appendices to Maricopa 

County Air Pollution Control Rules and 

Regulations’’ after the entry for 

‘‘Appendix F’’. 

The revision and addition read as 

follows. 

§ 52.120 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

TABLE 4 TO PARAGRAPH (C)—EPA-APPROVED MARICOPA COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATIONS

County citation Title/subject State effective date EPA approval date Additional explanation 

*******

Post-July 1988 Rule Codification 

*******

Regulation III—Control of Air Contaminants 

*******

Rule 314 .......................... Outdoor Fires and Commercial/Institutional Solid Fuel Burning.October 23, 2019 .... [INSERT Federal Register CITATION], April 

14, 2022.

Submitted on November 20, 2019. 

* * * * * * * 

Appendices to Maricopa County Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations 

*******

Maricopa County Ordinances 

Ordinance P–26 .............. Residential Woodburning Restriction ........ October 23, 2019 .... [INSERT Federal Register CITATION], April 

14, 2022.

Submitted on November 20, 2019. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2022–07922 Filed 4–13–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Parts 223 and 226 

[Docket No. 220408–0090; RTID 0648– 

XR119] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Removal of Johnson’s 

Seagrass From the Federal List of 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

Including the Corresponding 

Designated Critical Habitat 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We, NMFS, are issuing a final 

rule to remove Johnson’s seagrass 

(Halophila johnsonii) from the Federal 

List of Threatened and Endangered 

Species. To correspond with this action, 

we are also removing the critical habitat 

designation for Johnson’s seagrass. 

These actions are based on newly 

obtained genetic data that demonstrate 

that Johnson’s seagrass is not a unique 

taxon but rather a clone of an IndoPacific species, Halophila ovalis. 

Therefore, Johnson’s seagrass does not 

meet the statutory definition of a species 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
22138 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 72 / Thursday, April 14, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

and does not qualify for listing under 

the Endangered Species Act (ESA). After 

considering public comment on the 

proposed rule, we are implementing this 

final rule to execute the proposed 

changes to the listing and critical habitat 

for Johnson’s seagrass. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

May 16, 2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Adam Brame, NMFS Southeast Regional 

Office, Adam.Brame@noaa.gov, (727) 

209–5958. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

In 1980, a small-statured seagrass 

species found within Florida’s 

southeastern coastal lagoon system was 

identified as Johnson’s seagrass 

(Halophila johnsonii) (Eiseman and 

McMillan 1980). Prior to this 

designation, this seagrass was often 

referred to as H. decipiens, though it 

was most similar to the morphologically 

diverse Indo-Pacific species, H. ovalis. 

Morphological and physiological 

characteristics were the bases for its 

later taxonomic identification as H. 

johnsonii. For example, Johnson’s 

seagrass was differentiated from other 

Atlantic Halophila species by its smooth 

leaf margins, angle of the cross veins 

extending from the midrib, and the lack 

of hairs on the blade surface (Eiseman 

and McMillan 1980). 

Given the extremely limited 

geographical distribution of Johnson’s 

seagrass (about 200 kilometers (km) of 

Florida’s east coast), its limited 

reproductive potential (only asexual 

reproduction), and the variety of threats 

that could affect survival, we conducted 

a status review in 1993 to consider 

whether Johnson’s seagrass should be 

added to the Federal List of Threatened 

and Endangered Species. We published 

a proposed rule to list the species as 

threatened on September 15, 1993 (58 

FR 48326), and a proposed rule to 

designate critical habitat on August 4, 

1994 (59 FR 39716). Additional research 

on the ecology of this species 

subsequently became available and was 

considered in an updated status review, 

which was completed in 1997. We 

published a final rule listing Johnson’s 

seagrass as a threatened species in 1998 

(63 FR 49035, September 14, 1998) and 

a final rule designating critical habitat 

in 2000 (65 FR 17786, April 5, 2000). 

A peer reviewed manuscript 

published in October 2021 (Waycott et 

al. 2021), used a variety of genetic 

analyses to conclude that Johnson’s 

seagrass is not a unique taxon but rather 

a clone of the Indo-Pacific species H. 

ovalis. In light of this new information, 

we initiated and completed a status 

review for H. johnsonii, which is 

documented in the proposed rule 

published December 23, 2021 (86 FR 

72908). Based on the best available 

scientific information as described in 

the proposed rule, we determined that 

Johnson’s seagrass no longer meets the 

statutory definition of a species and 

therefore proposed to delist it under the 

ESA. 

Basis for the Proposed Rule 

Section 3 of the ESA defines the term 

‘‘species’’ as 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 16 U.S.C. 

1532(16). Pursuant to implementing 

regulations in 50 CFR 424.11(a), in 

determining whether a particular taxon 

or population is a species under the 

ESA, we rely on standard taxonomic 

distinctions as well as our biological 

expertise and that of the scientific 

community concerning the relevant 

taxonomic group. 

Under section 4(c) of the ESA, the 

Secretary is required to periodically 

review and revise the Federal List of 

Endangered and Threatened Species 

and consider, among other things, 

whether a species’ listing status should 

be changed, including whether the 

species should be removed from the list 

(16 U.S.C. 1533(c)). Pursuant to 

implementing regulations for the ESA at 

50 CFR 424.11(e), the Secretary shall 

delist a species if, after conducting a 

status review based on the best 

scientific and commercial data 

available, the Secretary determines: (1) 

The species is extinct; (2) the species 

does not meet the definition of an 

endangered species or threatened 

species; or (3) the listed entity does not 

meet the statutory definition of a 

species. When conducting a status 

review, if we determine the entity under 

review does not meet the statutory 

definition of a species, the status review 

concludes without further evaluation, 

because we can only list entities that 

qualify as species under the ESA. 

The entity described as Johnson’s 

seagrass grows in a variety of conditions 

within Florida’s intracoastal waters 

from Sebastian Inlet to Virginia Key in 

Biscayne Bay. This is the smallest 

geographic distribution of any seagrass 

worldwide. Within this range, it is 

among the least abundant seagrass. It 

grows in small, sparse patches and may 

disappear from areas for months or 

years before reappearing. It can co-occur 

with other seagrasses, but its short 

stature precludes it from occurring 

within dense stands of taller species 

because it is outcompeted for light 

resources. Johnson’s seagrass has a 

broader tolerance range for light, 

temperature, and salinity than 

congeners and seems capable of growing 

in suboptimal conditions where other 

species cannot survive. Johnson’s 

seagrass grows in the intertidal zone, on 

dynamic flood deltas inside ocean 

inlets, at the mouths of freshwater 

discharge canals, and subtidal waters to 

depths of approximately 3–4 meters. 

Johnson’s seagrass is dioecious, 

meaning each plant only contains the 

flowers of one sex (male or female). 

Interestingly, no individual Johnson’s 

seagrass plants have been found with 

male flowers. Similarly, researchers 

have not found any seedlings. These 

observations suggest that Johnson’s 

seagrass reproduces only through 

vegetative fragmentation (asexual 

reproduction) and not through the 

development and dispersal of seeds 

(sexual reproduction). This strategy 

likely hinders its ability to expand in 

range and may slow recolonization 

following disturbances. 

At the time of listing, the best 

available data indicated Johnson’s 

seagrass: (1) Had perhaps the smallest 

geographic range of any seagrass species 

worldwide; (2) had a sparse, patchy 

distribution throughout its range and an 

ability to survive in a variety of 

environmental conditions; (3) lacked 

male flowers necessary for sexual 

reproduction and therefore appeared to 

only reproduce asexually; and (4) was 

unique from other North American 

Halophila species based on morphology, 

physiological ecology, and genetic 

analyses. However, the unique life 

history and ecology of this seagrass 

raised questions about its phylogeny 

(history of the evolution of a species or 

group, including relatedness within a 

group). The 1997 status review 

indicated that more detailed studies 

were necessary to evaluate the overall 

genetic structure and diversity of H. 

johnsonii. This need was reiterated in 

the 2002 Johnson’s Seagrass Recovery 

Plan. 

A 1997 genetics study using randomly 

amplified primer DNA-polymerase 

chain reactions (RAPD–PCR) indicated 

that genetic diversity was higher than 

expected at one location within the 

range of Johnson’s seagrass (JewittSmith et al. 1997). Yet this study relied 

on a limited sample size, and a 

subsequent study using similar 

techniques indicated very low genetic 

diversity within H. johnsonii as 

compared to the co-occurring species, 

H. decipiens (Freshwater 1999). The low 

genetic diversity was attributed to the 

lack of sexual reproduction. The 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 72 / Thursday, April 14, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 22139 

methodology used in assessing these 

Halophila samples did not provide the 

resolution necessary to make species 

level conclusions about phylogeny. 

A molecular phylogenetic analysis of 

the genus Halophila using internal 

transcribed spacer (ITS) regions of 

nuclear ribosomal DNA indicated that 

H. johnsonii could not be distinguished 

from H. ovalis and should be further 

researched (Waycott et al. 2002). 

Umichura (2008) came to a similar 

conclusion and suggested that H. 

johnsonii and two other Halophila 

species should be reclassified as the 

broadly distributed H. ovalis. Short et 

al. (2010) used ITS regions of nuclear 

ribosomal sequences and morphology to 

demonstrate that Halophila samples 

from Antigua belonged to H. ovalis and 

were genetically identical to H. 

johnsonii. Short et al. (2010) also found 

that Halophila samples from both 

Antigua and the United States (the latter 

of which were previously identified as 

H. johnsonii) fell within the range of 

morphological characteristics diagnostic 

for H. ovalis, and particularly for H. 

ovalis from east Africa. The outcomes of 

these studies raised more questions 

about the taxonomy of Halophila 

species, particularly H. johnsonii, given 

its unusually restricted geographic 

range, its limited reproductive strategy, 

and its morphometric similarities to 

other Indo-Pacific species of Halophila. 

NMFS began funding projects to 

resolve the taxonomic uncertainty of 

Johnson’s seagrass in 2012. Waycott et 

al. (2015) used multiple genetic 

approaches including microsatellite 

DNA and next generation sequencing to 

detect single nucleotide polymorphisms 

(SNPs). Results of this work indicated a 

complete lack of genetic diversity across 

the range of Johnson’s seagrass and 

through time, indicating all samples 

analyzed were from a singular clone. 

Samples collected and analyzed from 

Antigua contained the same genetic 

markers as samples from Florida, 

suggesting these too were part of the 

same clone (Waycott et al. 2015) despite 

the Antigua samples having been 

previously identified as H. ovalis (Short 

et al. 2010). Finally, Waycott et al. 

(2015) genetically compared samples 

from both Florida and Antigua with H. 

ovalis samples collected throughout that 

species’ range (Indo-Pacific). Results 

indicated all samples, regardless of 

location or identification, had allelic 

overlap (same gene variations) at 6 of 10 

microsatellite loci analyzed, suggesting 

samples from the Atlantic originated 

from H. ovalis of the Indo-Pacific. While 

this report provided further evidence 

that H. johnsonii was not a unique 

taxon, SNP locations for H. ovalis had 

yet to be verified for H. johnsonii 

samples and the report did not present 

a comprehensive population genetic 

analysis of H. ovalis. 

NMFS provided support for a followup study in 2017, recently published as 

Waycott et al. (2021). This study 

expanded previous efforts with the 

intent of solidifying the methods and 

providing a robust conclusion regarding 

the taxonomic uncertainty within the H. 

ovalis complex. The study used 

multiple methodological approaches 

and created molecular data sets for 

samples of both H. johnsonii and H. 

ovalis collected throughout the range of 

each species. Phylogenetic analyses of 

105 samples of Halophila spp. from 19 

countries using plastid (17,999 base 

pairs (bp)) and nuclear (6,449 bp) DNA 

sequences derived from hybrid capture 

both resolved H. johnsonii within H. 

ovalis. A third phylogenetic analysis 

using 48 samples from 13 populations 

identified 990 genome-wide SNPs 

(generated via double digest restrictionsite associated digest sequencing 

(ddRAD)) and also nested H. johnsonii 

within H. ovalis. All three phylogenetic 

analyses indicated H. johnsonii samples 

were most similar to H. ovalis samples 

from Antigua and east Africa. 

Waycott et al. (2021) also assessed 

population-level differences using both 

the genome-wide SNPs (990) developed 

in the phylogenetic analysis (47 of the 

48 samples from 13 populations) and 

microsatellites (294 samples at 10 

microsatellite loci). Cluster analysis 

indicated three populations within the 

H. ovalis complex, with H. johnsonii 

being part of the Indo-Pacific/Atlantic 

clade. Other results demonstrated 

genetic uniformity of all 132 H. 

johnsonii samples, indicating a 

complete lack of genetic diversity that is 

consistent with clonal (asexual) 

reproduction and a single colonization 

event. These same 132 samples and the 

12 H. ovalis samples from Antigua 

shared a single multilocus genotype at 

all nine comparable microsatellite loci. 

Furthermore, all 12 H. johnsonii 

samples and the single H. ovalis sample 

from Antigua genotyped with ddRAD 

loci shared the same multilocus 

genotype. In contrast, other H. ovalis 

populations, such as those from 

Australia, generally had multiple 

multilocus genotypes and substantial 

genetic diversity, indicating that the 

genetic markers would have detected 

differences if they were present. The 

population-level analyses indicate that 

H. johnsonii is genetically 

indistinguishable from H. ovalis, 

clustering with samples from Antigua 

and east Africa. 

Collectively, the Waycott et al. (2021) 

study concluded that the entire range of 

H. johnsonii is a single clone of a 

morphological variant of the IndoPacific species H. ovalis. After 

reviewing the best information 

available, we agree that H. johnsonii 

should be synonomized with H. ovalis 

and not considered a separate 

taxonomic species. It cannot qualify as 

a distinct population segment (DPS) 

under the statutory definition of a 

species because DPSs can be identified 

only for vertebrate fish or wildlife, not 

plants. Therefore, H. johnsonii does not 

meet the statutory definition of a species 

under the ESA, and on that basis, we 

published a proposed rule on December 

23, 2021, to remove Johnson’s seagrass 

from the Federal List of Threatened and 

Endangered Species and to remove its 

corresponding critical habitat from 50 

CFR part 226 (86 FR 72908). 

Public Comment 

Upon publication of the proposed 

rule, we solicited comments during a 

60-day public comment period from all 

interested parties. We received nine 

comments, two of which were nearly 

identical. Summaries of the comments 

received and our responses are provided 

in the following paragraphs. 

Comment 1: Four commenters 

supported the proposed delisting based 

on the information provided in the 

proposed rule. 

Response: We thank these 

commenters for their support of the 

proposed delisting. 

Comment 2: Two commenters 

disagreed with the proposed delisting 

on the basis of the need to continue to 

protect all seagrasses and seagrass 

habitats given the unique ecosystem 

functions they provide. One of these 

commenters recognized our finding that 

H. johnsonii is not a species eligible for 

listing because it is a clone of H. ovalis, 

but suggested that H. ovalis found in 

Florida should be listed given the 

ongoing threats it faces there. 

Response: While we agree with the 

commenters that seagrasses serve a 

critical ecosystem function by, for 

example, stabilizing substrate and 

providing both forage and habitat for a 

variety of species, the best scientific 

information available indicates that this 

seagrass is not a unique taxon but rather 

a clone of the Indo-Pacific species H. 

ovalis. Synonymizing H. johnsonii with 

H. ovalis means the entity currently 

listed under the ESA as Johnson’s 

seagrass is not a taxonomic species, and 

is therefore not eligible for listing under 

the ESA. H. ovalis could be considered 

for future listing under the ESA. 

However, that would require a separate 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
22140 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 72 / Thursday, April 14, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

review to consider the status of that 

species throughout the entirety or a 

significant portion of its range. At that 

time, we would be able to evaluate 

whether the species is eligible for and 

should be listed because of any of the 

threats it faces in waters off Florida. 

We agree with the importance of 

seagrasses to the environments in which 

they are found. Though delisting H. 

johnsonii from the ESA removes the 

protections of the ESA for this ‘‘species’’ 

and its critical habitat, NMFS will 

continue to support seagrass 

conservation under other statutory 

authorities. For example, the South 

Atlantic Fishery Management Council 

has identified seagrass and habitats 

containing seagrasses as essential fish 

habitat (EFH) for certain federallymanaged fish species in the South 

Altantic, such as snapper and grouper, 

under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(MSA). EFH is defined as ‘‘those waters 

and substrate necessary to fish for 

spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth 

to maturity.’’ 16 U.S.C. 1802(10). As 

required under the MSA, federal 

agencies (e.g., U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers) consult with NMFS on any 

action that may adversely affect EFH 16 

U.S.C. 1855(b)(2). NMFS provides 

comments and EFH Conservation 

Recommendations for those actions that 

affect EFH and those recommendations 

can include measures to ensure federal 

projects avoid, minimize, and, if 

necessary, mitigate impacts to EFH as a 

means to conserve and promote 

sustainable fisheries. 16 U.S.C. 

1855(b)(4); 50 CFR 600.905(b), 600.920, 

and 600.925. The delisting under the 

ESA does not affect the mechanisms to 

conserve and protect seagrasses as EFH 

under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act. 

Comment 3: One commenter agreed 

with the agency’s rationale for delisting 

this seagrass but recommended further 

consideration for retaining the critical 

habitat designation as a means of overall 

ecosystem conservation. 

Response: Critical habitat can only be 

designated for species on the Federal 

List of Threatened and Endangered 

Species (16 U.S.C. 1532(5), 16 U.S.C. 

1533(a)(3)). Therefore, the Johnson’s 

seagrass critical habitat designation 

cannot be retained when the species is 

removed from the List. 

Comment 4: One commenter agreed 

with the agency’s rationale for delisting 

Johnson’s seagrass but expressed 

concern that removal from the list could 

adversely affect other seagrasses that cooccupy habitat in that region. 

Response: As discussed previously, 

NMFS agrees with the importance of 

seagrasses and their habitats and will 

continue to promote conservation 

through the MSA (see response to 

Comment 2). 

Summary of Changes From Proposed 

Rule 

We evaluated whether any pertinent 

scientific or commercial information 

became available since publication of 

the proposed rule. We reviewed the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information, including all public 

comments. Based on all available 

information, we have made no changes 

from the proposed rule. 

Final Determination and Effects of 

Determination 

As proposed on December 23, 2021 

(86 FR 72908), and concluded with this 

final rule, we remove H. johnsonii from 

the Federal List of Threatened and 

Endangered Species because the best 

available scientific and commercial data 

indicate that the listed entity is 

synonymous with H. ovalis and does 

not meet the statutory definition of a 

species. Because critical habitat can 

only be designated for species listed 

under the ESA, we also remove the 

designated critical habitat for H. 

johnsonii. As of the effective date, the 

protections of the ESA will no longer 

apply to H. johnsonii. However, the 

delisting of H. johnsonii and removal of 

the designated critical habitat are 

specific to the ESA and will have no 

effect on other Federal, state, county, or 

local seagrass protections that may be in 

place. In addition, because H. ovalis is 

not listed as an endangered species or 

threatened species under the ESA, our 

delisting of H. johnsonii will have no 

effect on the status of H. ovalis. 

Per the joint NMFS–U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service Post-Delisting 

Monitoring Plan Guidance (2008, 

updated in 2018), the post-delisting 

monitoring requirements of section 4(g) 

of the ESA apply without exception to 

all species delisted due to biological 

recovery, but do not pertain to species 

delisted for other reasons, such as 

taxonomic revision. Based on this 

reasoning, there is no need for a postdelisting monitoring plan for H. 

johnsonii. 

References Cited 

The complete citations for the 

references used in this document can be 

obtained by contacting NMFS (See 

ADDRESSES and FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Information Quality Act and Peer 

Review 

In December 2004, the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) issued 

a Final Information Quality Bulletin for 

Peer Review establishing minimum peer 

review standards, a transparent process 

for public disclosure of peer review 

planning, and opportunities for public 

participation. The OMB Peer Review 

Bulletin, implemented under the 

Information Quality Act (Pub. L. 106– 

554), is intended to enhance the quality 

and credibility of the Federal 

Government’s scientific information, 

and applies to influential or highly 

influential scientific information 

disseminated on or after June 16, 2005. 

To satisfy the requirements under the 

OMB Peer Review Bulletin, the Waycott 

et al. (2021) manuscript was subjected 

to peer review in accordance with the 

Bulletin. Our proposed action relies 

upon new information within the 

manuscript, which we consider 

‘‘influential scientific information.’’ 

While the manuscript was published in 

the peer-reviewed journal Frontiers in 

Marine Science, and peer reviewed by 

that journal prior to publication, we also 

peer reviewed the manuscript. We 

established a peer review plan that 

consisted of subjecting the manuscript 

to review by a panel of four expert 

reviewers identified by NOAA’s 

Genetics Group. The peer review plan, 

which included the charge statement to 

the peer reviewers, and the resulting 

peer review report are posted on the 

NOAA peer review agenda at: https://

www.noaa.gov/organization/ 

information-technology/peer-reviewplans. In meeting the OMB Peer Review 

Bulletin requirements, we have also 

satisfied the requirements of the 1994 

joint U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 

NMFS peer review policy (59 FR 34270, 

July 1, 1994). 

Classification 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) 

The 1982 amendments to the ESA, in 

section 4(b)(1)(A), restrict the 

information that may be considered 

when assessing species for listing to the 

best scientific and commercial data 

available. Based on this limitation of 

criteria for a listing decision and the 

opinion in Pacific Legal Foundation v. 

Andrus, 657 F. 2d 829 (6th Cir. 1981), 

we have concluded that NEPA does not 

apply to ESA listing actions. (See NOAA 

Administrative Order 216–6A and the 

Companion Manual for NOAA 

Administrative Order 216–6A, regarding 

Policy and Procedures for Compliance 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 72 / Thursday, April 14, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 22141 

with the National Environmental Policy 

Act and Related Authorities.) 

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, and Paperwork 

Reduction Act 

As noted in the Conference Report on 

the 1982 amendments to the ESA, 

economic impacts cannot be considered 

when assessing the status of a species. 

Therefore, the economic analysis 

requirements of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act are not applicable to the 

listing process. In addition, this final 

rule is exempt from review under 

Executive Order 12866. This final rule 

does not contain a collection of 

information requirement for the 

purposes of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act. 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

E.O. 13132 requires agencies to take 

into account any federalism impacts of 

regulations under development. It 

includes specific consultation directives 

for situations where a regulation will 

preempt state and local law, or impose 

substantial direct compliance costs on 

state and local governments (unless 

required by statute). Neither of these 

circumstances is applicable to this final 

rule. 

List of Subjects 

50 CFR Part 223 

Endangered and threatened species. 

50 CFR Part 226 

Endangered and threatened species. 

Dated: April 11, 2022. 

Samuel D. Rauch, III, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 50 CFR parts 223 and 226 are 

amended as follows: 

PART 223—THREATENED MARINE 

AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 223 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 1543; subpart B, 

§ 223.201–202 also issued under 16 U.S.C. 

1361 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 5503(d) for 

§ 223.206(d)(9). 

§ 223.102 [Amended] 

■ 2. In § 223.102, in the table in 

paragraph (e), remove the undesiganted 

heading ‘‘Marine Plants’’ and the entry 

for ‘‘Seagrass, Johnson’s’’. 

PART 226—DESIGNATED CRITICAL 

HABITAT 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 226 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1533. 

§ 226.213 [Removed and Reserved] 

■ 4. Remove and reserve § 226.213. 

[FR Doc. 2022–08029 Filed 4–13–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1