Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 34625 

(j) * * * 

Community Channel No. 

* * * * * 

MAINE 

* * * * * 

Orono .................................... * 22 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2022–12159 Filed 6–6–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–HQ–ES–2021–0033; 

FF09E41000 2223 FXES111609C0000] 

RIN 1018–BF98 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Designation of 

Experimental Populations 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish Wildlife 

Service (Service), propose to revise the 

regulations concerning experimental 

populations of endangered species and 

threatened species under the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA). We are 

proposing to remove language generally 

restricting the introduction of 

experimental populations to only the 

species’ ‘‘historical range’’ to allow for 

the introduction of populations into 

habitat outside of their historical range 

for conservation purposes. To provide 

for the conservation of certain species, 

we have concluded that it may be 

increasingly necessary and appropriate 

to establish experimental populations 

outside of their historical range if the 

ability of the habitat to support one or 

more life history stages has been 

reduced due to threats, such as climate 

change or invasive species. We are also 

proposing minor changes to clarify the 

existing regulations. These minor 

changes are not intended to alter the 

substance or scope of the regulations. 

DATES: We will accept comments from 

all interested parties until August 8, 

2022. Please note that if you are using 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see 

ADDRESSES below), the deadline for 

submitting an electronic comment is 

11:59 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on 

this date. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by one of the following methods: 

(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: https://

www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, 

enter FWS–HQ–ES–2021–0033, which 

is the docket number for this 

rulemaking. Then, in the Search panel 

on the left side of the screen, under the 

Document Type heading, click on the 

Proposed Rules link to locate this 

document. You may submit a comment 

by clicking on ‘‘Comment.’’ 

(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail 

to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: 

FWS–HQ–ES–2021–0033; U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, MS: PRB/3W, 5275 

Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041– 

3803. 

We request that you send comments 

only by the methods described above. 

We will post all comments on https:// 

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information you provide us (see Public 

Comments below for more information). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa 

Ellis, Acting Chief, Division of 

Restoration and Recovery, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 5275 Leesburg Pike, 

Falls Church, VA 22041–3803, 

telephone 703–358–2171. 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. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The purposes of the ESA are to 

provide a means to conserve the 

ecosystems upon which listed species 

depend, to develop a program for the 

conservation of listed species, and to 

achieve the purposes of certain treaties 

and conventions. Moreover, the ESA 

states that it is the policy of Congress 

that Federal agencies shall seek to 

conserve threatened and endangered 

species and use their authorities to 

further the purposes of the ESA (16 

U.S.C. 1531(c)(1)). The ESA’s 

implementing regulations are found in 

title 50 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR). 

The 1982 amendments to the ESA 

added section 10(j) to facilitate 

reintroductions of listed species by 

allowing the Service to designate 

‘‘experimental populations.’’ The 

regulations to carry out section 10(j) 

provide that the Service may designate 

as an experimental population a 

population of an endangered species or 

a threatened species that will be 

released into suitable natural habitat 

outside the species’ current natural 

range (but within its probable historical 

range, absent a finding by the Director 

in the extreme case that the primary 

habitat of the species has been 

unsuitably and irreversibly altered or 

destroyed) (50 CFR 17.81). At the time 

the Service adopted these regulations, it 

did not anticipate the impact of climate 

change on species and their habitats. We 

have since learned that climate change 

is causing, or is anticipated to cause, 

many species’ suitable habitat to shift 

outside of their historical range. In 

addition, other threats such as invasive 

species may also reduce the ability of 

habitat to support one or more life 

history stages within the species’ 

historical range. Therefore, it may be 

necessary and appropriate to establish 

experimental populations outside of the 

species’ historical range to provide for 

their conservation and adapt to the 

habitat-related impacts of climate 

change and other threats. These 

proposed regulatory changes will more 

clearly establish the authority of the 

Service to introduce experimental 

populations into areas of habitat outside 

of the historical range of the affected 

listed species. The proposed revisions 

will not otherwise change the process 

for designating an experimental 

population. 

Proposed Regulatory Revisions 

We seek public comments on the 

proposed revisions to the regulations in 

50 CFR part 17, subpart H. The primary 

proposed revision is to delete the 

reference to a species’ ‘‘historical 

range.’’ We intend for this change to 

allow for experimental populations to 

be introduced into habitat outside of the 

historical range of the species under 

appropriate circumstances. Such 

circumstances could include instances 

where little to no habitat remains within 

the historical range of a species or 

where formerly suitable habitat within 

the historical range has undergone, or is 

undergoing, irreversible decline or 

change, rendering it unable to support 

one or more life history stages for the 

species, thereby leading to the need to 

establish the species in habitat in areas 

outside the historical range. If this 

proposal is finalized, it will be applied 

to future designations and will not 

require the reevaluation of any prior 

designation of an experimental 

population. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
34626 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

Section 17.80 Definitions 

In this section under paragraph (a), 

we propose to replace the word ‘‘natural 

populations’’ with ‘‘nonexperimental 

populations’’ to improve clarity. 

Section 17.81 Listing 

We propose several edits and 

additions to this section. Under 

paragraph (a), the terms ‘‘natural’’ and 

‘‘suitable’’ would be deleted from the 

first sentence because these terms are 

not defined. We propose to replace 

‘‘suitable’’ with ‘‘is necessary to support 

one or more life history stages,’’ i.e., 

‘‘suitable natural habitat’’ would be 

revised to ‘‘habitat that is necessary to 

support one or more life history stages.’’ 

In addition, the parenthetical phrase 

generally limiting an experimental 

population of a species to its ‘‘probable 

historic (sic) range’’ would be deleted. 

We propose to move the sentence 

following paragraph (b)(4) to a new 

paragraph. That sentence does not relate 

to introduced populations being affected 

by actions within or adjacent to the 

experimental population area. Rather, it 

addresses the Secretary’s authority to 

issue section 10(a)(1)(A) permits for 

establishment and maintenance of an 

experimental population. Because this 

is an undesignated sentence in the 

regulatory text, and to provide more 

emphasis on the need for section 

10(a)(1)(A) permits, we propose to move 

this sentence about Secretarial authority 

to a new paragraph (d). 

In paragraph (c)(3), the reference to 

‘‘natural populations,’’ which are not 

defined, would be replaced with 

‘‘nonexperimental populations.’’ 

In the existing paragraph (d), 

describing with whom the Service will 

consult, we propose to add Tribal 

governments to those affected by the 

establishment of experimental 

populations. We are also making a 

minor change from ‘‘local governmental 

entities’’ to ‘‘local government agencies’’ 

to be consistent with National Marine 

Fisheries Service section 10(j) 

regulations, although this proposed 

word change does not reflect any intent 

to change our obligation to consult with 

local governments. Also, we propose to 

add ‘‘water’’ to identify that the interest 

of agencies, Tribes, or persons may be 

in water as well as in land. Because of 

the previously described addition of text 

to paragraph (d), we would move the 

current provisions of paragraph (d) to 

paragraph (e) and the current provisions 

of paragraph (e) to paragraph (f). 

In the existing paragraph (f), we 

propose to add ‘‘experimental’’ to the 

third sentence to clarify that the 

referenced nonessential populations are 

experimental populations under section 

10(j). In addition, we propose to delete 

the last sentence because this language 

is not included in the ESA and it is not 

necessary to implement the statutory 

provisions related to critical habitat 

designations. We would redesignate this 

paragraph as paragraph (g). 

Section 17.82 Prohibitions 

We propose to replace the phrase 

‘‘Special rules’’ with ‘‘species-specific 

rules’’ to clarify that the rules are 

developed for specific species. 

Section 17.83 Interagency Cooperation 

In this section, which relates to how 

experimental populations are treated for 

purposes of interagency consultation 

under ESA section 7, we propose the 

following changes: 

Paragraph (b) would be divided 

because it covers two different subjects. 

The first is how the Service will treat an 

experimental population that either: (1) 

is essential to the survival of the species 

or (2) occurs within the National Park 

System or the National Wildlife Refuge 

System. The second is how agencies 

should consider experimental and 

nonexperimental populations during 

section 7 consultations (i.e., together as 

a single species). 

The new paragraph (c) would contain 

part of paragraph (b), as described 

above, including the existing provision 

that any section 7 consultation or 

conference on a proposed Federal action 

will consider both experimental and 

nonexperimental populations to 

constitute a single species for the 

purposes of conducting the section 7 

analyses. 

Sections 17.84 and 17.85 

These sections contain the regulations 

that apply to experimental populations 

of particular listed species. We propose 

to change the title of each section by 

deleting ‘‘special’’ and inserting 

‘‘species-specific’’ because ‘‘special’’ is 

vague and ‘‘species-specific’’ is a better 

description to indicate that each rule is 

specific to a particular species. 

Section 17.86 

This section is removed and reserved. 

Public Comments 

You may submit your comments and 

materials concerning the proposed rule 

by one of the methods listed in 

ADDRESSES. Comments must be 

submitted to https://

www.regulations.gov before 11:59 p.m. 

(Eastern Time) on the date specified in 

DATES. We will not consider mailed 

comments that are not postmarked by 

the date specified in DATES. 

We will post your entire comment— 

including your personal identifying 

information—on https://

www.regulations.gov. If you provide 

personal identifying information in your 

comment, you may request at the top of 

your document that we withhold this 

information from public review. 

However, we cannot guarantee that we 

will be able to do so. Comments and 

materials we receive, as well as 

supporting documentation we used in 

preparing this proposed rule, will be 

available for public inspection on 

https://www.regulations.gov. 

Required Determinations 

Regulatory Planning and Review— 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Executive Order 12866 provides that 

the Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of 

Management and Budget will review all 

significant rules. OIRA has determined 

that this rulemaking is not significant. 

Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the 

principles of Executive Order 12866 

while calling for improvements in the 

Nation’s regulatory system to promote 

predictability, to reduce uncertainty, 

and to use the best, most innovative, 

and least burdensome tools for 

achieving regulatory ends. The 

Executive order directs agencies to 

consider regulatory approaches that 

reduce burdens and maintain flexibility 

and freedom of choice for the public 

where these approaches are relevant, 

feasible, and consistent with regulatory 

objectives. Executive Order 13563 

emphasizes further that regulations 

must be based on the best available 

science and that the rulemaking process 

must allow for public participation and 

an open exchange of ideas. We have 

developed this proposed rule in a 

manner consistent with these 

requirements. This proposed rule is 

consistent with Executive Order 13563, 

and in particular with the requirement 

of retrospective analysis of existing 

rules, designed ‘‘to make the agency’s 

regulatory program more effective or 

less burdensome in achieving the 

regulatory objectives.’’ 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(as amended by the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 

(SBREFA) of 1996; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), 

whenever a Federal agency is required 

to publish a notice of rulemaking for 

any proposed or final rule, it must 

prepare, and make available for public 

comment, a regulatory flexibility 

analysis that describes the effect of the 

rulemaking on small entities (i.e., small 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 34627 

businesses, small organizations, and 

small government jurisdictions). 

However, no regulatory flexibility 

analysis is required if the head of an 

agency, or that person’s designee, 

certifies that the rulemaking will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

SBREFA amended the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act to require Federal 

agencies to provide a statement of the 

factual basis for certifying that a rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. We certify that, if adopted as 

proposed, this rulemaking would not 

have a significant economic effect on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The following discussion explains our 

rationale. 

This rulemaking would revise and 

clarify requirements for the Service 

regarding factors for establishing 

experimental populations under the 

ESA. The proposed changes to these 

regulations do not expand the reach of 

species protections. 

The Service is the only entity that is 

directly affected by this proposed rule 

because we are the only entity that 

would apply these regulations to 

designate experimental populations. No 

external entities, including any small 

businesses, small organizations, or small 

governments, would experience any 

economic impacts from this rulemaking. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 

U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) 

In accordance with the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et 

seq.): 

(a) On the basis of information 

contained in the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act section above, this proposed rule 

would not ‘‘significantly or uniquely’’ 

affect small governments. We have 

determined and certify pursuant to the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 

U.S.C. 1502, that this rulemaking would 

not impose a cost of $100 million or 

more in any given year on local or State 

governments or private entities. A Small 

Government Agency Plan is not 

required. As explained above, small 

governments would not be affected 

because the proposed rule would not 

place additional requirements on any 

city, county, or other local 

municipalities. 

(b) This proposed rule would not 

produce a Federal mandate on State, 

local, or Tribal governments or the 

private sector of $100 million or greater 

in any year; that is, this proposed rule 

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ ’ 

under the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act. This proposed rule would impose 

no obligations on State, local, or Tribal 

governments. 

Takings (E.O. 12630) 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12630, this proposed rule would not 

have significant takings implications. 

This proposed rule would not pertain to 

‘‘taking’’ of private property interests, 

nor would it directly affect private 

property. A takings implication 

assessment is not required because this 

proposed rule (1) would not effectively 

compel a property owner to suffer a 

physical invasion of property and (2) 

would not deny all economically 

beneficial or productive use of the land 

or aquatic resources. This proposed rule 

would substantially advance a 

legitimate government interest 

(conservation and recovery of 

endangered species and threatened 

species) and would not present a barrier 

to all reasonable and expected beneficial 

use of private property. 

Federalism (E.O. 13132) 

In accordance with Executive Order 

13132, we have considered whether this 

proposed rule would have significant 

federalism effects and have determined 

that a federalism summary impact 

statement is not required. This proposed 

rule pertains only to designation of 

experimental populations under the 

ESA and would not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the Federal 

Government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988) 

This proposed rule does not unduly 

burden the judicial system and meets 

the applicable standards provided in 

sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive 

Order 12988. This proposed rule would 

clarify factors for designation of 

experimental populations under the 

ESA. 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

In accordance with Executive Order 

13175, ‘‘Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments,’’ and 

the Department of the Interior’s manual 

at 512 DM 2, we are considering 

possible effects of this proposed rule on 

federally recognized Indian Tribes. We 

will continue to collaborate and 

coordinate with Tribes on issues related 

to federally listed species and their 

habitats. See Joint Secretarial Order 

3206 (‘‘American Indian Tribal Rights, 

Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, 

and the Endangered Species Act,’’ June 

5, 1997). 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) 

This proposed regulation revision 

does not contain any new collections of 

information that require approval by the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq.). OMB has previously approved 

the information collection requirements 

associated with reporting requirements 

associated with experimental 

populations and assigned the following 

OMB Control Number: 1018–0095, 

‘‘Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, 

Experimental Populations, 50 CFR 

17.84’’ (expires 9/30/2023). An agency 

may not conduct or sponsor, and a 

person is not required to respond to, a 

collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

We are analyzing this proposed 

regulation in accordance with the 

criteria of the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA), the Department of 

the Interior regulations on 

Implementation of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (43 CFR 

46.10–46.450), and the Department of 

the Interior Manual (516 DM 8). 

We anticipate that the categorical 

exclusion found at 43 CFR 46.210(i) 

likely applies to the proposed regulation 

changes. At 43 CFR 46.210(i), the 

Department of the Interior has found 

that the following category of actions 

would not individually or cumulatively 

have a significant effect on the human 

environment and are, therefore, 

categorically excluded from the 

requirement for completion of an 

environmental assessment or 

environmental impact statement: 

Policies, directives, regulations, and 

guidelines: that are of an administrative, 

financial, legal, technical, or procedural 

nature; or whose environmental effects 

are too broad, speculative, or conjectural 

to lend themselves to meaningful 

analysis and will later be subject to the 

NEPA process, either collectively or 

case-by-case. When the Service 

proposes to establish an experimental 

population, the proposed action will be 

subject to the NEPA process at that time. 

We invite the public to comment on 

the extent to which this proposed 

regulation may have a significant impact 

on the human environment or fall 

within one of the categorical exclusions 

for actions that have no individual or 

cumulative effect on the quality of the 

human environment. We will complete 

our analysis, in compliance with NEPA, 

before finalizing this regulation. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
34628 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

Energy Supply, Distribution or Use (E.O. 

13211) 

Executive Order 13211 requires 

agencies to prepare statements of energy 

effects when undertaking certain 

actions. The proposed revised 

regulations are not expected to affect 

energy supplies, distribution, and use. 

Therefore, this action is a not a 

significant energy action, and no 

statement of energy effects is required. 

Clarity of the Rulemaking 

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: 

(1) Be logically organized; 

(2) Use the active voice to address 

readers directly; 

(3) Use clear language rather than 

jargon; 

(4) Be divided into short sections and 

sentences; and 

(5) 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 

better help us revise the rulemaking, 

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. 

Authority 

We issue this proposed rule under the 

authority of the Endangered Species 

Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq.). 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Proposed Regulation Promulgation 

For the reasons described above, we 

hereby propose to amend subpart H, of 

part 17, 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. Amend § 17.80 by revising 

paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 17.80 Definitions. 

(a) The term experimental population 

means an introduced and/or designated 

population (including any offspring 

arising solely therefrom) that has been 

so designated in accordance with the 

procedures of this subpart but only 

when, and at such times as, the 

population is wholly separate 

geographically from nonexperimental 

populations of the same species. Where 

part of an experimental population 

overlaps with nonexperimental 

populations of the same species on a 

particular occasion, but is wholly 

separate at other times, specimens of the 

experimental population will not be 

recognized as such while in the area of 

overlap. That is, experimental status 

will be recognized only outside the 

areas of overlap. Thus, such a 

population will be treated as 

experimental only when the times of 

geographic separation are reasonably 

predictable, e.g., fixed migration 

patterns, natural or manmade barriers. A 

population is not treated as 

experimental if total separation will 

occur solely as a result of random and 

unpredictable events. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 17.81 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a) and 

paragraph (b) introductory text; 

■ b. Removing the undesignated 

paragraph following paragraph (b)(4); 

■ c. Revising paragraph (c)(3); 

■ d. Redesignating paragraphs (d), (e), 

and (f) as paragraphs (e), (f), and (g); 

■ e. Adding a new paragraph (d); and 

■ f. Revising newly redesignated 

paragraphs (e), (f), and (g). 

The revisions and addition read as 

follows: 

§ 17.81 Listing. 

(a) The Secretary may designate as an 

experimental population a population of 

endangered or threatened species that 

has been or will be released into habitat 

that is necessary to support one or more 

life history stages outside the species’ 

current range, subject to the further 

conditions specified in this section, 

provided that all designations of 

experimental populations must proceed 

by regulation adopted in accordance 

with 5 U.S.C. 553 and the requirements 

of this subpart. 

(b) Before authorizing the release as 

an experimental population of any 

population (including eggs, propagules, 

or individuals) of an endangered or 

threatened species, and before 

authorizing any necessary 

transportation to conduct the release, 

the Secretary must find by regulation 

that such release will further the 

conservation of the species. In making 

such a finding, the Secretary will use 

the best scientific and commercial data 

available to consider: 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(3) Management restrictions, 

protective measures, or other special 

management concerns of that 

population, as appropriate, which may 

include but are not limited to, measures 

to isolate and/or contain the 

experimental population designated in 

the regulation from nonexperimental 

populations; and 

* * * * * 

(d) The Secretary may issue a permit 

under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act, if 

appropriate under the standards set out 

in subsections 10(d) and (j) of the Act, 

to allow acts necessary for the 

establishment and maintenance of an 

experimental population. 

(e) The Service will consult with 

appropriate State fish and wildlife 

agencies, affected Tribal governments, 

local governmental agencies, affected 

Federal agencies, and affected private 

landowners in developing and 

implementing experimental population 

rules. When appropriate, a public 

meeting will be conducted with 

interested members of the public. Any 

regulation promulgated pursuant to this 

section will, to the maximum extent 

practicable, represent an agreement 

between the Service, the affected State 

and Federal agencies, Tribal 

governments, local government 

agencies, and persons holding any 

interest in land or water that may be 

affected by the establishment of an 

experimental population. 

(f) Any population of an endangered 

species or a threatened species 

determined by the Secretary to be an 

experimental population in accordance 

with this subpart will be identified by 

a species-specific rule in §§ 17.84 and 

17.85 as appropriate and separately 

listed in § 17.11(h) (wildlife) or 

§ 17.12(h) (plants) as appropriate. 

(g) The Secretary may designate 

critical habitat as defined in section 

(3)(5)(A) of the Act for an essential 

experimental population as determined 

pursuant to paragraph (c)(2) of this 

section. Any designation of critical 

habitat for an essential experimental 

population will be made in accordance 

with section 4 of the Act. No 

designation of critical habitat will be 

made for nonessential experimental 

populations. 

■ 4. Revise § 17.82 to read as follows: 

§ 17.82 Prohibitions. 

Any population determined by the 

Secretary to be an experimental 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 34629 

population will be treated as if it were 

listed as a threatened species for 

purposes of establishing protective 

regulations under section 4(d) of the Act 

with respect to such population. The 

species-specific rules (protective 

regulations) adopted for an 

experimental population under § 17.81 

will contain applicable prohibitions, as 

appropriate, and exceptions for that 

population. 

■ 5. Amend § 17.83 by revising 

paragraph (b) and adding paragraph (c) 

to read as follows: 

§ 17.83 Interagency cooperation. 

* * * * * 

(b) For a listed species, any 

experimental population that, pursuant 

to § 17.81(c)(2), has been determined to 

be essential to the survival of the 

species or that occurs within the 

National Park System or the National 

Wildlife Refuge System, as now or 

hereafter constituted, will be treated for 

purposes of section 7 of the Act as a 

threatened species. 

(c) For purposes of section 7 of the 

Act, any consultation or conference on 

a proposed Federal action will treat any 

experimental and nonexperimental 

populations as a single listed species for 

the purposes of conducting the analyses 

and making agency determinations 

pursuant to section 7(a) of the Act. 

■ 6. Amend § 17.84 by: 

■ a. Revising the section heading; and 

■ b. Removing the word ‘‘special’’ 

where it appears in the heading and first 

sentence of paragraph (l)(1) and in the 

headings to paragraphs (l)(16) and (x)(8). 

The revision reads as follows: 

§ 17.84 Species-specific rules— 

vertebrates. 

* * * * * 

■ 7. Amend § 17.85 by revising the 

section heading and paragraph (a)(2)(i) 

to read as follows: 

§ 17.85 Species-specific rules— 

invertebrates. 

(a) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(i) Except as expressly allowed in the 

rule in this paragraph (a), all the 

prohibitions of § 17.31(a) and (b) apply 

to the mollusks identified in the rule in 

this paragraph (a). 

* * * * * 

§ 17.86 [Removed and Reserved] 

■ 8. Remove and reserve § 17.86. 

Shannon A. Estenoz, 

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and 

Parks. 

[FR Doc. 2022–12061 Filed 6–6–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 648 

RIN 0648–BK20 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

Provisions; Fisheries of the 

Northeastern United States; 

Amendment 22 to the Mackerel, Squid, 

and Butterfish Fishery Management 

Plan 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Announcement of the 

availability of a proposed fishery 

management plan amendment; request 

for comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS announces that the 

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management 

Council submitted Amendment 22 to 

the Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish 

Fishery Management Plan to the 

Secretary of Commerce for review and 

approval. We are requesting comments 

from the public on this amendment in 

accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act. This amendment would implement 

updated and reformatted goals and 

objectives for the fishery management 

plan, a tiered permit system for vessels 

currently issued an Illex squid 

moratorium permit, a fish hold volume 

baseline, a fish hold volume upgrade 

restriction for the highest tier Illex squid 

moratorium permits, and clarify that all 

Illex squid moratorium permits must 

submit daily catch reports via the vessel 

monitoring system. The purpose of this 

action is to align the fishery goals/ 

objectives with current Council vision 

and priorities and to revise the number 

and types of Illex squid moratorium 

permits to reduce the negative effects 

from a race to fish in recent years. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before August 8, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on this document, identified by NOAA– 

NMFS–2022–0056, by the following 

method: 

Electronic Submission: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to 

www.regulations.gov/ 

#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2022- 

0056, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, 

complete the required fields, and enter 

or attach your comments. 

Instructions: Comments sent by any 

other method, to any other address or 

individual, or received after the end of 

the comment period, may not be 

considered by NMFS. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted for public 

viewing on www.regulations.gov 

without change. All personal identifying 

information (e.g., name, address, etc.), 

confidential business information, or 

otherwise sensitive information 

submitted voluntarily by the sender will 

be publicly accessible. NMFS will 

accept anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/ 

A’’ in the required fields if you wish to 

remain anonymous). 

The Mid-Atlantic Council prepared an 

environmental assessment (EA) for 

Amendment 22 that describes the 

proposed action and provides an 

analysis of the impacts of the proposed 

measures and other alternatives 

considered. Copies of Amendment 22, 

including the EA, the Regulatory Impact 

Review, and the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act analysis, are available from: 

Christopher Moore, Executive Director, 

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management 

Council, Suite 201, 800 State Street, 

Dover, DE 19901. The EA and associated 

analysis is accessible via the internet 

http://www.mafmc.org/supportingdocuments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Carly Bari, Fishery Policy Analyst, 978– 

281–9150. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The original goals and objectives for 

the Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish 

Fishery Management Plan (FMP) were 

developed in 1981 when the individual 

fisheries were merged into one FMP. 

Since that time, the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) has been 

amended several times and the MidAtlantic Fishery Management Council 

has developed several strategic plans to 

reflect updated priorities and strategic 

initiatives such as integrating an 

ecosystem approach to fisheries 

management into its FMPs. In 

September 2020, Atlantic chub mackerel 

was formally integrated into the FMP, 

along with updated goals and objectives 

for managing this species. The Council 

initiated Amendment 22 in January 

2019 in part to update the FMP’s goals 

and objectives to reflect current Council 

vision and priorities, make them 

consistent with the formats used in 

other FMPs managed by the Council, 

and to merge the original FMP goals and 

objectives with those developed for 

Atlantic chub mackerel. 

Amendment 22 is also intended to 

reconsider the appropriate number of 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1