57720 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

and since the numbers of contractors 

found to have submitted defective cost 

or pricing data are a minute subset of 

contractors to whom TINA applies, the 

rule is not expected to apply to a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Furthermore, the differential in interest 

computing methods is not expected to 

amount to a significant economic 

impact. An Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis has, therefore, not been 

performed. We invite comments from 

small businesses and other interested 

parties. The Councils will consider 

comments from small entities 

concerning the affected FAR Part 52 in 

accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested 

parties must submit such comments 

separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 601, 

et seq. (FAR case 2009–034), in 

correspondence. 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act does 

not apply because the proposed changes 

to the FAR do not impose information 

collection requirements that require the 

approval of the Office of Management 

and Budget under 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, 

et seq. 

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 52 

Government procurement. 

Dated: September 15, 2010. 

Edward Loeb, 

Director, Acquisition Policy Division. 

Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA 

propose amending 48 CFR part 52 as set 

forth below: 

PART 52—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS 

AND CONTRACT CLAUSES 

1. The authority citation for 48 CFR 

part 52 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. 

chapter 137; and 42 U.S.C. 2473(c). 

2. Amend section 52.214–27 by— 

a. Revising the date of the clause; and 

b. Removing from paragraph (e)(1) 

‘‘Simple interest’’ and adding ‘‘Interest 

compounded daily, as required by 26 

U.S.C. 6622,’’ in its place. 

The revised text reads as follows: 

52.214–27 Price Reduction for Defective 

Cost or Pricing Data—Modifications— 

Sealed Bidding. 

* * * * * 

Price Reduction for Defective Cost or 

Pricing Data—Modifications—Sealed 

Bidding (Date) 

* * * * * 

3. Amend section 52.215–10 by— 

a. Revising the date of the clause; and 

b. Removing from paragraph (d)(1) 

‘‘Simple interest’’ and adding ‘‘Interest 

compounded daily, as required by 26 

U.S.C. 6622,’’ in its place. 

The revised text reads as follows: 

52.215–10 Price Reduction for Defective 

Cost or Pricing Data. 

* * * * * 

Price Reduction for Defective Cost or 

Pricing Data (Date) 

* * * * * 

4. Amend section 52.215–11 by— 

a. Revising the date of the clause; and 

b. Removing from paragraph (e)(1) 

‘‘Simple interest’’ and adding ‘‘Interest 

compounded daily, as required by 26 

U.S.C. 6622,’’ in its place. 

The revised text reads as follows: 

52.215—11 Price Reduction for Defective 

Cost or Pricing Data—Modifications. 

* * * * * 

Price Reduction for Defective Cost or 

Pricing Data-Modifications (Date) 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2010–23589 Filed 9–21–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6820–EP–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket number FWS-R4-ES-2010-0051] 

[MO 92210-0-0008-B2] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a 

Petition to List Agave eggersiana (no 

common name) as Endangered 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of 12–month petition 

finding. 

SUMMARY: We, the Fish and Wildlife 

Service (Service), announce a 12–month 

finding on a petition to list the plant 

Agave eggersiana (no common name) as 

endangered under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). 

After review of all available scientific 

and commercial information, we find 

that listing A. eggersiana is warranted. 

Currently, however, listing A. 

eggersiana is precluded by higher 

priority actions to amend the Lists of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants. Upon publication of this 12- 

month petition finding, we will add A. 

eggersiana to our candidate species list. 

We will develop a proposed rule to list 

A. eggersiana as our priorities allow. We 

will make any determination on critical 

habitat during development of the 

proposed listing rule. In any interim 

period the status of the candidate taxon 

will be addressed through our annual 

Candidate Notice of Review (CNOR). 

DATES: The finding announced in this 

document was made on September 22, 

2010. 

ADDRESSES: This finding is available on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov at Docket Number 

[FWS-R4-ES-2010-0051]. Supporting 

documentation we used in preparing 

this finding is available for public 

inspection, by appointment, during 

normal business hours at the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Caribbean 

Ecological Services Field Office, Road 

301, Km. 5.1, Boquero ́n, Puerto Rico 

00622. Please submit any new 

information, materials, comments, or 

questions concerning this species or this 

finding to the above internet address or 

the mailing address listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Marelisa Rivera, Assistant Field 

Supervisor, Caribbean Ecological 

Services Field Office, P.O. Box 491, 

Boquero ́n, Puerto Rico 00622; by 

telephone at (787) 851-7297; or by 

facsimile at (787) 851-7440. Persons 

who use a telecommunications device 

for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800- 

877-8339. 

Background 

Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that, for 

any petition to revise the Federal Lists 

of Threatened and Endangered Wildlife 

and Plants that contains substantial 

scientific or commercial information 

that listing a species may be warranted, 

we make a finding within 12 months of 

the date of receipt of the petition. In this 

finding, we determine whether the 

petitioned action is: (a) Not warranted, 

(b) warranted, or (c) warranted, but 

immediate proposal of a regulation 

implementing the petitioned action is 

precluded by other pending proposals to 

determine whether species are 

threatened or endangered, and 

expeditious progress is being made to 

add or remove qualified species from 

the Federal Lists of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Section 

4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that we 

treat a petition for which the requested 

action is found to be warranted but 

precluded as though resubmitted on the 

date of such finding, that is, requiring a 

subsequent finding to be made within 

12 months. We must publish these 12– 

month findings in the Federal Register. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules 57721 

Previous Federal Actions 

We identified Agave eggersiana as a 

category 2 candidate species in the 

Notice of Review published in the 

Federal Register on September 30, 1993 

(58 FR 51144) and subsequent 

publication. A category 2 species was 

one for which the Service had 

information that proposing as 

endangered or threatened may be 

appropriate but for which sufficient 

information was not currently available 

to support a proposed rule. Designation 

of category 2 species was discontinued 

in the February 28, 1996, Notice of 

Review (61 FR 7596). This notice 

redefined candidates to include only 

species for which we have information 

needed to propose them for listing, and 

as a result, Agave eggersiana was 

removed from the Candidate species 

list. 

On November 21, 1996, we received 

a petition from the U.S. Virgin Islands 

Department of Planning and Natural 

Resources (DPNR) requesting that we 

list Agave eggersiana and Solanum 

conocarpum as endangered. On 

November 16, 1998, we published in the 

Federal Register (63 FR 63659) our 

finding that the petition to list A. 

eggersiana and S. conocarpum 

presented substantial information 

indicating that the requested action may 

be warranted and initiated a status 

review on these two plants. On 

September 1, 2004, the Center for 

Biological Diversity filed a lawsuit 

against the Department of the Interior 

and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(Service) alleging that the Service failed 

to publish a 12–month finding for A. 

eggersiana and S. conocarpum (Center 

for Biological Diversity v. Norton, Civil 

Action No. 1:04-CV-2553 CAP). In a 

stipulated settlement agreement 

resolving that case, signed April 27, 

2005, we agreed to submit our 12– 

month finding for A. eggersiana and S. 

conocarpum to the Federal Register by 

February 28, 2006. On March 7, 2006, 

we published our 12–month finding (71 

FR 11367) that listing of A. eggersiana 

and S. conocarpum was not warranted. 

On September 9, 2008, the Center for 

Biological Diversity filed a complaint 

challenging our 12–month finding 

(Center for Biological Diversity v. 

Hamilton, Case No. 1:08-cv-02830 

-CAP). In a settlement agreement 

approved by the Court on August 21, 

2009, the Service agreed to submit to the 

Federal Register a new 12–month 

finding for A. eggersiana by September 

17, 2010. This notice constitutes the 12– 

month finding on the 1996 petition to 

list A. eggersiana as endangered. 

Species Information 

Taxonomy and Species Description 

Agave eggersiana is a flowering plant 

of the family Agavaceae (century plant 

family) endemic to the island of St. 

Croix in the U.S. Virgin Islands. A. 

eggersiana was originally described in 

1913 by Trelease from material collected 

on St. Croix, and is distinguished from 

other members of the Agavaceae family 

by its acaulescent (without an evident 

leafy stem), non-suckering growth habit 

(vegetative reproduction that does not 

form offshoots around its base), and 

fleshy, nearly straight leaves with small 

marginal prickles (1.00 millimeter (mm); 

0.04 inches (in) long) that are nearly 

straight (Britton and Wilson 1923, p. 

156; Proctor and Acevedo-Rodri ́guez 

2005, p. 118). Its flowers are deep 

yellow, 5 to 6 centimeters (cm) (1.95 to 

2.34 in) long. After flowering, the 

panicles (inflorescence) produce 

numerous small vegetative bulbs 

(bulbils), from which the species can be 

propagated (Proctor and AcevedoRodri ́guez 2005, p. 118). Avave 

eggersiana is not known to produce 

fruit. Furthermore, based on 

observations of cultivated plants, Agave 

eggersiana requires at least 10 to 15 

years to develop as a mature individual 

and to produce an inflorescence (David 

Hamada, St. George Botanical Garden, 

2010, pers. comm.). Avave eggersiana 

like other Agave species are 

monocarpic, meaning the plant dies 

after producing the spike or 

inflorescence. 

Habitat and Distribution 

Britton and Wilson (1923, p. 156) 

reported the species from hillsides and 

plains in the eastern dry districts of St. 

Croix but did not provide population 

estimates. In addition, Agave eggersiana 

is cultivated on St. Croix and St. 

Thomas for ornament (Trelease 1913, p. 

28; Britton and Wilson 1923, p. 156; 

Proctor and Acevedo-Rodri ́guez 2005, 

p. 118). Information provided in the 

petition (Kojis and Boulon, DPNR, 1996, 

pers. comm.) specified that the species 

was last observed growing in the wild 

around 1984 to 1986 on St. Croix. In 

2003, DPNR stated that the species is 

believed to be extinct (Plaskett 2003, 

pers. comm.; Dalmida-Smith 2010, pers. 

comm.). Proctor and AcevedoRodri ́guez (2005, p. 118) provided a 

general description of the species and 

they state that the species ‘‘now appears 

to be extinct in the wild.’’ However, no 

citations or survey information were 

provided to support this statement. 

Subsequently, in 2010, DPNR provided 

information based on field visits and 

reported the existence of several 

populations in St. Croix (Dalmida-Smith 

2010, pers. comm.). 

Current Status 

Historically, Agave eggersiana was 

reported from the north coast in 

Christiansted, St. Croix and along the 

south coast of the island. The current 

distribution and rarity of the species do 

not represent the historical range. 

Historically, sugar cane was the main 

crop on the island and dominated the 

economy for nearly 200 years (Shaw, 

1933, p. 414). Apparently, the former 

land use of the areas used for sugar cane 

cultivation resulted in degradation of 

the species’ habitat and nearly 

extirpated the species from the wild. 

Sugarcane is no longer cultivated on the 

island and the majority of the areas 

formerly used for sugarcane plantations 

are currently grasslands and early 

secondary forests dominated by the 

exotic tree Leucaena leucocephala 

(tantan). 

In 2010, the Division of Fish and 

Wildlife of the DPNR (Dalmida-Smith 

2010, pers. comm.) conducted a local 

status review to determine the extent of 

the populations of Agave eggersiana in 

St. Croix. They reported five sites where 

the species was found; however, it is 

uncertain if these populations are 

natural populations (individuals that 

come from wild populations) or if the 

populations consist of individuals that 

escaped from landscaping. The five 

reported sites are: (1) Manchineel/ 

Ha’penny Beach (Southern St. Croix) 

with an estimated 30 individuals, which 

is approximately half the number of 

individuals that they encountered 2 

years before; (2) West side of Vagthus 

point (Southern St. Croix ) with a single 

individual; (3) Gallows Bay (Northern 

St. Croix) with several plants but no 

approximate number was mentioned; (4) 

Protestant Cay (Northern St. Croix) with 

an estimated 30 individuals, including a 

number of young plants; and (5) Ruth 

Island (Southern St. Croix) with a single 

individual that was introduced to the 

cay many years ago. However, the exact 

year of this introduction is unknown. 

In February 2010, Service biologists 

conducted surveys of Agave eggersiana 

on St. Croix. In their 2010 surveys, 

Service biologists visited seven of the 

ten currently known populations (Table 

1). They did not survey the two areas 

where a single individual has been 

reported (Ruth Island and West Vagthus 

point) or Buck Island Reef National 

Monument, where individuals have 

been planted and recent survey 

information exists. Based on their 

characteristics (growing mixed with 

native vegetation, evidence of natural 

recruitment and the presence of 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
57722 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

different size classes), these surveys 

indicate that the species currently 

occurs in six areas that appear to be 

remnants of wild populations. Four 

localities (Buck Island Reef National 

Monument, Salt River Bay, Ruth Island, 

and Lagoon Picnic Area) contain 

individuals that were planted in recent 

years. 

TABLE 1. CURRENTLY KNOWN POPULATIONS OF Agave eggersiana ON ST. CROIX. 

Locality Category Estimated # of Adult 

Individuals Source of Information 

Manchineel / Ha’penny Beach Wild 25–30 Dalmida-Smith 2010, pers. comm.; Monsegur and Vargas 

2010, unpublished data 

West Vagthus point Wild 1 Dalmida-Smith 2010. pers. comm. 

Gallows Bay Wild 2–3 David Hamada. 2010, pers. comm.; Monsegur and Vargas 

2010, unpublished data. 

Protestant Cay Wild 30–51 + 60 bulbils Dalmida-Smith 2010, pers. comm.; Monsegur and Vargas 

2010, unpublished data 

Ruth Island Introduced* 1 Dalmida-Smith 2010, pers. comm. 

Great Pond Wild 76 + 50 bulbils Monsegur and Vargas 2010, unpublished data; Plaskett 2003. 

pers. comm. 

South Shore Wild 100 + 150 bulbils Monsegur and Vargas 2010, unpublished data. 

Salt River Bay Introduced** 6 Monsegur and Vargas 2010, unpublished data. 

Buck Island National Monument Introduced* 5 Monsegur and Vargas 2010, unpublished data. 

Lagoon Picnic Area Landscape 177 Monsegur and Vargas 2010, unpublished data. 

Total 450 +260 bulbils 

* Introduced by DPNR for conservation. 

** Introduced by NPS for education and outreach. 

The eight localities containing 

multiple Agave eggersiana plants are 

described as follows: 

(1) Gallows Bay (private property) has 

several individuals that are considered 

by local experts as a remnant of a 

natural population (David Hamada 

2010, pers. comm.). Historical 

documents and illustrations show that 

Agave eggersiana was common on the 

landscape of Gallows Bay (David 

Hamada 2010, pers. comm.). 

(2) Protestant Cay (owned by the 

government but leased to a private 

party), has an estimated population of 

51 adult individuals of different sizes 

and about 60 bulbils. 

(3) Ha’penny Beach (private property), 

has an estimated population of 25 

individuals of different size classes; one 

of the plants was found flowering 

during the site visit conducted by the 

Service in 2010. 

(4) Great Pond (managed by the 

Department of Housing, Parks and 

Recreation) has a healthy population of 

A. eggersiana with different size plants 

and evidence of recent flowering events. 

This population is located near Great 

Pond, an area where it was suspected 

that descendants from wild plants may 

have existed (Plaskett 2003, pers. 

comm.). 

(5) South Shore (private property), has 

a population of about 100 adult 

individuals and about 150 bulbils, all 

growing on small terraces at a rocky 

cliff. This population is actively 

flowering and it was noted that some of 

the bulbils are reaching the sea, 

suggesting a possible dispersal 

mechanism for the species. 

(6) Salt River Bay National Historic 

Park and Ecological Preserve (SARI) 

(managed by the National Park Service 

(NPS)) has six individual plants. In 

2007, personnel from the NPS planted 

these individuals at Salt River as part of 

the landscape with the idea of 

establishing a population at the site and 

for outreach purposes. At the time of the 

survey, five of these plants were 

producing spikes and were expected to 

produce bulbils within the following 

months (Monsegur and Vargas, USFWS, 

2010, unpublished data). Based on 

information provided by personnel from 

NPS, additional propagation efforts with 

the species are planned in the near 

future (Lundgreen 2010, pers. comm.). 

(7) Buck Island Reef National 

Monument (managed by the NPS) has 

an estimated population of five 

individuals. In 2007, personnel from 

NPS planted these five individuals on 

the island, but at present time there is 

no information regarding the breeding 

condition of these plants (Lundgreen 

2010, pers. comm.). 

(8) Lagoon Picnic Area (a public 

beach area that seems to be under a 

reforestation effort funded by the 

Antilitter and Beautification 

Commission) harbors about 177 plants 

as part of the landscape. The size of the 

individuals in this area ranges from 

small planted bulbils to a few adult 

individuals ready to flower. Based on 

the information gathered and 

observations, about 450 adult 

individuals and 260 bulbils are 

currently known in 10 localities, 

including 6 populations that are 

considered wild, 3 introduced 

populations for conservation and public 

education, and 1 landscape population 

(Table 1). In addition to these localities, 

Monsegur and Vargas (2010, personal 

observation) documented the species 

presence in private gardens scattered 

throughout the island. We estimate 

about 90 adult individuals are present 

in these private gardens. 

At the present time, information on 

ecology, phenology, and genetics for 

Agave eggersiana is lacking. Samples of 

A. eggersiana from individuals in the 

Gallows Bay area have been collected 

for genetics analysis, but results were 

not available prior to making this 

finding (Ray 2010, pers. comm.). 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules 57723 

Current evidence suggests that the wild 

and cultivated populations have 

minimum genetic variation. Therefore, 

all A. eggersiana plants (cultivated and 

wild) are included as part of the listable 

entity in this finding; however, we have 

focused our assessment of threats to the 

wild populations. Although data suggest 

that cultivated individuals could be 

used as genetic stock to aid in the longterm survival of this species, most 

cultivated populations are groomed to 

prevent recruitment and thus offer 

minimal conservation contribution. We 

do not feel that cultivated individuals 

propagated for private or commercial 

uses aid in the conservation or the 

recovery of the species in the wild. 

Summary of Information Pertaining to 

the Five Factors 

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), 

and implementing regulations (50 CFR 

424), set forth procedures for adding 

species to the Federal Lists of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the 

Act, a species may be determined to be 

endangered or threatened based on any 

of the following 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. In 

making this finding, information 

pertaining to Agave eggersiana, in 

relation to the five factors provided in 

section 4(a)(1) of the Act is discussed 

below. 

In considering what factors might 

constitute threats to a species, we must 

look beyond the exposure of the species 

to a factor to evaluate whether the 

species may respond to the factor in a 

way that causes actual impacts to the 

species. If there is exposure to a factor 

and the species responds negatively, the 

factor may be a threat and we attempt 

to determine how significant a threat it 

is. The threat is significant if it drives, 

or contributes to, the risk of extinction 

of the species such that the species 

warrants listing as endangered or 

threatened as those terms are defined in 

the Act. 

Factor A: The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of the Species’ Habitat or 

Range 

Of the currently known populations, 

only three areas are managed for 

conservation (Ruth Island, Salt River 

Bay, and Buck Island National 

Monument), the remaining populations 

occur within privately owned lands 

currently threatened by development or 

areas already developed and managed as 

tourism and residential projects. Based 

on information reported by the 

University of the Virgin Islands’ 

Conservation Data Center (http:// 

cdc.uvi.edu), at least three of the 

populations (Protestant Cay, Gallows 

Bay, and Ha’penny Beach) lie within 

areas identified by the DPNR as highdensity land use areas, which have a 

higher susceptibility to development in 

the near future. Furthermore, Weiss 

(2010, pers. comm.) identified two 

proposed development projects within 

suitable habitat for the species (C&R 

Robin, LLC and Seven Hills Beach 

Resort and Casino). Based on the field 

assessment conducted by Service 

biologists, the coastal areas that harbor 

suitable habitat for the species are 

currently subject to urban and tourist 

development (Monsegur and Vargas 

2010, personal observation). 

The population at Protestant Cay 

seems to be affected by the use of the 

area as a deposit for garden debris from 

a hotel that occupies the majority of this 

small island (Monsegur and Vargas 

2010, personal observation). Since 

Agave eggersiana relies on asexual 

reproduction, the species depends on 

the bulbils becoming established. 

Covering the bulbils with debris may 

result in subsequent mortality of the 

bulbils and lack of natural recruitment, 

thus affecting the long-term survival of 

this population. Moreover, individuals 

located on the edges of the population 

are pruned as part of the gardens’ 

maintenance. This practice may result 

in mortality or mutilation of individuals 

since the species is monopodial (single 

growth axis). The population at 

Protestant Cay is also threatened by 

competition with exotic plant species. 

Individuals seem to be stressed due to 

competition with exotics as what little 

undeveloped habitat is left is rapidly 

being colonized by nonnative species 

(see Factor E). 

The individuals located at Gallows 

Bay are within an area currently 

developed as a residential complex with 

the potential for future expansion, 

which may affect these individuals 

(Monsegur and Vargas 2010, personal 

observation). In addition, this area does 

not contain additional habitat to allow 

the current population to expand. 

Remaining forested areas surrounding 

this location are characterized by the 

abundance of exotic species. Areas that 

could be used by bulbils to become 

established are occupied by the exotic 

plant Sansevieria cilindrica, a species 

that tends to form a complete cover of 

the understory (see Factor E). 

The areas adjacent to Ha’penny Bay 

on the south coast of St. Croix harbor 

two of the known natural populations of 

Agave eggersiana (Ha’penny Beach and 

South Shore). According to personnel 

from the DPNR (Valiulis 2010, pers. 

comm.) these areas are advertised by 

realtors as areas for tourism and 

residential development and, as 

previously mentioned, are planned for 

high-density development. Furthermore, 

the areas along the south coast that have 

not been developed are used for cattle 

or hay production, minimizing the 

recovery of native vegetation and, 

therefore, the habitat for A. eggersiana 

(Monsegur and Vargas 2010, personal 

observation). The development of 

tourist and residential projects in these 

coastal areas may result in the 

extirpation of some populations, or at 

the least, will reduce the chances of the 

populations to expand or to colonize 

other areas. This is exacerbated by the 

low potential for natural recruitment 

due to the small number of populations 

and individuals. 

The population of Great Pond is 

located between the entrance road of the 

East End Marine Park office and a 

private property currently for sale. The 

population seems to be healthy based on 

the presence of different size plants and 

evidence of recent flowering events. It 

seems that there is suitable habitat for 

the species in the area; however, the 

area near the population is mowed and 

the access road limits the expansion of 

the population’s range. Furthermore, the 

area adjacent to this population is a 

private property for sale. The possible 

use of the area for residential or tourist 

development may affect the population; 

owners will likely manage their 

properties as landscapes, which could 

lead to land clearing, additional 

mowing, and other maintenance of 

gardens. This could also lead to the 

introduction of exotics. Moreover, the 

abundance of grassland areas and the 

dominance of the exotic Megathyrsus 

maximus (guinea grass) in the area make 

the population Agave eggersiana 

susceptible to human-induced fires 

(addressed in Factor E). These exotic 

grasses are typically adapted to fire 

conditions. 

Based on the above information, we 

consider the present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of the species habitat or 

range as a moderate but imminent threat 

to wild populations of Agave 

eggersiana. The threats of possible 

construction developments and current 

management of habitat of the 

populations may further limit species 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
57724 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

propagation and expansion in the 

foreseeable future. 

Factor B: Overutilization for 

Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 

Educational Purposes 

Agave eggersiana has been reported as 

a cultivar since it was described as a 

species in 1913 (Trelease, 1913, p. 28); 

historically, the majority of A. 

eggersiana found in St. Croix and St. 

Thomas were from landscaped areas 

(Britton and Wilson 1923, p. 156; 

Plaskett 2003, pers. comm.; Kojis and 

Boulon 1996, pers. comm.; Proctor and 

Acevedo-Rodri ́guez 2005, p. 118; 

Acevedo-Rodri ́guez 2005, pers. comm.). 

The species is currently distributed by 

the St. George Botanical Garden for 

conservation and private landscaping 

purposes. A. eggersiana is a commonly 

used ornamental species on the island, 

and recent declines in the number of 

individuals at one population along the 

coast of Ha’penny Bay are thought to be 

due to collection for ornamental 

purposes (Dalmida-Smith 2010, pers. 

comm.; Valiulis 2010, pers. comm.). 

Based on the above, we consider the 

overutilization for commercial and 

recreational purposes a moderate to low 

but imminent threat to wild populations 

of the species. Although captively 

propagated Agave eggersiana are 

available to residents for use in private 

gardens, collection of wild individuals 

is a threat to the species, and we expect 

it to continue to be a threat in the 

foreseeable future. 

Factor C: Disease or Predation 

The genus Agave is widely affected by 

the agave snout weevil (Scyphophorus 

acupunctatus). This weevil has a wide 

distribution that includes the Greater 

Antilles (Cuba, Jamaica and Hispaniola) 

(Vaurie 1971, p. 4). The larvae of this 

weevil feed on the starchy base of the 

plant, increasing the risk of infestation 

by pathogens, such as a virus or fungus, 

later resulting in the death of the plant 

(Vaurie 1971, p. 4). At this time, there 

is no information about the occurrence 

of the agave snout weevil within the 

Puerto Rican Platform or the Lesser 

Antilles where St. Croix is located. A 

small number of individuals of A. 

eggersiana were observed with scarring 

along the borders of some leaves 

(Monsegur and Vargas 2010, personal 

observation). It appears that an insect or 

an arthropod larva may feed on the 

leaves; however, the exact cause and the 

consequences of the scarring are 

unknown. Nevertheless, this is 

important and it should be monitored as 

it might be an indicator of a recently 

arrived pest to St Croix. 

On Mona Island (Puerto Rico), feral 

pigs are known to uproot juveniles and 

destroy the root system of Agave 

sisalana, to feed on the root system or 

to use them as a water source (Saliva 

1983, 1996, personal observation). Since 

introduced pigs, donkeys, and goats 

have been reported in St. Croix we 

cannot discard the possible predation of 

A. eggersiana by these feral animals, 

particularly to young plants within the 

populations. The absence of evidence of 

predation by these species might be the 

result of the low number of populations 

of A. eggersiana, their isolation, and the 

proximity of some of these populations 

to human inhabited areas. However, at 

this time, there is no evidence that 

donkeys, pigs, or goats constitute a 

specific threat to any A. eggersiana 

populations. 

Since the agave snout weevil has not 

been reported in St. Croix, we do not 

consider disease as a threat to the 

species. Although there is some 

evidence that insect or arthropod larvae 

may feed on the leaves of Agave 

eggersiana, there is no evidence that this 

is negatively impacting the species’ 

ability to grow or reproduce. In 

addition, we have no evidence of 

grazing on A. eggersiana by introduced 

donkeys, pigs, or goats. Therefore, we 

do not find disease or predation to be 

a current threat to the species. 

Factor D: The Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

The Territory of the U.S. Virgin 

Islands currently considers Agave 

eggersiana to be endangered under the 

Virgin Islands Indigenous and 

Endangered Species Act (V.I. Code, Title 

12, Chapter 2), and has amended an 

existing regulation (Bill No. 18-0403) to 

provide for protection of endangered 

and threatened wildlife and plants by 

prohibiting the take, injury, or 

possession of indigenous plants. Based 

on the number of individuals currently 

used for private gardens and current 

landscape practices in private areas, 

such as pruning and mowing of 

populations, we believe that protection 

provisions under the local regulation are 

not being appropriately enforced. 

Rothenberger et al. (2008, p. 68) 

mentioned that the lack of management 

and enforcement capacity continues to 

be a significant challenge for the USVI 

since enforcement agencies are 

chronically understaffed and territorial 

resource management offices experience 

significant staff turnover, particularly 

during administration changes. 

Based on the information above, we 

consider the inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms as a current 

threat to the species due to a lack of 

enforcement. Because at least three 

populations exist in areas managed for 

conservation and public outreach, we 

consider this threat to be moderate to 

low in magnitude but imminent. We do 

not anticipate any regulatory or 

enforcement changes that would reduce 

this threat in the foreseeable future. 

Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade 

Factors Affecting the Continued 

Existence of the Species 

The islands of the Caribbean are 

frequently affected by hurricanes. It has 

been suggested that hurricanes are 

responsible for shaping and modifying 

the structure and composition of the 

vegetation in the Caribbean (Van Bloem 

et al. 2003, p. 137; Van Bloem et al. 

2005, p. 572; Van Bloem et al. 2006, p. 

517). As an endemic species to the 

island of St. Croix, Agave eggersiana 

would be expected to be well adapted 

to tropical storms. However, the low 

number of individuals found on the 

island and the reproductive biology of 

the species (dependence on asexual 

reproduction and the plant dying after 

flowering) increases the likelihood of 

stochastic events such as hurricanes 

extirpating a population. We believe 

that landslides and coastal erosion 

associated with hurricanes may affect 

the populations located along the 

coastal areas of St. Croix (Ha’penny 

Beach, South Shore, and Protestant Cay) 

due to their proximity to cliffs and the 

shoreline. 

Agave eggersiana may be further 

threatened by climate change, which is 

predicted to increase the frequency and 

strength of tropical storms and can 

cause severe droughts (Hopkinson et al. 

2008, p. 260). The cumulative effect of 

coastal erosion due to severe hurricanes 

plus the habitat modification for urban 

and tourist development can further 

diminish the availability of suitable 

habitat and, therefore, limit population 

expansion and colonization of new 

areas. In addition, the possibility of 

severe droughts may contribute to an 

increase in the quantity and frequency 

of fires on the island. These cumulative 

factors may reduce the number of 

individuals and further reduce 

populations. 

Based on satellite images, there is 

evidence of human-induced fires along 

the south coast of the island. The 

vegetation of the Caribbean is not 

adapted to fires since this disturbance 

does not naturally occur on these 

islands (Brandeis and Woodall 2008, p. 

557; Santiago-Garcia ́ et al. 2008, p. 608); 

juvenile plants are especially vulnerable 

to fire damage. This regime of humaninduced fires could modify the 

landscape by promoting exotic trees and 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules 57725 

grasses, and by diminishing the seed 

bank of native species. For example the 

exotic Megathyrsus maximus is well 

adapted to fires and typically colonizes 

areas that were previously covered by 

native vegetation. Furthermore, the 

presence of this species increases the 

amount of fuel and, therefore, the 

intensity of the fire events. Due to the 

abundance of grasses at Great Pond, this 

Agave eggersiana population is 

particularly threatened by humaninduced fires. 

Moreover, the individuals of the 

populations of Protestant Cay, Gallows 

Bay and Great Pond are surrounded by 

dense stands of different species of 

Sansevieria, an herb native to Africa. 

This invasive species seems to be 

occupying the ecological niche adjacent 

to the known populations of Agave 

eggersiana. Plant invasion can affect the 

environment at three levels; at the 

genetic level the number of individuals 

of native species can be reduced below 

the minimum necessary for persistence, 

at the species diversity level the number 

of species present and their distribution 

can be reduced, and at the ecosystem 

level the functioning of the ecosystem 

can be changed (Rippey et al. 2002, p. 

170). In this case, invasive species may 

constrain the number of A. eggersiana 

reducing variability in the population. 

Consequently, the loss of diversity of 

the species may eliminate A. eggersiana 

in the area affecting other organisms 

(e.g., insects and birds feeding on the 

flowers). 

Based on the above information and 

due to the reduced number of 

populations and individuals, we believe 

that the species is currently threatened 

by natural or manmade factors such as 

hurricanes, fires, and competition from 

exotic species. Climate change may 

exacerbate these habitat threats by 

increasing the frequency of fires, 

droughts, and hurricanes. We consider 

these threats to be moderate and 

imminent. We do not anticipate any 

changes that would appreciably reduce 

this threat in the foreseeable future. 

Finding 

As required by the Act, we conducted 

a review of the status of the species and 

considered the five factors in assessing 

whether Agave eggersiana is threatened 

or endangered throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. We 

examined the best scientific and 

commercial information available 

regarding the past, present, and future 

threats faced by the species. We 

reviewed the petition, information 

available in our files, other available 

published and unpublished 

information, consulted with species and 

habitat experts and other Federal and 

State agencies, and conducted field 

work on the island of St. Croix. 

This status review identified threats 

to the species attributable to Factors A, 

B, D, and E. Of the currently known 

populations, only three populations are 

located in areas managed for 

conservation and public outreach (Ruth 

Island, Salt River Bay, and Buck Island 

National Monument). The remaining 

populations, containing about 97 

percent of the currently known adult 

individuals, are located in areas either 

threatened by development pressure, or 

are currently affected by landscape 

practices and competition with exotic 

species, resulting in detrimental effects 

to reproduction and recruitment (see 

Factors A and E). Furthermore, the use 

of the Agave eggersiana as an 

ornamental species is common on the 

island, and evidence suggests that wild 

specimens are being collected due to the 

commercial interest in this species 

(Factor B). Although the species is 

currently listed under local regulations, 

lack of enforcement of local law does 

not provide adequate protection to 

ameliorate threats to the species. 

On the basis of the best scientific and 

commercial information available and 

our analysis of the current and 

foreseeable threats to the species and its 

habitat, we find that listing Agave 

eggersiana (including wild and 

cultivated populations), is warranted. 

We will make a determination on the 

status of the species as threatened or 

endangered when we do a proposed 

listing determination. However, as 

explained in more detail below, an 

immediate proposal of a regulation 

implementing this action is precluded 

by higher priority listing actions, and 

progress is being made to add or remove 

qualified species from the Lists of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants. 

We reviewed the available 

information to determine if the existing 

and foreseeable threats render the 

species at risk of extinction now such 

that issuing an emergency regulation 

temporarily listing the species as per 

section 4(b)(7) of the Act is warranted. 

We determined that issuing an 

emergency regulation temporarily 

listing the species is not warranted for 

this species at this time since 

approximately 450 individuals are 

known to occur in 10 localities (Table 

1). However, if at any time we 

determine that issuing an emergency 

regulation temporarily listing the 

species is necessary, we will initiate this 

action at that time. 

Listing Priority Number 

The Service adopted guidelines on 

September 21, 1983 (48 FR 43098), to 

establish a rational system for utilizing 

available resources for the highest 

priority species when adding species to 

the Lists of Endangered or Threatened 

Wildlife and Plants or reclassifying 

species listed as threatened to 

endangered status. The system places 

greatest importance on the immediacy 

and magnitude of threats, but also 

factors in the level of taxonomic 

distinctiveness by assigning priority in 

descending order to monotypic genera, 

full species, and subspecies (or 

equivalently, distinct population 

segments of vertebrates). 

We assigned Agave eggersiana an LPN 

of 8, based on our finding that the 

species faces moderate to low 

magnitude threats from the present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat; overutilization 

for commercial, recreational, scientific, 

or educational purposes; the inadequacy 

of existing regulatory mechanisms; and 

other natural or manmade Factors. One 

or more of the threats discussed above 

are occurring, and we anticipate they 

will still occur in the near future in each 

known population in St. Croix. These 

threats are ongoing and in some cases 

considered irreversible. 

Although the species faces threats, as 

described above, we believe these 

threats to be of moderate to low 

magnitude; at least 450 adults and 260 

bulbils are known to occur in 10 

populations with half showing evidence 

of recruitment in the wild and 3 located 

in areas managed for conservation and 

public outreach. Under the 1983 

Guidelines, a ‘‘species’’ facing imminent 

moderate to low magnitude threats is 

assigned an LPN of 7, 8, or 9 depending 

on its taxonomic status. Because A. 

eggersiana is a species, but not a 

monotypic genus, we assigned it an LPN 

of 8. While we conclude that listing the 

species is warranted, an immediate 

proposal to list this species is precluded 

by other higher priority listing actions, 

which we address below. 

Preclusion and Expeditious Progress 

Preclusion is a function of the listing 

priority of a species in relation to the 

resources that are available and 

competing demands for those resources. 

Thus, in any given fiscal year (FY), 

multiple factors dictate whether it will 

be possible to undertake work on a 

proposed listing regulation or whether 

promulgation of such a proposal is 

warranted but precluded by higherpriority listing actions. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
57726 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

The resources available for listing 

actions are determined through the 

annual Congressional appropriations 

process. The appropriation for the 

Listing Program is available to support 

work involving the following listing 

actions: proposed and final listing rules; 

90–day and 12–month findings on 

petitions to add species to the Lists of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants (Lists) or to change the status 

of a species from threatened to 

endangered; annual determinations on 

prior ‘‘warranted but precluded’’ petition 

findings as required under section 

4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Act; critical habitat 

petition findings; proposed and final 

rules designating critical habitat; and 

litigation-related, administrative, and 

program-management functions 

(including preparing and allocating 

budgets, responding to Congressional 

and public inquiries, and conducting 

public outreach regarding listing and 

critical habitat). The work involved in 

preparing various listing documents can 

be extensive and may include, but is not 

limited to: gathering and assessing the 

best scientific and commercial data 

available and conducting analyses used 

as the basis for our decisions; writing 

and publishing documents; and 

obtaining, reviewing, and evaluating 

public comments and peer review 

comments on proposed rules and 

incorporating relevant information into 

final rules. The number of listing 

actions that we can undertake in a given 

year also is influenced by the 

complexity of those listing actions; that 

is, more complex actions generally are 

more costly. For example, during the 

past several years, the cost (excluding 

publication costs) for preparing a 12– 

month finding, without a proposed rule, 

has ranged from approximately $11,000 

for one species with a restricted range 

and involving a relatively 

uncomplicated analysis to $305,000 for 

another species that is wide-ranging and 

involving a complex analysis. 

We cannot spend more than is 

appropriated for the Listing Program 

without violating the Anti-Deficiency 

Act (see 31 U.S.C. § 1341(a)(1)(A)). In 

addition, in FY 1998 and for each fiscal 

year since then, Congress has placed a 

statutory cap on funds that may be 

expended for the Listing Program, equal 

to the amount expressly appropriated 

for that purpose in that fiscal year. This 

cap was designed to prevent funds 

appropriated for other functions under 

the Act (for example, recovery funds for 

removing species from the Lists), or for 

other Service programs, from being used 

for Listing Program actions (see House 

Report 105-163, 105th Congress, 1st 

Session, July 1, 1997). 

Recognizing that designation of 

critical habitat for species already listed 

would consume most of the overall 

Listing Program appropriation, Congress 

also put a critical habitat subcap in 

place in FY 2002 and has retained it 

each subsequent year to ensure that 

some funds are available for other work 

in the Listing Program: ‘‘The critical 

habitat designation subcap will ensure 

that some funding is available to 

address other listing activities’’ (House 

Report No. 107 - 103, 107th Congress, 1st 

Session, June 19, 2001). In FY 2002 and 

each year until FY 2006, the Service has 

had to use virtually the entire critical 

habitat subcap to address courtmandated designations of critical 

habitat, and consequently none of the 

critical habitat subcap funds have been 

available for other listing activities. In 

FY 2007, we were able to use some of 

the critical habitat subcap funds to fund 

proposed listing determinations for 

high-priority candidate species. In FY 

2009, while we were unable to use any 

of the critical habitat subcap funds to 

fund proposed listing determinations, 

we did use some of this money to fund 

the critical habitat portion of some 

proposed listing determinations, so that 

the proposed listing determination and 

proposed critical habitat designation 

could be combined into one rule, 

thereby being more efficient in our 

work. In FY 2010, we are using some of 

the critical habitat subcap funds to fund 

actions with statutory deadlines. 

Thus, through the listing cap, the 

critical habitat subcap, and the amount 

of funds needed to address courtmandated critical habitat designations, 

Congress and the courts have in effect 

determined the amount of money 

available for other listing activities. 

Therefore, the funds in the listing cap, 

other than those needed to address 

court-mandated critical habitat for 

already-listed species, set the limits on 

our determinations of preclusion and 

expeditious progress. 

Congress also recognized that the 

availability of resources was the key 

element in deciding, when making a 12– 

month petition finding, whether we 

would prepare and issue a listing 

proposal or instead make a ‘‘warranted 

but precluded’’ finding for a given 

species. The Conference Report 

accompanying Public Law 97-304, 

which established the current statutory 

deadlines and the warranted-butprecluded finding, states (in a 

discussion on 90–day petition findings 

that by its own terms also covers 12– 

month findings) that the deadlines were 

‘‘not intended to allow the Secretary to 

delay commencing the rulemaking 

process for any reason other than that 

the existence of pending or imminent 

proposals to list species subject to a 

greater degree of threat would make 

allocation of resources to such a petition 

[that is, for a lower-ranking species] 

unwise.’’ 

In FY 2010, expeditious progress is 

that amount of work that can be 

achieved with $10,471,000, which is the 

amount of money that Congress 

appropriated for the Listing Program 

(that is, the portion of the Listing 

Program funding not related to critical 

habitat designations for species that are 

already listed). However these funds are 

not enough to fully fund all our courtordered and statutory listing actions in 

FY 2010, so we are using $1,114,417 of 

our critical habitat subcap funds in 

order to work on all of our required 

petition findings and listing 

determinations. This brings the total 

amount of funds we have for listing 

action in FY 2010 to $11,585,417. 

Starting in FY 2010, we are also using 

our funds to work on listing actions for 

foreign species since that work was 

transferred from the Division of 

Scientific Authority, International 

Affairs Program to the Endangered 

Species Program. Our process is to make 

our determinations of preclusion on a 

nationwide basis to ensure that the 

species most in need of listing will be 

addressed first and also because we 

allocate our listing budget on a 

nationwide basis. The $11,585,417 is 

being used to fund work in the 

following categories: compliance with 

court orders and court-approved 

settlement agreements requiring that 

petition findings or listing 

determinations be completed by a 

specific date; section 4 (of the Act) 

listing actions with absolute statutory 

deadlines; essential litigation-related, 

administrative, and listing programmanagement functions; and highpriority listing actions for some of our 

candidate species. The allocations for 

each specific listing action are identified 

in the Service’s FY 2010 Allocation 

Table (part of our administrative 

record). 

In FY 2007, we had more than 120 

species with an LPN of 2, based on our 

September 21, 1983, guidance for 

assigning an LPN for each candidate 

species (48 FR 43098). Using this 

guidance, we assign each candidate an 

LPN of 1 to 12, depending on the 

magnitude of threats (high vs. moderate 

to low), immediacy of threats (imminent 

or nonimminent), and taxonomic status 

of the species (in order of priority: 

monotypic genus (a species that is the 

sole member of a genus); species; or part 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules 57727 

of a species (subspecies, distinct 

population segment, or significant 

portion of the range)). The lower the 

listing priority number, the higher the 

listing priority (that is, a species with an 

LPN of 1 would have the highest listing 

priority). 

To be more efficient in our listing 

process, as we work on proposed rules 

for these species in the next several 

years, we are preparing multi-species 

proposals when appropriate, and these 

may include species with lower priority 

if they overlap geographically or have 

the same threats as a species with an 

LPN of 2. In addition, available staff 

resources are also a factor in 

determining which high-priority species 

are provided with funding. Finally, 

proposed rules for reclassification of 

threatened species to endangered are 

lower priority, since as listed species, 

they are already afforded the protection 

of the Act and implementing 

regulations. 

Given the above-mentioned funding 

constraints, the Service’s priority is to 

work on: (1) listing determinations for 

listing actions with absolute statutory, 

court-ordered, or court-approved 

deadlines, and final listing 

determinations for those species that 

have been proposed for listing; and (2) 

candidate species and reclassifications 

of other higher priority threatened 

species (i.e., species with LPN of 1). 

This work includes all the actions listed 

in the tables below under expeditious 

progress. 

As explained above, a determination 

that listing is warranted but precluded 

must also demonstrate that expeditious 

progress is being made to add or remove 

qualified species to and from the Lists 

of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants. (Although we do not discuss 

it in detail here, we are also making 

expeditious progress in removing 

species from the list under the Recovery 

program, which is funded by a separate 

line item in the budget of the 

Endangered Species Program. As 

explained above in our description of 

the statutory cap on Listing Program 

funds, the Recovery Program funds and 

actions supported by them cannot be 

considered in determining expeditious 

progress made in the Listing Program.) 

As with our ‘‘precluded’’ finding, 

expeditious progress in adding qualified 

species to the Lists is a function of the 

resources available and the competing 

demands for those funds. Given that 

limitation, we find that we made 

progress in FY 2009 in the Listing 

Program and will continue to make 

progress in FY 2010. This progress 

included preparing and publishing the 

following determinations: 

FY 2010 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS

Publication Date Title Actions FR Pages 

10/08/2009 Listing Lepidium papilliferum (Slickspot Peppergrass) as a Threatened Species Throughout Its Range Final Listing 

Threatened ............

74 FR 52013-52064 

10/27/2009 90-day Finding on a Petition To List the American Dipper in the 

Black Hills of South Dakota as Threatened or Endangered 

Notice of 90–day 

Petition Finding, .....

Not substantial .......

74 FR 55177-55180 

10/28/2009 Status Review of Arctic Grayling (Thymallus arcticus) in the Upper 

Missouri River System 

Notice of Intent to 

Conduct Status ......

Review ...................

74 FR 55524-55525 

11/03/2009 Listing the British Columbia Distinct Population Segment of the 

Queen Charlotte Goshawk Under the Endangered Species Act 

Proposed Listing 

Threatened ............

74 FR 56757-56770 

11/03/2009 Listing the Salmon-Crested Cockatoo as Threatened Throughout 

Its Range with Special Rule 

Proposed Listing 

Threatened 

74 FR 56770-56791 

11/23/2009 Status Review of Gunnison sage-grouse (Centrocercus minimus) Notice of Intent to 

Conduct Status 

Review ...................

74 FR 61100-61102 

12/03/2009 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Black-tailed Prairie Dog 

as Threatened or Endangered 

Notice of 12–month 

petition finding, Not 

warranted 

74 FR 63343-63366 

12/03/2009 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List Sprague’s Pipit as 

Threatened or Endangered 

Notice of 90–day 

Petition Finding, .....

Substantial .............

74 FR 63337-63343 

12/15/2009 90-Day Finding on Petitions To List Nine Species of Mussels 

From Texas as Threatened or Endangered With Critical Habitat 

Notice of 90–day 

Petition Finding, .....

Substantial .............

74 FR 66260-66271 

12/16/2009 Partial 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List 475 Species in the 

Southwestern United States as Threatened or Endangered With 

Critical Habitat 

Notice of 90–day 

Petition Finding, .....

Not substantial and 

Substantial .............

74 FR 66865-66905 

12/17/2009 12–month Finding on a Petition To Change the Final Listing of the 

Distinct Population Segment of the Canada Lynx To Include 

New Mexico 

Notice of 12–month 

petition finding, 

Warranted but 

precluded ...............

74 FR 66937-66950 

1/05/2010 Listing Foreign Bird Species in Peru and Bolivia as Endangered 

Throughout Their Range 

Proposed Listing 

Endangered ...........

75 FR 605-649 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
57728 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

FY 2010 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS—Continued 

Publication Date Title Actions FR Pages 

1/05/2010 Listing Six Foreign Birds as Endangered Throughout Their Range Proposed Listing 

Endangered ...........

75 FR 286-310 

1/05/2010 Withdrawal of Proposed Rule to List Cook’s Petrel Proposed rule, 

withdrawal ..............

75 FR 310-316 

1/05/2010 Final Rule to List the Galapagos Petrel and Heinroth’s Shearwater 

as Threatened Throughout Their Ranges 

Final Listing 

Threatened ............

75 FR 235-250 

1/20/2010 Initiation of Status Review for Agave eggersiana and Solanum 

conocarpum 

Notice of Intent to 

Conduct Status 

Review ...................

75 FR 3190-3191 

2/09/2010 12–month Finding on a 

Petition to List the American Pika as Threatened or Endangered 

Notice of 12–month 

petition finding, Not 

warranted 

75 FR 6437-6471 

2/25/2010 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the Sonoran Desert 

Population of the Bald Eagle as a Threatened or Endangered 

Distinct Population Segment 

Notice of 12–month 

petition finding, Not 

warranted 

75 FR 8601-8621 

2/25/2010 Withdrawal of Proposed Rule To List the Southwestern 

Washington/Columbia River Distinct Population Segment of 

Coastal Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarki clarki) as 

Threatened 

Withdrawal of 

Proposed Rule to ..

List .........................

75 FR 8621-8644 

3/18/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Berry Cave Salamander 

as Endangered 

Notice of 90–day 

Petition Finding, .....

Substantial .............

75 FR 13068-13071 

3/23/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Southern Hickorynut 

Mussel (Obovaria jacksoniana) as Endangered or Threatened 

Notice of 90–day 

Petition Finding, .....

Not substantial .......

75 FR 13717-13720 

3/23/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Striped Newt as 

Threatened 

Notice of 90–day 

Petition Finding, .....

Substantial .............

75 FR 13720-13726 

3/23/2010 12-Month Findings for Petitions to List the Greater Sage-Grouse 

(Centrocercus urophasianus) 

as Threatened or Endangered 

Notice of 12–month 

petition finding, 

Warranted but ........

precluded ...............

75 FR 13910-14014 

3/31/2010 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Tucson Shovel-Nosed 

Snake (Chionactis occipitalis klauberi) as Threatened or Endangered with Critical Habitat 

Notice of 12–month 

petition finding, 

Warranted but ........

precluded ...............

75 FR 16050-16065 

4/5/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List Thorne’s Hairstreak Butterfly 

as Threatened or Endangered 

Notice of 90–day 

Petition Finding, .....

Substantial .............

75 FR 17062-17070 

4/6/2010 12–month Finding on a Petition To List the Mountain Whitefish in 

the Big Lost River, Idaho, as Endangered or Threatened 

Notice of 12–month 

petition finding, Not 

warranted 

75 FR 17352-17363 

4/6/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List a Stonefly (Isoperla jewetti) 

and a Mayfly (Fallceon eatoni) as Threatened or Endangered 

with Critical Habitat 

Notice of 90–day 

Petition Finding, .....

Not substantial .......

75 FR 17363-17367 

4/7/2010 12-Month Finding on a Petition to Reclassify the Delta Smelt 

From Threatened to Endangered Throughout Its Range 

Notice of 12–month 

petition finding, 

Warranted but ........

precluded ...............

75 FR 17667-17680 

4/13/2010 Determination of Endangered Status for 48 Species on Kauai and 

Designation of Critical Habitat 

Final Listing 

Endangered ...........

75 FR 18959-19165 

4/15/2010 Initiation of Status Review of the North American Wolverine in the 

Contiguous United States 

Notice of Initiation of 

Status Review 

75 FR 19591-19592 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules 57729 

FY 2010 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS—Continued 

Publication Date Title Actions FR Pages 

4/15/2010 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Wyoming Pocket 

Gopher as Endangered or Threatened with Critical Habitat 

Notice of 12–month 

petition finding, Not 

warranted 

75 FR 19592-19607 

4/16/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List a Distinct Population 

Segment of the Fisher in Its United States Northern Rocky 

Mountain Range as Endangered or Threatened with Critical 

Habitat 

Notice of 90–day 

Petition Finding, .....

Substantial .............

75 FR 19925-19935 

4/20/2010 Initiation of Status Review for Sacramento splittail (Pogonichthys 

macrolepidotus) 

Notice of Initiation of 

Status Review 

75 FR 20547-20548 

4/26/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Harlequin Butterfly as 

Endangered 

Notice of 90–day 

Petition Finding, .....

Substantial .............

75 FR 21568-21571 

4/27/2010 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Susan’s Purse-making 

Caddisfly (Ochrotrichia susanae) as Threatened or Endangered 

Notice of 12–month 

petition finding, Not 

warranted 

75 FR 22012-22025 

4/27/2010 90–day Finding on a Petition to List the Mohave Ground Squirrel 

as Endangered with Critical Habitat 

Notice of 90–day 

Petition Finding, .....

Substantial .............

75 FR 22063-22070 

5/4/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List Hermes Copper Butterfly as 

Threatened or Endangered 

Notice of 90–day 

Petition Finding, .....

Substantial .............

75 FR 23654-23663 

6/1/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List Castanea pumila var. 

ozarkensis 

Notice of 90–day 

Petition Finding, .....

Substantial .............

75 FR 30313-30318 

6/1/2010 12–month Finding on a Petition to List the White-tailed Prairie 

Dog as Endangered or Threatened 

Notice of 12–month 

petition finding, Not 

warranted 

75 FR 30338-30363 

6/9/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List van Rossem’s Gull-billed 

Tern as Endangered orThreatened. 

Notice of 90–day 

Petition Finding, .....

Substantial .............

75 FR 32728-32734 

6/16/2010 90-Day Finding on Five Petitions to List Seven Species of 

Hawaiian Yellow-faced Bees as Endangered 

Notice of 90–day 

Petition Finding, .....

Substantial .............

75 FR 34077-34088 

6/22/2010 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Least Chub as 

Threatened or Endangered 

Notice of 12–month 

petition finding, 

Warranted but ........

precluded ...............

75 FR 35398-35424 

6/23/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Honduran Emerald 

Hummingbird as Endangered 

Notice of 90–day 

Petition Finding, .....

Substantial .............

75 FR 35746-35751 

6/23/2010 Listing Ipomopsis polyantha (Pagosa Skyrocket) as Endangered 

Throughout Its Range, and Listing Penstemon debilis 

(Parachute Beardtongue) and Phacelia submutica (DeBeque 

Phacelia) as Threatened Throughout Their Range 

Proposed Listing 

Endangered ...........

Proposed Listing ....

Threatened ............

75 FR 35721-35746 

6/24/2010 Listing the Flying Earwig Hawaiian Damselfly and Pacific 

Hawaiian Damselfly As Endangered Throughout Their Ranges 

Final Listing 

Endangered ...........

75 FR 35990-36012 

6/24/2010 Listing the Cumberland Darter, Rush Darter, Yellowcheek Darter, 

Chucky Madtom, and Laurel Dace as Endangered Throughout 

Their Ranges 

Proposed Listing 

Endangered ...........

75 FR 36035-36057 

6/29/2010 Listing the Mountain Plover as Threatened Reinstatement of 

Proposed Listing ....

Threatened ............

75 FR 37353-37358 

7/20/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List Pinus albicaulis (Whitebark 

Pine) as Endangered or Threatened with Critical Habitat 

Notice of 90–day 

Petition Finding, .....

Substantial .............

75 FR 42033-42040 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
57730 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

FY 2010 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS—Continued 

Publication Date Title Actions FR Pages 

7/20/2010 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Amargosa Toad as 

Threatened or Endangered 

Notice of 12–month 

petition finding, Not 

warranted 

75 FR 42040-42054 

7/20/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Giant Palouse Earthworm 

(Driloleirus americanus) as Threatened or Endangered 

Notice of 90–day 

Petition Finding, .....

Substantial .............

75 FR 42059-42066 

7/27/2010 Determination on Listing the Black-Breasted Puffleg as 

Endangered Throughout its Range; Final Rule 

Final Listing 

Endangered ...........

75 FR 43844-43853 

7/27/2010 Final Rule to List the Medium Tree-Finch (Camarhynchus pauper) 

as Endangered Throughout Its Range 

Final Listing 

Endangered ...........

75 FR 43853-43864 

8/3/2010 Determination of Threatened Status for Five Penguin Species Final Listing 

Threatened ............

75 FR 45497- 45527 

8/4/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Mexican Gray Wolf as an 

Endangered Subspecies With Critical Habitat 

Notice of 90–day 

Petition Finding, .....

Substantial .............

75 FR 46894- 46898 

8/10/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List Arctostaphylos franciscana as 

Endangered with Critical Habitat 

Notice of 90–day 

Petition Finding, .....

Substantial .............

75 FR 48294-48298 

8/17/2010 Listing Three Foreign Bird Species from Latin America and the 

Caribbean as Endangered Throughout Their Range 

Final Listing 

Endangered ...........

75 FR 50813-50842 

8/17/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List Brian Head Mountainsnail as 

Endangered or Threatened with Critical Habitat 

Notice of 90–day 

Petition Finding, .....

Not substantial .......

75 FR 50739-50742 

8/24/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Oklahoma Grass 

Pink Orchid as Endangered or Threatened .................................

Notice of 90–day 

Petition Finding, .....

Substantial .............

75 FR 51969-51974 

9/01/2010 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the White-Sided Jackrabbit 

as Threatened or Endangered 

Notice of 90–day 

Notice of 12-month 

petition finding,.

Not warranted ........

75 FR 53615-53629 

9/08/2010 Proposed Rule To List the Ozark Hellbender Salamander as 

Endangered ..................................................................................

Proposed 

ListingEndangered 

75 FR 54561-54579 

9/08/2010 Revised 12-Month Finding to List the Upper Missouri River 

Distinct Population Segment of Arctic Grayling as Endangered

or Threatened ...............................................................................

Notice of 12-month 

petition finding, 

Warranted but 

precluded ...............

75 FR 54707-54753 

9/09/2010 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Jemez Mountains 

Salamander (Plethodon neomexicanus) as Endangered or ........

Threatened with Critical Habitat ...................................................

Notice of 12-month 

petition finding, 

Warranted but ........

precluded ...............

75 FR 54822-54845 

Our expeditious progress also 

includes work on listing actions that we 

funded in FY 2010 but have not yet 

been completed to date. These actions 

are listed below. Actions in the top 

section of the table are being conducted 

under a deadline set by a court. Actions 

in the middle section of the table are 

being conducted to meet statutory 

timelines, that is, timelines required 

under the Act. Actions in the bottom 

section of the table are high-priority 

listing actions. These actions include 

work primarily on species with an LPN 

of 2, and selection of these species is 

partially based on available staff 

resources, and when appropriate, 

include species with a lower priority if 

they overlap geographically or have the 

same threats as the species with the 

high priority. Including these species 

together in the same proposed rule 

results in considerable savings in time 

and funding, as compared to preparing 

separate proposed rules for each of them 

in the future. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules 57731 

Actions funded in FY 2010 but not yet completed 

Species Action 

Actions Subject to Court Order/Settlement Agreement 

6 Birds from Eurasia Final listing determination 

African penguin Final listing determination 

Flat-tailed horned lizard Final listing determination 

Mountain plover Final listing determination 

6 Birds from Peru Proposed listing determination 

Sacramento splittail Proposed listing determination 

Pacific walrus 12–month petition finding 

Gunnison sage-grouse 12–month petition finding 

Wolverine 12–month petition finding 

Solanum conocarpum 12–month petition finding 

Sprague’s pipit 12–month petition finding 

Desert tortoise – Sonoran population 12–month petition finding 

Pygmy rabbit (rangewide)1 12–month petition finding 

Thorne’s Hairstreak Butterfly 12–month petition finding 

Hermes copper butterfly 12–month petition finding 

Actions with Statutory Deadlines 

Casey’s june beetle Final listing determination 

Georgia pigtoe, interrupted rocksnail, and rough hornsnail Final listing determination 

7 Bird species from Brazil Final listing determination 

Southern rockhopper penguin – Campbell Plateau population Final listing determination 

5 Bird species from Colombia and Ecuador Final listing determination 

Queen Charlotte goshawk Final listing determination 

5 species southeast fish (Cumberland darter, rush darter, yellowcheek darter, chucky madtom, 

and laurel dace) 

Final listing determination 

Salmon crested cockatoo Proposed listing determination 

CA golden trout 12–month petition finding 

Black-footed albatross 12–month petition finding 

Mount Charleston blue butterfly 12–month petition finding 

Mojave fringe-toed lizard1 12–month petition finding 

Kokanee – Lake Sammamish population1 12–month petition finding 

Cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl1 12–month petition finding 

Northern leopard frog 12–month petition finding 

Tehachapi slender salamander 12–month petition finding 

Coqui Llanero 12–month petition finding 

Dusky tree vole 12–month petition finding 

3 MT invertebrates (mist forestfly(Lednia tumana), Oreohelix sp.3, Oreohelix sp. 31) from 206 

species petition 

12–month petition finding 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
57732 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Actions funded in FY 2010 but not yet completed 

Species Action 

5 UT plants (Astragalus hamiltonii, Eriogonum soredium, Lepidium ostleri, Penstemon flowersii, 

Trifolium friscanum) from 206 species petition 

12–month petition finding 

2 CO plants (Astragalus microcymbus, Astragalus schmolliae) from 206 species petition 12–month petition finding 

5 WY plants (Abronia ammophila, Agrostis rossiae, Astragalus proimanthus, Boechere (Arabis) 

pusilla, Penstemon gibbensii) from 206 species petition 

12–month petition finding 

Leatherside chub (from 206 species petition) 12–month petition finding 

Frigid ambersnail (from 206 species petition) 12–month petition finding 

Gopher tortoise – eastern population 12–month petition finding 

Wrights marsh thistle 12–month petition finding 

67 of 475 southwest species 12–month petition finding 

Grand Canyon scorpion (from 475 species petition) 12–month petition finding 

Anacroneuria wipukupa (a stonefly from 475 species petition) 12–month petition finding 

Rattlesnake-master borer moth (from 475 species petition) 12–month petition finding 

3 Texas moths (Ursia furtiva, Sphingicampa blanchardi, Agapema galbina) (from 475 species 

petition) 

12–month petition finding 

2 Texas shiners (Cyprinella sp., Cyprinella lepida) (from 475 species petition) 12–month petition finding 

3 South Arizona plants (Erigeron piscaticus, Astragalus hypoxylus, Amoreuxia gonzalezii) (from 

475 species petition) 

12–month petition finding 

5 Central Texas mussel species (3 from 475 species petition) 12–month petition finding 

14 parrots (foreign species) 12–month petition finding 

Berry Cave salamander1 12–month petition finding 

Striped Newt1 12–month petition finding 

Fisher – Northern Rocky Mountain Range1 12–month petition finding 

Mohave Ground Squirrel1 12–month petition finding 

Puerto Rico Harlequin Butterfly 12–month petition finding 

Western gull-billed tern 12–month petition finding 

Ozark chinquapin (Castanea pumila var. ozarkensis) 12–month petition finding 

HI yellow-faced bees 12–month petition finding 

Giant Palouse earthworm 12–month petition finding 

Whitebark pine 12–month petition finding 

OK grass pink (Calopogon oklahomensis)1 12–month petition finding 

Southeastern pop snowy plover & wintering pop. of piping plover1 90–day petition finding 

Eagle Lake trout1 90–day petition finding 

Smooth-billed ani1 90–day petition finding 

Bay Springs salamander1 90–day petition finding 

32 species of snails and slugs1 90–day petition finding 

42 snail species (Nevada & Utah) 90–day petition finding 

Red knot roselaari subspecies 90–day petition finding 

Peary caribou 90–day petition finding 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules 57733 

Actions funded in FY 2010 but not yet completed 

Species Action 

Plains bison 90–day petition finding 

Spring Mountains checkerspot butterfly 90–day petition finding 

Spring pygmy sunfish 90–day petition finding 

Bay skipper 90–day petition finding 

Unsilvered fritillary 90–day petition finding 

Texas kangaroo rat 90–day petition finding 

Spot-tailed earless lizard 90–day petition finding 

Eastern small-footed bat 90–day petition finding 

Northern long-eared bat 90–day petition finding 

Prairie chub 90–day petition finding 

10 species of Great Basin butterfly 90–day petition finding 

6 sand dune (scarab) beetles 90–day petition finding 

Golden-winged warbler 90–day petition finding 

Sand-verbena moth 90–day petition finding 

Aztec (beautiful) gilia 90–day petition finding 

Arapahoe snowfly 90–day petition finding 

404 Southeast species 90–day petition finding 

High Priority Listing Actions3

19 Oahu candidate species3 (16 plants, 3 damselflies) (15 with LPN = 2, 3 with LPN = 3, 1 with 

LPN =9) 

Proposed listing 

19 Maui-Nui candidate species3 (16 plants, 3 tree snails) (14 with LPN = 2, 2 with LPN = 3, 3 with 

LPN = 8) 

Proposed listing 

Sand dune lizard3 (LPN = 2) Proposed listing 

2 Arizona springsnails3 (Pyrgulopsis bernadina (LPN = 2), Pyrgulopsis trivialis (LPN = 2)) Proposed listing 

2 New Mexico springsnails3 (Pyrgulopsis chupaderae (LPN = 2), Pyrgulopsis thermalis (LPN = 

11)) 

Proposed listing 

2 mussels3 (rayed bean (LPN = 2), snuffbox No LPN) Proposed listing 

2 mussels3 (sheepnose (LPN = 2), spectaclecase (LPN = 4),) Proposed listing 

Altamaha spinymussel3 (LPN = 2) Proposed listing 

8 southeast mussels (southern kidneyshell (LPN = 2), round ebonyshell (LPN = 2), Alabama 

pearlshell (LPN = 2), southern sandshell (LPN = 5), fuzzy pigtoe (LPN = 5), Choctaw bean (LPN 

= 5), narrow pigtoe (LPN = 5), and tapered pigtoe (LPN = 11)) 

Proposed listing 

1 Funds for listing actions for these species were provided in previous FYs. 2 We funded a proposed rule for this subspecies with an LPN of 3 ahead of other species with LPN of 2, because the threats to the species 

were so imminent and of a high magnitude that we considered emergency listing if we were unable to fund work on a proposed listing rule in FY 

2008. 3 Funds for these high-priority listing actions were provided in FY 2008 or 2009 

We endeavored to make our listing 

actions as efficient and timely as 

possible, given the requirements of the 

relevant law and regulations, and 

constraints relating to workload and 

personnel. We are continually 

considering ways to streamline 

processes or achieve economies of scale, 

such as by batching related actions 

together. Given our limited budget for 

implementing section 4 of the Act, these 

actions described above collectively 

constitute expeditious progress. 

We intend that any proposed 

reclassification of Agave eggersiana will 

be as accurate as possible. Therefore, we 

will continue to accept additional 

information and comments from all 

concerned governmental agencies, the 

scientific community, industry, or any 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
57734 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 22, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

other interested party concerning this 

finding. 

Agave eggersiana will be added to the 

list of candidate species upon 

publication of this 12–month finding. 

We will continue to evaluate this 

species as new information becomes 

available. This review will determine if 

a change in status is warranted, 

including the need to make prompt use 

of emergency listing procedures. 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited is 

available on the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov and upon request 

from the Caribbean Ecological Services 

Field Office (see ADDRESSES section). 

Author(s) 

The primary authors of this notice are 

the staff members of the Caribbean 

Ecological Services Field Office. 

Authority 

The authority for this section is 

section 4 of the Endangered Species Act 

of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq.). 

Dated: September 2, 2010. 

Paul R. Schmidt, 

Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–23571 Filed 9–21–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 622 

RIN 0648–AY11 

Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of 

Mexico, and South Atlantic; SnapperGrouper Fishery off the Southern 

Atlantic States; Amendment 17B 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of Availability of 

Amendment 17B to South Atlantic 

Snapper-Grouper Fishery Management 

Plan; request for comments. 

SUMMARY: The South Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council (Council) has 

submitted Amendment 17B to the 

Fishery Management Plan for the 

Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South 

Atlantic Region (FMP) for review, 

approval, and implementation by 

NMFS. The amendment proposes 

actions to specify annual catch limits 

(ACLs), and accountability measures 

(AMs) for nine snapper-grouper species, 

eight of which are undergoing 

overfishing; specify recreational and 

commercial allocations for golden 

tilefish; modify management measures 

to limit total mortality of each species 

to their respective ACLs; and add ACLs, 

ACTs, and AMs to the management 

measures that may be amended via the 

framework procedure. The actions 

contained in Amendment 17B are 

intended to address overfishing of eight 

snapper-grouper species while 

maintaining catch levels consistent with 

achieving optimum yield for all nine 

species included in the amendment. 

DATES: Comments must be received no 

later than 5 p.m., eastern time, on 

November 22, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by ‘‘0648–AY11’’, by any one 

of the following methods: 

• Electronic Submissions: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal http:// 

www.regulations.gov 

• Fax: 727–824–5308, Attn: Kate 

Michie 

• Mail: Kate Michie, Southeast 

Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th 

Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701 

Instructions: No comments will be 

posted for public viewing until after the 

comment period is over. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted to http:// 

www.regulations.gov without change. 

All Personal Identifying Information (for 

example, name, address, etc.) 

voluntarily submitted by the commenter 

may be publicly accessible. Do not 

submit Confidential Business 

Information or otherwise sensitive or 

protected information. 

To submit comments through the 

Federal e–Rulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov, enter ‘‘NOAA– 

NMFS–2010–0091’’ in the keyword 

search, then check the box labeled 

(Select to find documents accepting 

comments or submissions(, then select 

(Send a Comment or Submission.( 

NMFS will accept anonymous 

comments (enter N/A in the required 

fields, if you wish to remain 

anonymous). Attachments to electronic 

comments will be accepted in Microsoft 

Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe 

PDF file formats only. 

Copies of Amendment 17B may be 

obtained from the South Atlantic 

Fishery Management Council, 4055 

Faber Place, Suite 201, North 

Charleston, SC 29405; phone: 843–571– 

4366 or 866–SAFMC–10 (toll free); fax: 

843–769–4520; e-mail: 

safmc@safmc.net. Amendment 17B 

includes an Environmental Assessment, 

an Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis, a Regulatory Impact Review, 

and a Social Impact Assessment/Fishery 

Impact Statement. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate 

Michie, telephone: 727–824–5305; fax: 

727–824–5308; e-mail: 

Kate.Michie@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The South 

Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery is 

managed under the FMP. The FMP was 

prepared by the Council and 

implemented by NMFS under the 

authority of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by 

regulations at 50 CFR part 622. 

Background 

Revisions to the Magnuson–Stevens 

Act in 2006 require that if a stock or 

stock complex in an FMP is undergoing 

overfishing, the FMP must establish by 

2010 a mechanism for specifying ACLs 

at a level that prevents overfishing and 

does not exceed the fishing level 

recommendations of the respective 

Council(s Scientific and Statistical 

Committee or other established peer 

review processes. The MagnusonStevens Act also requires that NMFS 

implement measures to ensure 

accountability to prevent an ACL from 

being exceeded or correcting for an ACL 

overage if one should occur. The 

National Standard 1 Guidelines, 

published on January 16, 2009 (74 FR 

3178), provide guidance for establishing 

ACLs and AMs in our nation’s fisheries. 

In the South Atlantic snapper-grouper 

fishery there are nine species currently 

undergoing overfishing including: 

speckled hind, warsaw grouper, snowy 

grouper, golden tilefish, black sea bass, 

red grouper, gag, vermilion snapper, and 

red snapper. Amendment 17B includes 

actions to establish ACLs and AMs for 

eight of these species as well as black 

grouper. Actions to address red snapper 

overfishing are contained in a separate 

amendment (Amendment 17A). 

An ACL is the level of annual catch 

of a stock or stock complex that if met 

or exceeded serves as the basis for 

triggering an AM. The Magnuson– 

Stevens Act requires ACLs be set at 

levels that prevent overfishing from 

occurring. ACLs may incorporate 

management and scientific uncertainty, 

and take into account the amount of 

data available and level of vulnerability 

to overfishing for each species. Separate 

ACLs may be established for each sector 

of a fishery, i.e., commercial and 

recreational. However, the combined 

total of all sector ACLs may not exceed 

the total ACL for a species or species 

complex. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1