        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 660
        [ID.  031103A]
        Fisheries Off West Coast States and in the Western Pacific;Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; Renewal of Exempted Fishing Permit

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Renewal of Exempted Fishing Permits (EFPs) for monitoring incidental catch of salmon and groundfish in the Washington-Oregon-California (WOC) shore-based Pacific whiting fishery.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS announces the receipt of an application, and NMFS' intent to renew EFPs for vessels participating in an observation program to monitor the incidental take of salmon and groundfish in the shore-based component of the Pacific whiting fishery.  The EFPs are necessary to allow trawl vessels fishing for Pacific whiting to delay sorting their catch, and thus to retain prohibited species and groundfish in excess of cumulative trip limits until the point of offloading.  These activities are otherwise prohibited by Federal regulations.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received by April 7, 2003.  The EFPs will be effective no earlier than April 1, 2003, and would expire no later than May 31, 2004, but could be terminated earlier under terms and conditions of the EFPs and other applicable laws.

          ADDRESSES:
          Copies of the EFP application are available from Becky Renko Northwest Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way N.E., Bldg. 1, Seattle, WA  98115-0070.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Becky Renko or Carrie Nordeen (206)526-6140.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        This action is authorized by Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act provisions at 50 CFR 600.745 which state that EFPs may be used to authorize fishing activities that would otherwise be prohibited.  The information gathered through these EFPs may lead to future rulemakings.
        NMFS received an application requesting renewal of these EFPs from the States of Washington, Oregon, and California at the November 2002 Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) meeting in San Francisco, CA.  An opportunity for public testimony was provided during the Council meeting.  The Council recommended that NMFS issue the EFPs, as requested by the States.
        Renewal of these EFPs, to about 40 vessels, would continue an ongoing program to collect information on the incidental catch of salmon and groundfish in whiting harvests delivered to shoreside processing facilities by domestic trawl vessels operating off WOC.  Because whiting deteriorates rapidly, it must be handled quickly and immediately chilled to maintain the quality.  As a result, many vessels dump catch directly or near directly into the hold and are unable to effectively sort their catch.
        The issuance of EFPs will allow vessels to delay sorting of groundfish catch in excess of cumulative trip limits and prohibited species until offloading.  Delaying sorting until offloading will allow state biologists and industry-hired samplers to collect incidental catch data for total catch estimates and will enable whiting quality to be maintained.  Without an EFP, groundfish regulations at 50 CFR 660.306(b) require vessels to sort their prohibited species catch and return them to sea as soon as practicable with minimum injury.  To allow state biologists and industry-hired samplers to sample unsorted whiting, it is also necessary to include provisions for potential overages of groundfish trip limits which are prohibited by regulations at 50 CFR 660.306(h).

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

          Dated:  March 18, 2003.
          Richard W. Surdi,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 03-6849 Filed 3-20-03; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [ID 042403A]
        RIN 0648-A010
        Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Skate Fisheries; Northeast Skate Fishery Management Plan

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Notice of availability of a fishery management plan; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:

          NMFS announces that the New England Fishery Management Council (Council) has submitted the Northeast Skate Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for Secretarial review and is requesting comments from the public.  The FMP would establish a management program and fishing effort controls for the skate fisheries in the Northeast (NE).  The goal of the management program is to rebuild overfished skate resources (thorny and barndoor skates) and prevent overfishing of all seven skate resources.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before June 30, 2003.

          ADDRESSES:
          Comments on the FMP should be sent to Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930.  Mark the outside of the envelope, “Comments on Northeast Skate FMP.”  Comments may also be sent via facsimile (fax) to (978) 281-9135.  Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or the Internet.
          Copies of the FMP, the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), and the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) are available from Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Michael Pentony, Senior Fishery Policy Analyst, 978-281-9283, fax 978-281-9135.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The purpose of the FMP is to initiate management of the fisheries for the species in the NE skate complex (barndoor, clearnose, little, rosette, smooth, thorny, and winter skates) in Federal waters of the northeastern United States, pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).  The FMP was developed by the Council in response to concerns that the continued development of and increased landings in the skate fisheries required implementation of management measures to prevent overfishing and to allow for the collection of catch information on the status of the stocks.  Because two species of skates (barndoor and thorny skates) are considered overfished, this FMP is necessary to comply with the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act to end overfishing and rebuild these species.
        Skates are harvested in two very different fisheries, one for lobster bait and one for wings for human consumption.  The fishery for lobster bait is a more traditional and directed skate fishery, involving vessels, primarily from ports in southern New England, that target a combination of little skates (estimated to be >90 percent of landings) and, to a much lesser extent, juvenile winter skates (<10 percent of landings).  The catch of juvenile winter skates mixed with little skates is very difficult to differentiate, due to their nearly identical appearance.  The fishery for skate wings evolved in the 1990s, as skates were promoted as an underutilized species and fishermen shifted effort from groundfish and other troubled fisheries to skates and dogfish.  The wing fishery is a more incidental fishery that involves a larger number of vessels located throughout the region.  Vessels tend to catch skates when targeting other species, such as groundfish and monkfish, and land them if the price is sufficient to offset the labor costs associated with cutting the wings.
        The need to rebuild the overfished barndoor and thorny skate resources and prevent overfishing on the other five species are the primary problems needing management attention.  Rebuilding overfished species is of particular concern because skates are relatively slow-growing, late-maturing species that produce few young, making them particularly vulnerable to overfishing.

        A proposed rule that would implement the FMP will be published in the Federal Register for public comment, following NMFS' evaluation of the proposed rule under the procedures of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.  Public comments on the proposed rule must be received by the end of the comment period on the FMP to be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the FMP.  All comments received by June 30, 2003, whether specifically directed to the FMP or the proposed rule, will be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the FMP.  Any comments on the proposed rule received after that date will not be considered in the decision to approve or disapprove the FMP.

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

          Dated: April 25, 2003.
          Richard W. Surdi,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 03-10678 Filed 4-30-03; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 665
        [Docket No. 160811726-6987-01]
        RIN 0648-XE809
        Pacific Island Fisheries; 2016-17 Annual Catch Limit and Accountability Measures; Main Hawaiian Islands Deep 7 Bottomfish

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Proposed specifications; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes to specify an annual catch limit (ACL) of 318,000 lb for Deep 7 bottomfish in the main Hawaiian Islands (MHI) for the 2016-17 fishing year, which began on September 1, 2016, and ends on August 31, 2017. If the ACL is projected to be reached, NMFS would close the commercial and non-commercial fisheries for MHI Deep 7 bottomfish for the remainder of the fishing year as an accountability measure (AM). The proposed ACL and AM support the long-term sustainability of Hawaii bottomfish.

          DATES:
          NMFS must receive comments by November 16, 2016.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on the 2016-2107 annual catch limit (ACL), identified by NOAA-NMF-2016-0112, by either of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2016-0112, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Send written comments to Michael D. Tosatto, Regional Administrator, NMFS Pacific Islands Region (PIR), 1845 Wasp Blvd. Bldg. 176, Honolulu, HI 96818.

            Instructions: NMFS may not consider comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period. 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).

          NMFS prepared an environmental analysis that describes the potential impacts on the human environment that could result from the proposed specification. The environmental analysis and other supporting documents are available at www.regulations.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Sarah Ellgen, NMFS PIR Sustainable Fisheries, 808-725-5173.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        NMFS and the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) manage the bottomfish fishery in Federal waters around Hawaii under the Fishery Ecosystem Plan for the Hawaiian Archipelago (FEP), as authorized by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations, part 665 (50 CFR 665.4) requires NMFS to specify an ACL for MHI Deep 7 bottomfish each fishing year, based on a recommendation from the Council. The Deep 7 bottomfish are onaga (Etelis coruscans), ehu (E. carbunculus), gindai (Pristipomoides zonatus), kalekale (P. sieboldii), opakapaka (P. filamentosus), lehi (Aphareus rutilans), and hapuupuu (Hyporthodus quernus).

        NMFS proposes to specify an ACL of 318,000 lb of Deep 7 bottomfish in the MHI for the 2016-17 fishing year. The Council recommended the proposed ACL, based on a 2011 bottomfish stock assessment updated with three additional years of data, and in consideration of the risk of overfishing, past fishery performance, the acceptable biological catch recommendation from its Scientific and Statistical Committee, and input from the public. An update to the 2011 NMFS bottomfish stock assessment estimated the overfishing limit for the MHI Deep 7 bottomfish stock complex to be 352,000 lb, which is 31,000 lb less than the estimated overfishing limit in the 2011 stock assessment. Based on this update, the Council recommended a three-year phased reduction of the ACL. NMFS prepared an environmental assessment dated March 17, 2016, of the Council's three-year phased reduction of the ACL (“Specification of Annual Catch Limits and Accountability Measures for Main Hawaiian Islands Deep 7 Bottomfish Fisheries in Fishing Years 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2017-18”), which is available from www.regulations.gov. The proposed ACL of 318,000 lb for 2016-17 is the second annual reduction in this phased approach, and is 8,000 lb less than the ACL that NMFS specified last year.
        The ACL is associated with a 42 percent probability of overfishing, and is more conservative than the 50 percent risk threshold allowed under NMFS guidelines for National Standard 1 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. NMFS monitors Deep 7 bottomfish catches based on data provided by commercial fishermen to the State of Hawaii. If NMFS projects the fishery will reach this limit, NMFS would close the commercial and non-commercial fisheries for MHI Deep 7 bottomfish for the remainder of the fishing year, as an accountability measure (AM). In addition, if NMFS and the Council determine that the final 2016-17 Deep 7 bottomfish catch exceeds the ACL, NMFS would reduce the Deep 7 bottomfish ACL for the 2017-18 fishing year by the amount of the overage.
        The fishery has not caught the specified limit in any year since 2011. NMFS does not expect the proposed ACL and AM specifications for 2016-17 to result in a change in fishing operations, or other changes to the conduct of the fishery that would result in significant environmental impacts. After considering public comments on the proposed ACL and AMs, NMFS will publish the final specifications.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator for Fisheries has determined that this proposed specification is consistent with the Hawaii FEP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable laws, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This action is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
        Certification of Finding of No Significant Impact on Substantial Number of Small Entities
        The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that these proposed specifications, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for it are contained in the preamble to these proposed specifications.

        NMFS proposes to specify an annual catch limit (ACL) of 318,000 lb for Main Hawaiian Islands (MHI) Deep 7 bottomfish for the 2016-17 fishing year, as recommended by the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council). NMFS monitors MHI Deep 7 bottomfish catches based on data provided by commercial fishermen to the State of Hawaii. If and when the fishery is projected to reach this limit, NMFS, as an accountability measure (AM), would close the commercial and non-commercial fisheries for MHI Deep 7 bottomfish for the remainder of the fishing year. The proposed ACL is 8,000 lb less than the ACL NMFS implemented for the 2015-16 fishing year, and 28,000 lb less than the ACL that NMFS implemented for 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, and 2014-15. The AM will remain the same. Over the past five fishing seasons, highest reported annual landings, 309,485 lb, occurred during the 2013-2014 fishing year. NMFS does not expect the fishery to reach the limit during the 2016-17 fishing year, which began September 1, 2016, and ends August 31, 2017.
        This rule would affect participants in the commercial and non-commercial fisheries for MHI Deep 7 bottomfish. During the 2015-16 fishing year, 368 fishermen reported landing 259,530 lb of MHI Deep 7 bottomfish. Based on available information, NMFS has determined that all vessels in the commercial and non-commercial fisheries for MHI Deep 7 bottomfish are small entities under the Small Business Administration's definition of a small entity. That is, they are engaged in the business of fish harvesting, independently owned or operated, not dominant in their field of operation, and have annual gross receipts not in excess of $11 million, the small business size standard for commercial fishing (NAICS Code: 11411). Therefore, there would be no disproportionate economic impacts between large and small entities. Furthermore, there would be no disproportionate economic impacts among the universe of vessels based on gear, home port, or vessel length.
        As for revenues earned by fishermen from MHI Deep 7 bottomfish, State of Hawaii records report 328 of the 368 fishermen sold their MHI Deep 7 bottomfish catch. These 328 individuals sold a combined total of 240,183 lb (92.5 percent of reported catch) at a value of $1,716,313. Based on these revenues, the average price for MHI Deep 7 bottomfish in 2015-16 was approximately $7.15/lb. NMFS assumes that the remaining 40 commercial fishermen either sold no Deep 7 bottomfish or the State of Hawaii reporting program did not capture their sales.
        Assuming the fishery attains the ACL of 318,000 in 2016-17, and using the 2015-16 average price of $7.15/lb, the potential fleet wide revenue during 2016-17 is expected to be $2,273,700 (or approximately $2,103,173 under the assumption that 92.5 percent of catch is sold). If the same number of fishermen sell MHI Deep 7 bottomfish in 2016-17 as in 2015-16, each of these 328 commercial fishermen could potentially sell an average of 970 lb of Deep 7 bottomfish valued at $6,932, if all Deep 7 bottomfish caught were sold. If 92.5 percent of all Deep 7 bottomfish that had been caught had been sold, then these 328 commercial fishermen could potentially sell an average of 897 lb of Deep 7 bottomfish valued at about $6,412.
        In general, the relative importance of MHI bottomfish to commercial participants as a percentage of overall fishing or household income is unknown, as the total suite of fishing and other income-generating activities by individual operations across the year has not been examined.
        In terms of scenarios immediately beyond the 2016-17 fishing year, three possible outcomes may occur. First, in the event that 2016-17 catch does not reach 318,000 lb, the ACL will decrease by 12,000 lb for the 2017-2018 fishing year, as set by the multi-year specification. Second, if the fishery exceeds the ACL for the 2016-17 fishing year, NMFS would reduce the MHI Deep 7 bottomfish ACL for the 2017-18 fishing year by the amount of the overage, in addition to the 12,000 lb reduction for the 2017-18 fishing year. The last possible scenario is one where NMFS would prepare a new stock assessment or update that NMFS and the Council would use to set a new 2017-2018 ACL (without inclusion of any overage, even if catch exceeds ACL for the 2016-17 fishing year), although this is unlikely, since NMFS plans to undertake the next stock assessment in 2018.

        Even though this proposed specification would apply to a substantial number of vessels, i.e., 100 percent of the bottomfish fleet, NMFS does not expect the rule will have a significantly adverse economic impact to individual vessels. Landings information from the past five fishing years, suggest that Deep 7 bottomfish landings are not likely to exceed the ACL proposed for 2016-17. Therefore, pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, this proposed action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

          Dated: October 26, 2016.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2016-26323 Filed 10-31-16; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
        17 Part 240
        [Release No. 34-76624A; File No. S7-26-15]
        RIN 3235-AL72
        Establishing the Form and Manner With Which Security-Based Swap Data Repositories Must Make Security-Based Swap Data Available to the Commission; Correction

          AGENCY:
          Securities and Exchange Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; Correction.

          SUMMARY:

          The Securities and Exchange Commission published a Proposed Rule in the Federal Register on Wednesday, December 23, 2015 (FR Doc 2015-31703; 80 FR 79757) concerning, Establishing the Form and Manner with which Security-Based Swap Data Repositories Must Make Security-Based Swap Data Available to the Commission. The printed document contained omitted information in the signatory block.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Crystal Pemberton, Office of the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, (202) 551-5423.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        On page 79773, in the third column add the date of “December 11, 2015” to the signatory block.
        Correction
        In the Federal Register of Wednesday, December 23, 2015, FR Doc 2015-31703, on page 79773, under PART 240—GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS, SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, in the third column, after § 240.13n-4 Duties and core principles of security-based swap data repository, the following signature date of “December 11, 2015” is corrected to read before the signatory block.

          Brent J. Fields,
          Secretary.

      [FR Doc. 2016-00044 Filed 1-6-16; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the San Felipe Gambusia as Threatened or Endangered

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Notice of 90-day petition finding.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 90-day finding on a petition to list the San Felipe gambusia (Gambusia clarkhubbsi) as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We find that the petition does not present substantial information indicating that listing the San Felipe gambusia may be warranted. Therefore, we will not initiate a further status review in response to this petition. We ask the public to submit to us any new information that becomes available concerning the status of the San Felipe gambusia or threats to it or its habitat at any time. This information will help us monitor and encourage the conservation of this species.

          DATES:
          The finding announced in this document was made on February 13, 2007. You may submit new information concerning this species for our consideration at any time.

          ADDRESSES:
          The complete supporting file for this finding is available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the Austin Ecological Services Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200, Austin, TX 78758. Submit new information, materials, comments, or questions concerning this subspecies to us at the above address.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Robert Pine, Field Supervisor, Austin Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES) (telephone 512/490-0057; facsimile 512/490-0974). Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Background

        Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that we make a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents substantial scientific or commercial information to indicate that the petitioned action may be warranted. We base this finding on information submitted with the petition, referenced in the petition, and determined to be reliable after review, as well as information available in our files or otherwise available to us at the time of the petition review. To the maximum extent practicable, we make this finding within 90 days of receipt of the petition, and publish our notice of this finding promptly in the Federal Register.
        Our standard for substantial information within the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90-day petition finding is “that amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted” (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we find that substantial information was presented, we are required to promptly commence a review of the status of the species.
        We base this finding on information provided by the petitioner that we determined to be reliable after reviewing sources referenced in the petition and information available in our files at the time of the petition review. We evaluated that information in accordance with 50 CFR 424.14(b). Our process for making this 90-day finding under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act and section 424.14(b) of our regulations is limited to a determination of whether the information in the petition meets the “substantial information” threshold. The substantiality test is applied only to the reliable information supporting the petition.

        On June 13, 2005, we received a formal petition, dated June 10, 2005, from Save Our Springs Alliance (SOSA) requesting that the San Felipe gambusia (Gambusia clarkhubbsi) be listed as an endangered species in accordance with section 4 of the Act. The West Texas Springs Alliance was also listed as a petitioner, but did not provide a representative's signature. The petition is available at http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/Library/.

        Action on this petition was precluded by court orders and settlement agreements for other listing actions that required all of our listing funds for fiscal year 2005 and a substantial portion of our listing funds for fiscal year 2006. On September 29, 2005, we received a 60-day notice of intent to sue from SOSA for failing to make a timely 90-day finding. On December 1, 2005, we sent a letter to SOSA informing them that we would likely not make a petition finding during the fiscal year 2006 due to funding limitations. Subsequently, funding became available to act on the petition. On August 10, 2006, SOSA filed a complaint against the Service for failure to issue a 90-day petition finding on the San Felipe gambusia under section 4 of the Act. In our December 18, 2006, motion for summary judgment, we informed the court that, based on current funding and workload projections, we believed that we could complete a 90-day finding by February 6, 2007, and if we determined in the 90-day finding that the petition provided substantial scientific and commercial information, we could make a 12-month finding by February 6, 2008. This notice constitutes our 90-day finding for the petition to list the San Felipe gambusia.
        Species Information

        The San Felipe gambusia is a fish that was first discovered in 1997. It was described as Gambusia clarkhubbsi by Gary Garrett and Robert Edwards (2003, pp. 783-788) based on morphology. Genetic information has not been published on the San Felipe gambusia.
        The San Felipe gambusia is a member of the subgenus Gambusia and a member of the nobilis species group (Garrett and Edwards 2003, p. 784). At maturity, the San Felipe gambusia's standard length averages 1.07 inches (in) (27.18 millimeters (mm)) for males and 1.39 in (35.22 mm) for females (Garrett and Edwards 2003, p. 786).

        The San Felipe gambusia is most similar morphologically to the spotfin gambusia (Gambusia krumholzi) from northern Mexico, but differs in a number of morphological characteristics. The San Felipe gambusia's ground color is light overall with tan overtones, whereas the spotfin gambusia is silvery or yellow white with blue overtones (Garrett and Edwards 2003, p. 784). The San Felipe gambusia has a broader lateral stripe with more prominent spotting along its sides. It also has a broader streak in front of its vertebral column on its back. In addition, it has no streak behind its anus. The spotfin gambusia has, in contrast, a distinct, thin streak behind the anus. The back and tail fins are dusky to colorless in the San Felipe gambusia, whereas these fins are blackened near the margins on spotfin gambusia. The anal fin, also dusky to colorless on the San Felipe gambusia, is darkened on female spotfin gambusia (Garrett and Edwards 2003, p. 785).

        The San Felipe gambusia is known only from San Felipe Creek, Val Verde County, Texas (Garrett and Edwards 2003, p. 783). San Felipe Creek emanates from the San Felipe Springs segment of the Edwards-Trinity (Plateau) Aquifer. The creek is a Rio Grande tributary, which flows through the City of Del Rio (Garrett and Edwards 2003, p. 785). Preliminary observations indicate that the San Felipe gambusia's habitat is characterized by edge or quiet water in close association with significant spring flows found in the upper portions of the creek. Garrett and Edwards (2003, p. 787) suggest that low numbers of San Felipe gambusia were long present in San Felipe Creek where they are dependent upon rare, specific portions of spring-associated habitat. The Tex-Mex gambusia (Gambusia speciosa) is the only other Gambusia occurring in San Felipe Creek. Since its discovery, San Felipe gambusia “often have comprised 50 percent of the Gambusia in collections of 30 to several hundred individuals” (Garrett and Edwards 2003, p. 787).
        Threats Analysis

        Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 424) set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under section 4 of the Act, we may list a species, subspecies, or distinct population segment of vertebrate taxa on the basis of 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, we evaluated whether the threats to the San Felipe gambusia presented in the petition may pose a concern with respect to its survival. The Act identifies the five factors to be considered, either singly or in combination, to determine whether a species may be threatened or endangered. In making this finding, we evaluated whether threats to the San Felipe gambusia presented in the petition and other information available in our files at the time of the petition review may pose a concern with respect to the San Felipe gambusia's persistence in the wild. Our evaluation of these threats is presented below. In the discussion below, we have placed the threats listed in the petition under the most appropriate listing factor.
        A. Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of the Species' Habitat or Range
        The petition claims that semi-arid climatic conditions combined with a local and regional desire for pumping aquifer water are probably the most important threats related to the destruction, modification, or curtailment of San Felipe gambusia's habitat. The San Felipe portion of the Edwards-Trinity (Plateau) Aquifer is the sole source of water for the City of Del Rio and Laughlin Airforce Base. The petitioner did not provide a citation to verify this information. Additionally, according to the petitioner, area ranchers and farmers use diverted water from San Felipe Creek, as well as water pumped from the aquifer, to irrigate their crops, although the petitioner presented no references for this statement.
        In addition to potential problems presented by a strong local reliance on aquifer water, rapidly growing cities elsewhere in Texas are in the market to transport water from Cal Verde County to sustain their water demands. This practice is often referred to as “water ranching” or “water mining” (Texas Center for Policy Studies 2001, p. 1). The petition states that Val Verde County's proximity to San Antonio and San Angelo make it ideal for the profit-generating business of water ranching. Both San Antonio and San Angelo have established plans to transport water from certain rural areas located over the Edwards-Trinity (Plateau) Aquifer. Readily available information in our files indicates that several private water development projects have been evaluated to mine water into San Antonio from Val Verde, Kinney, and Edwards counties (HDR 2001, p. 1-1).

        Sustaining spring flows in San Felipe Creek is highly dependent upon maintaining groundwater levels above a certain elevation within the San Felipe portion of the Edwards-Trinity (Plateau) Aquifer. Information from the Texas Center for Policy Studies (2001, p. 2), which was cited by the petitioner, indicates that if several large-scale water ranchers withdraw water from this portion of the aquifer simultaneously, the area could experience aquifer depletion. The petition states that because the San Felipe gambusia occupies rare portions of spring outlets with significant spring flow, reduced spring flow could potentially eliminate much of its habitat (Edwards et al. 2004, p. 254). Information provided by the petitioner regarding the semi-arid climatic conditions of the region, the local and regional desire to pump groundwater, and the San Felipe gambusia's dependence upon significant spring flows is supported by information in our files. However, the petitioner did not provide information to show that the flow levels at San Felipe Creek in particular have been or are likely to be reduced by groundwater pumping to an extent that may threaten the species. Thus, the petition does not provide scientific or commercial information that aquifer depletion and subsequent springflow depletion is threatening the San Felipe gambusia at this time.
        The majority of San Felipe Springs, which feeds San Felipe Creek, emanates within a golf course inside the City of Del Rio. The creek has been modified over the years to accommodate urban expansion, including activities such as the building of roads and bridges, public access, irrigation diversion, and bank stabilization (Garrett and Edwards 2003, pp. 785-786). The petition reports that the creek has been repeatedly exposed to pollution. A source cited in the petition (Garrett and Edwards 2003, p. 786) states that prior to 1994, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) documented elevated levels of nitrates, phosphates, and orthophosphates in San Felipe Creek. It is hypothesized that land use practices in the watershed, such as runoff from the municipal golf course, may have contributed to the elevated levels of pollutants (Garrett and Edwards 2003, p. 786). The petition also states that current creek management strategies employed by the San Felipe Country Club and the City of Del Rio have improved creek habitat, resulting in positive effects for the San Felipe gambusia. Information provided by the petitioner regarding urban expansion, subsequent water quality degradation, and recently implemented, creek-friendly management practices is supported by information in our files. Because the petitioner does not provide information that urban expansion and water quality degradation have been or are likely to affect the San Felipe gambusia, and provides information that current creek management practices are having a positive impact on the fish, we have determined that the petition does not present scientific or commercial information that urbanization is threatening the San Felipe gambusia.
        B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes
        The petition did not contain information suggesting that overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes is a threat to the San Felipe gambusia.
        C. Disease or Predation
        According to the petition, neither disease nor predation is a threat to the San Felipe gambusia.
        D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

        The petition states that Texas laws regarding groundwater ownership and private pumping are inadequate for preventing aquifer depletion. The petition includes this information under listing Factor A, the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range, but we find that it falls under listing Factor D, the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. The petition states that, in the absence of a groundwater conservation district, the Texas “rule of capture,” established in 1904, gives landowners the right to withdraw unlimited amounts of water from their property for sale or personal use. Groundwater conservation districts (e.g., the Kinney County Groundwater Conservation District) provide for regulation of the spacing and production of water wells (Texas Center for Policy Studies 2001, p. 1). Information in our files supports this claim and indicates groundwater conservation districts have a narrow ability to restrict the transport of groundwater outside the boundaries of the conservation district (House Research Organization 2006, p. 4). Additionally, there is no groundwater conservation district in Val Verde County (Marbury and Kelly 2005, p. 8). This information was provided by the petitioner, but the petitioner did not supply a reference to support the claim.
        Information provided by the petitioner regarding the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms to protect aquifer levels is supported by information in our files. However, we believe that the petition does not present scientific or commercial information indicating that inadequate regulatory mechanisms to protect aquifer levels are a threat to the San Felipe gambusia. As stated earlier, the petition does not present information demonstrating that aquifer and springflow depletion is a threat to the species.
        E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Species' Continued Existence
        According to the petition, there are three natural factors that render the San Felipe gambusia vulnerable to extinction. The first factor is the species' extremely limited distribution. The San Felipe gambusia is found only in San Felipe Creek (Garrett and Edwards 2003, p. 785). Thus, the petitioner suggests that localized disruptions affecting the San Felipe gambusia or its habitat could increase the species' vulnerability to extinction.
        Secondly, the petition suggests that not only is the San Felipe gambusia limited to San Felipe Creek, but is probably even more restricted to rare, specific portions of the creek and associated spring outlets (Garrett and Edwards 2003, p. 787). The petitioner contends that if this is true, the creek could appear healthy at the same time this specific habitat is lost. Information provided by the petitioner regarding the San Felipe gambusia's limited distribution and rare habitat requirements is supported by information in our files. However, the petitioner did not provide information to show that the limited distribution and rare habitat requirements of the San Felipe gambusia have been or are likely to threaten the species in terms of aquifer depletion and subsequent springflow depletion, as discussed in factor A above.

        Lastly, the petition states that because the San Felipe gambusia evolved sympatrically with the Tex-Mex gambusia, negative impacts to the San Felipe gambusia's habitat or niche could put this species at a competitive disadvantage. The petitioner also suggest's that either the introduction of nonnative Gambusia or an overlap in habitat between the two native, sympatrically occurring Gambusia, species could lead to hybridization. Sources cited in the petition document incidents of hybridization among co-occurring Gambusia species (Edwards et al. 2004, p. 258). We suspect that the new species has long been present is San Felipe Creek but in low numbers and perhaps associated with an as yet unidentified, specific, rare habitat. Information provided by the petitioner regarding the occurrence of co-existing Gambusia and the history of co-existing Gambusia to compete and hybridize when forced into the same habitat, is supported by information in our files. However, the petitioner does not provide information that co-existing Gambusia species are threatening the San Felipe gambusia at this time because there is no information indicating that aquifer depletion and subsequent springflow depletion will cause these species to utilize the same habitat, and the petitioner did not provide information about nonnative Gambusia occurring in the same habitats as San Felipe gambusia despite the fact that it has likely been long present in the creek.

        The petition also reports that an exotic species, Armadillo Del Rio (Hypostomus sp.) or “armored catfish,” has recently become established in San Felipe Creek and has expanded rapidly. The petition did not present references for this statement, although information in our files supports this claim. Readily available information in our files indicates that the armored catfish is a popular aquarium fish that feeds on algae and is known for having a dramatic impact on stream ecosystems. They remove algal cover, destroy aquatic plants, and alter bank topography. The petition stated, but did not provide a reference, that armored catfish are also known to directly compete with native fishes as well as prey upon them by accidental ingestion of their eggs. The petition suggests that the endangered Devils River minnow has become extirpated within San Felipe Creek due to the introduction of this catfish. Information in our files indicates that this information is unreliable and that the Devils River minnow is still found in San Felipe Creek (Lopez-Fernandez and Winemiller 2005, p. 250). We recognize that the armored catfish may modify the ecosystem of San Felipe Creek, although the petitioner does not provide information on the negative impacts caused by the armored catfish within the San Felipe Creek ecosystem, nor does the petitioner describe how such impacts could threaten the survival of the San Felipe gambusia despite the fact that the armored catfish is present and known to be abundant in the creek. The petitioner therefore does not provide scientific or commercial information that the exotic armored catfish is a threat to the San Felipe gambusia at this time.
        Finding

        We evaluated each of the five listing factors individually. The petition focuses primarily on three listing factors: The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the species' habitat or range; the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and other natural or manmade factors affecting the continued existence of the species. The petition and information in our files suggest that the combination of the species' extremely limited distribution, reliance on springflows within semi-arid climatic conditions, and unregulated plans to pump water from the Edwards-Trinity (Plateau) Aquifer may be a concern for the San Felipe gambusia. Because the petition does not provide scientific or commercial information to show that the flow levels at San Felipe Creek in particular have been or are likely to be reduced by groundwater pumping, we find that the information presented in the petition regarding the threat of springflow depletion was not substantial. The petition also presents information about water quality degradation due to land uses associated with urbanization. Because the petition does not provide evidence that land use practices have been or are likely to degrade water quality in San Felipe Creek, we do not believe that the petition presents substantial information that water quality degradation is a threat. In addition, the petition suggests that an introduced armored catfish could have a dramatic impact on the ecosystem of San Felipe Creek based on the effects documented on other aquatic systems. However, the petition does not provide scientific or commercial information that indicates the armored catfish is negatively impacting San Felipe Creek or the San Felipe gambusia. Thus, we believe that the petition does not present scientific or commercial information that the armored catfish is a threat to the species. The petition presents information about possible competition with other native or nonnative Gambusia. The petition, however, does not provide scientific or commercial information that competition with other Gambusia species is occurring or likely to occur.
        The petition suggests that the San Felipe gambusia's naturally limited distribution and habitat specificity are a threat. We find, however, that the petition does present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the species' limited range and habitat specificity are natural factors that make the species vulnerable, but we do not believe that this information alone indicates that the petitioned action may be warranted. It appears that the San Felipe gambusia has always been a localized species with small population numbers.

        We have reviewed and evaluated the petition and assessed the reliability of the information presented by reviewing literature cited in the petition and information in our files or otherwise readily available at the time of the petition review. On the basis of this review and evaluation, we find that the petition does not present substantial scientific or commercial information to indicate that listing the San Felipe gambusia may be warranted. Although we will not commence a status review in response to this petition, we will continue to monitor the San Felipe gambusia's population status and trends, potential threats, and ongoing management actions that might be important with regard to the conservation of the San Felipe gambusia across its range. We encourage interested parties to continue to gather data that will assist with the conservation of the species. If you wish to provide information regarding the San Felipe gambusia, you may submit your information or materials to the Field Supervisor, Austin Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES).
        References Cited

        A complete list of all references cited herein is available, upon request, from the Austin Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES).
        Author

        The primary author of this notice is the Austin Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES).
        Authority

        The authority for this action is section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

          Dated: February 6, 2007.
          Kenneth Stansell,
          Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

       [FR Doc. E7-2292 Filed 2-12-07; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        RIN 1018-AI25
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determinations of Prudency for Two Mammal and Four Bird Species in Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and Designations of Critical Habitat for One Mammal and Two Bird Species

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; extension of comment period and notice of availability of draft economic analysis.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce the availability of the draft economic analysis of the proposed designations of critical habitat for the Mariana fruit bat and the Micronesian kingfisher on Guam, and the Mariana crow on Guam and Rota. The proposed designations of critical habitat were published in the Federal Register on October 15, 2002 (67 FR 63738). The draft economic analysis shows that over a 10-year period, the estimated total direct cost on Guam would be approximately $1.4 million and the estimated total direct cost on Rota would be approximately $149,000. We are now providing notice of extending the comment period to allow peer reviewers and all interested parties to comment simultaneously on the proposed rule and the associated draft economic analysis. Comments previously submitted need not be resubmitted as they will be incorporated into the public record as part of this extended comment period and will be fully considered in preparation of the final rule.

          DATES:
          We will accept public comments until January 6, 2003.

          ADDRESSES:

          Written comments and information should be submitted to Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Office, 300 Ala Moana Blvd., P.O. Box 50088, Honolulu, HI 96850-0001. Copies of the draft economic analysis are available on the Internet at http://pacificislands.fws.gov or by request from the Field Supervisor at the above address and telephone 808/541-3441. Copies of the draft economic analysis also are available on Guam at the Nieves M. Flores Memorial Library, East O'Brien Drive, Hagatna, Guam, phone 671/475-4753, and on Rota at the Northern Marianas College, Songsong, Rota, telephone 670/532-9477. For further instructions on commenting, refer to Public Comments Solicited section of this notice.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Paul Henson, Field Supervisor, Pacific Islands Office, at the above address (telephone: 808/541-3441; facsimile: 808/541-3470).

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Background
        A review of the status of 12 Guam and Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) vertebrate species was published on May 18, 1979 (44 FR 29128). This review, which led to the listing of nine species in 1984, resulted from three separate petitions to the Service filed by three Governors or Acting Governors of Guam in 1978, 1979, and 1981, and a fourth petition filed by the International Council for Bird Preservation in 1980. In a proposed rule published on November 29, 1983 (48 FR 53729), the Service determined endangered status for 9 of the 12 species in the 4 petitions. The final listing rule for the nine species, including the six species treated in the current proposed rule, was published on August 27, 1984 (49 FR 33881).

        We published a proposed rule to designate critical habitat for these six endangered species on Guam in the Federal Register on June 14, 1991 (56 FR 27485). However, we withdrew this proposed rule on April 4, 1994 (59 FR 15696), because most of the lands proposed as critical habitat had by this time been incorporated into the Guam National Wildlife Refuge overlay lands. The Service, therefore, determined that critical habitat designation was not prudent because it would not provide these species with any benefit beyond that already provided by the refuge overlay lands.

        Since the withdrawal of the proposed critical habitat, several judicial decisions in court cases examining critical habitat determinations have rejected rationales used by the Service in “not prudent” findings. These cases included Natural Resources Defense Council v. U.S. Department of the Interior, 113 F. 3d 1121 (9th Cir. 1997) involving the threatened coastal California gnatcatcher, and Conservation Council for Hawaii v. Babbitt, 2 F. Supp.2d 1280 (D. Haw. 1998) involving 245 listed plant species. The decisions in these cases rejected the Service's rationales of “increased threat” and “no benefit” in the case of the gnatcatcher, and of “increased threat,” “no benefit on private lands,” and “no additional benefit on federal lands” in the case of the Hawaiian plants.
        On April 3, 2000, the Marianas Audubon Society and the Center for Biological Diversity filed a suit to challenge the Service's 1994 withdrawal of critical habitat for the six species. On September 7, 2000, the Service filed a motion to voluntarily remand the withdrawal and non-prudency decision based on the subsequent court decisions. This motion set a deadline of June 3, 2003, for the Service to determine prudency and designate final critical habitat, if prudent, for these six species. On January 25, 2002, the Government of Guam filed a motion for preliminary injunction against the Service to prevent our re-consideration of the 1994 “not prudent” critical habitat determinations for the six species. On February 8, 2002, the Service filed its opposition to the Government of Guam's motion for preliminary injunction. On April 16, 2002, the Guam District Court dismissed the Government of Guam's motion for preliminary injunction and issued a ruling upholding the settlement based on a voluntary remand.

        On December 7, 2001, we mailed letters to four major landowners (Chamorro Land Trust Commission, U.S. Air Force, U.S. Navy, and Guam National Wildlife Refuge) on Guam informing them that the Service was in the process of determining the prudency of designating critical habitat for the little Mariana fruit bat, Mariana fruit bat, Mariana crow, Guam broadbill, Micronesian kingfisher, and the bridled white-eye and requested from them information on management of lands that currently support or recently (within the past 30 years) supported these six species. The letters contained a fact sheet describing the six listed species and critical habitat, the 1991 proposed rule to designate critical habitat, the 1994 withdrawal of the proposed rule, and a questionnaire designed to gather information about land management practices, which we requested be returned to us by January 14, 2002. We received three responses to our landowner mailing with varying types and amounts of information on current land management activities. Some responses included natural resource management plans, cooperative agreements, and descriptions of management activities such as brown treesnake and feral ungulate control. The information provided in the responses was considered and incorporated into the proposed rule published in the Federal Register on October 15, 2002 (67 FR 63738).
        We propose designating approximately 10,053 hectares (ha) (24,840 acres (ac)) in two units on the island of Guam for the Mariana fruit bat and the Micronesian kingfisher. For the Mariana crow, we propose designating approximately 9,325 ha (23,042 ac) in two units on the island of Guam and approximately 2,462 ha (6,084 ac) in one unit on the island of Rota in the CNMI. On Guam, the boundaries of the proposed critical habitat units for the Mariana fruit bat and Micronesian kingfisher are identical and the boundaries of the proposed critical habitat for the Mariana crow are contained within these identical boundaries. On Rota, critical habitat is proposed only for the Mariana crow.

        Critical habitat receives protection from destruction or adverse modification through required consultation under section 7 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) with regard to actions carried out, funded, or authorized by a Federal agency. Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that the Secretary shall designate or revise critical habitat based upon the best scientific and commercial data available, and after taking into consideration the economic impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. We have prepared a draft economic analysis of the proposed critical habitat designation. The draft economic analysis is now available on the Internet and from the mailing address in the Public Comments Solicited section below.

        We are now announcing the availability of the draft economic analysis and the extension of the comment period for the proposed designation of critical habitat for the Mariana fruit bat and the Micronesian kingfisher on Guam, and the Mariana crow on Guam and Rota. We will accept public comments on the proposal and the associated draft economic analysis until the date specified in DATES. The extension of the comment period gives all interested parties the opportunity to comment simultaneously on the proposal and the associated draft economic analysis.
        Public Comments Solicited
        We are specifically requesting comments on the following elements of the draft economic analysis:
        (1) Whether indirect economic costs, as discussed in sections 6.3-1.4 and 6.3-1.5 of the draft economic analysis, are likely to be incurred, and if so, by whom and in what amounts;
        (2) The likelihood of adverse social reactions to the designation of critical habitat, as discussed in sections 6.3-1.4 and 6.3-2.2 of the draft economic analysis, and how the consequences of such reactions, if likely to occur, would relate to the benefits of the proposed critical habitat designation;
        (3) The extent to which the description of the economic costs of the proposed critical habitat designation to the United States Navy and Air Force are complete and accurate; and
        (4) The extent to which military training and readiness may be impacted by the proposed critical habitat designation, as discussed generally in sections 6.3-1.2 and 6.3-1.3 of the draft economic analysis.
        We will accept written comments and information during this extended comment period. If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposal by any of several methods:
        (1) You may submit written comments and information to the Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Office, 300 Ala Moana Blvd., PO Box 50088, Honolulu, HI 96850-0001.
        (2) You may send comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to: Guam_crithab@r1.fws.gov. If you submit comments by e-mail, please submit them as an ASCII file and avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Please also include “Attn: RIN 1018-AI25” and your name and return address in your e-mail message.
        (3) You may hand-deliver comments to our Honolulu Fish and Wildlife Office at the address given above.

        Comments and materials received, as well as supporting documentation used in preparation of the proposal to designate critical habitat, will be available for inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the address under (1) above. Copies of the draft economic analysis are available on the Internet at http://pacificislands.fws.gov or by request from the Field Supervisor at the address under ADDRESSES and phone number under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT above.
        Author(s)
        The primary author of this notice is Eric VanderWerf (see
          ADDRESSES).
        Authority

        The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

          Dated: November 26, 2002.
          Craig Manson,
          Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

      [FR Doc. 02-30802 Filed 12-4-02; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P