        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [I.D. 032803F]
        Fisheries  of  the  Northeastern  United  States; Atlantic Herring Fishery; Scoping Process

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

          ACTION:
          Notice  of  intent  to  prepare   a  supplemental environmental  impact  statement  (SEIS)  and  notice  of re-initiation  of scoping process; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:

          The  New  England  Fishery  Management   Council (Council)  announces  its  intent  to  prepare  an amendment to the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for Atlantic Herring (Clupea  harengus) and  to  prepare  an SEIS to analyze the impacts of any proposed management measures.  The Council  is  also formally re-initiating a public process to determine the scope of alternatives  to  be  addressed in the amendment and SEIS.  The purpose of this notification is to  alert  the interested public of  the  re-commencement of the scoping process and to provide  for  public participation    in    compliance    with    environmental    documentation requirements.

          DATES:

          The   Council  will  discuss  and  take  scoping comments at public meetings in April  and  May 2003. For specific dates and times of the scoping meetings, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. Written scoping comments must be received on  or  before 5 pm., local time, June 2, 2003.

          ADDRESSES:

          The  Council  will take  scoping  comments  at public  meetings in Maine, Massachusetts, and  New  Jersey.   For  specific locations,  see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.  Written comments and requests for copies  of  the  scoping  document  and  other information should  be  directed  to  Paul  J. Howard, Executive Director, New  England Fishery  Management  Council,  50  Water  Street,  Newburyport,  MA  01950, telephone  (978)  465-0492.   The   scoping  document  is  accessible electronically  via  the  Internet  at http://www.nefmc.org. Comments  may  also be sent via facsimile (fax)  to  (978)  465-3116. Comments  will  not   be   accepted   if   submitted   via  e-mail  or  the Internet.

          FOR  FURTHER  INFORMATION  CONTACT:
          Paul   J.  Howard, Executive   Director,   New   England   Fishery  Management  Council  (978) 465-0492.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        The U.S. Atlantic herring fishery is managed  as one stock complex along the east coast from Maine to Cape Hatteras, NC, although  evidence suggests that  separate  spawning  components  exist within the stock complex.   The Council  and  the Atlantic States Marine  Fisheries  Commission  (ASMFC  or Commission) adopted  management  measures  for the herring fishery in state and  Federal  waters  in 1999, and NMFS approved  most  of  the  management measures contained in the  Federal  Herring  FMP  on October 27, 1999.  The Federal Atlantic Herring FMP became effective on January 10, 2001.

        The  state  and  Federal  management  plans  contain similar  management measures.The  state  and  Federal  management  plans  for  herring  establish  total allowable catches (TACs) levels in each of four management areas.  In state waters, there are spawning area restrictions and requirements  for  vessels to  take  specified  days  out  of the fishery (under the Commission plan). Both plans include limits on the  size  of vessels that can take, catch, or harvest  herring.   Each  plan  includes administrative  elements  such  as requirements  for  vessel, dealer,  and  processor  permits  and  reporting requirements.  A control  date  of  September 16, 1999, was established for the Atlantic herring fishery in Federal  waters (64 FR 50266, September 16, 1999).
        Additional measures for the Federal Herring FMP are being considered for two reasons: (1) a new stock assessment for  herring  is available; and (2) the Council made a commitment to consider limited or controlled  access  in the herring fishery shortly after developing the Herring FMP.
        In  February  2003,  the  Transboundary  Resource  Assessment  Committee (TRAC), composed of both U.S. and Canadian scientists, met in St. Andrew's, New  Brunswick,  to  undertake  a  joint  peer  review of the status of the transboundary  herring  resource  and  to provide collective  guidance  for fisheries  managers  to consider.  The TRAC  assessment  will  be  used  in considering possible adjustments  to  the FMP, which may include changes to the herring overfishing definition and  its  associated  reference  points, revisions  to  the estimates of maximum sustainable yield (MSY) and optimum yield (OY) for the herring fishery, adjustments to management areas, and/or adjustments  to  area-specific   TAC   calculations.    The   Herring  Plan Development  Team  (PDT)  will  review  the  TRAC  information  and provide technical  guidance  on  these and other issues as the development of  this amendment proceeds.
        While the overall TAC for  herring  is  more  than  twice recent landing levels, the TAC in the inshore Gulf of Maine (Area 1A) represents more than 60 percent of the total landings and has triggered a closure of the herring fishery  in this area every year.  Some fishermen believe  that  harvesting capacity in  this  area  should be restricted to avoid problems that result from excess fishing capacity.   One  of  these problems is a “race to fish” as increasing numbers of vessels  try  to  catch the TAC before the others.  Besides generating inefficiencies, the available  TAC  in this area  will  likely  continue  to  be taken before the fishing year is over. This  can disrupt the supply of herring  for  various  markets  and  affect stability in the fishery.
        Management  of  a  number  of  fisheries  in  the  Northeast  Region  is complicated  by  excess fishing capacity which makes it difficult to reduce fishing mortality  to  levels  necessary for stock rebuilding.  In order to avoid the problems experienced in  these  fisheries,  there  is interest in developing  a  limited  access  system for the herring fishery to  possibly address existing capacity problems  in  Area  1A and avoid such problems in other areas as the fishery continues to develop.
        In July 1999, the Council made a formal commitment  to develop a limited or  controlled  access  program for the herring fishery.  Scoping  meetings were   conducted   in   early   2000,   and   comments   were   sought   on limited/controlled access in the  herring fishery, particularly in Area 1A. At that time, concern about excess  capacity  was  focused  on  Area 1A, as Areas  2  and  3  (southern  New  England  and  Georges Bank) could support increased fishing effort and additional capacity  in the fishery.  However, some  new  markets  have  emerged,  additional  harvesting  and  processing capacity  has  developed, and catches from Areas 2  and  3  have  increased somewhat, suggesting that capacity concerns in these areas may be different than they were in  2000.   For  this  reason,  the  Council  may consider a limited access program for all herring management areas.
        This amendment may address one or more of the following issues:
        1.  According to the best available scientific information,  overfishing is not occurring on the herring resource at this time, but may occur in the future  if  effort  and  capacity  are  not  monitored and controlled in  a proactive manner.
        2.  Allocation issues have arisen since the establishment of the TACs in the herring fishery, and these issues should be  examined  and minimized to the  extent  practicable  (examples  include  the  race  to  fish and  gear conflicts resulting from the TACs).
        3.   Interactions of herring with other species and other fisheries  are becoming  increasingly important, especially as all stocks in the Northeast Region continue  to  increase.   These  interactions  and  their associated impacts should be examined so that negative impacts can be minimized  where possible and appropriate.
        Measures Under Consideration
        At  this  time,  the  Council  is  seeking  comments  on a wide range of management  measures it is considering to address a range of  issues.   The measures  under   consideration  include,  but  are  not  limited  to,  the following:
        Limited Access
        One or more kinds  of permits may be issued to vessels fishing in one or more of the management  areas.   Qualification  criteria for limited access permits  could  take  many  different  forms.   For example,  qualification criteria could be based on catch levels over a particular  period  of time, possession  of  another  permit, future performance in the fishery, or  any combination of these standards.
        If the Council does develop  a limited access program in this amendment, it  may  develop separate qualifying  criteria  for  the  directed  herring fishery and  the  incidental  catch  herring fishery.  The Council also may consider  a quota-based limited access  program  for  participants  in  the herring  fishery.   Under  such  a  program,  TACs  for  herring  could  be specifically  allocated  to  a  limited  number of individuals or entities. This allows the individuals or entities to  be  responsible for controlling their own capacity and harvesting their share of the resource in a way that maximizes their economic benefits and the overall  benefits to the fishery. Some  examples  of  quota-based  programs  that  may be considered  include Individual Fishing Quotas (IFQs), group quota shares,  and  community quota shares.
        In  addition  to  establishing some kind of limited access program,  the Council will consider  the “no action alternative;” that is, to allow the herring fishery  to remain an open-access fishery.  Consideration of the no action alternative  is  a  legal  requirement and is based on the fact that domestic catches are currently less  than  one-half  the  overall TAC.   New markets and additional harvesting capacity to fully utilize  the herring  resource are currently being examined for the herring fishery.  In addition,  an open access system provides the most flexibility to fishermen to move into the herring fishery as an alternative to other fisheries.
        Other Effort Controls
        A limited  access  program  by  itself  may or may not address potential capacity problems in the herring fishery, especially  in Area 1A.  For this reason, the Council is considering and seeking comments  on  other types of effort controls for the fishery, if necessary.  These include,  but are not limited to, the following:
        1. Vessel Upgrade Restrictions—Restrictions  on the overall  size  and  capacity  of herring vessels is already included in the FMP.  However, additional restrictions on the ability of herring vessels to upgrade (increase their size and/or  horsepower)  may  be an effective tool for controlling existing capacity in the fishery.
        2. Trip Limits—Trip limits may slow  down  the race to  fish  and prevent early closure of the fishery, especially in Area  1A. For the herring  fishery, it would be important to consider the high-volume nature  of  the directed  fishery  and  the  need  to  minimize  regulatory discarding.
        3. Days at Sea (DAS) for the Herring Fishery—Limits on the number  of  days that vessels can fish for herring is another way to control effort in the fishery.
        4. Days Out of the Herring Fishery—Requirements for vessels to take days  out  of  the  herring  fishery  were  included in the Herring  FMP,  but  were  not  approved  by NMFS for several reasons.   The Commission implemented days out of the fishery  in state waters through the Interstate FMP for herring and has found it to be an effective tool to slow the race to fish.  For this reason, the Council may  re-consider  a program for  days  out  of  the  Federal  fishery.   Such a program may be based on no-fishing  days  or  no-landing  days (as is currently  in  the  Comission plan).
        Management Area Boundaries
        The  recently-completed  TRAC  Assessment   of   the   herring  resource recommends,  among other things, consideration of some adjustments  to  the existing management  area  boundaries for the herring fishery.  The Council will consider these recommendations  as  well  as  other  comments received during  the  scoping  period  regarding  adjustments  to  existing  herring management area boundaries.
        Other Measures and Adjustments Under Consideration
        Because of the new TRAC Assessment and other management issues that have emerged over the past 3 years, the Council may consider additional measures for development in this amendment.
        1. Transboundary Nature of the Resource and Interactions with Canadian  Herring  Fisheries—The Council is seeking  comments  on more effective ways  to  address the transboundary nature of this resource. Specifically, the Council  is seeking comments on interactions between U.S. herring management and the New  Brunswick  weir fishery, the southwest Nova Scotia herring fishery, and the Canadian fishery  for  herring  on  Georges Bank.
        2. Seine-only  and/or  Trawl-only Areas—To reduce gear conflicts associated with the TACs  and  the race to fish, the Council may  consider  establishing  areas  for fishing with  purse  seines  and/or midwater trawls only.
        3. Clarification   of   the    Definition   of   Midwater Trawl—The Council may consider revising the regulatory definition of  a midwater trawl to improve enforcement and clarify  perceptions  about the gear intended to be fished.
        4. Spawning   Area  Restrictions—Spawning  area restrictions were included in the  Herring  FMP,  but  were not approved by NMFS  for  several  reasons.   The  Commission  implemented  spawning  area restrictions  through  the  Interstate  FMP  for  herring.  The Council  is seeking   comment   on  whether  or  not  these  restrictions   should   be re-considered in this amendment.
        5. Improved  Coordination with Mackerel Management— Mackerel is managed through  the  Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's Squid/Mackerel/Butterfish FMP.  The  Council recognizes the overlap between the herring and mackerel fisheries and  the  need  to better coordinate the management of these resources.  The Council is seeking  comments  on how to better coordinate herring and mackerel management.
        6. Bycatch and Bycatch Monitoring—The Council  is seeking comments  on measures to minimize bycatch and to better monitor the nature of bycatch in  the  herring fishery.  This includes consideration of requirements for observer coverage in the fishery.
        Scoping Process

        All persons affected by or  otherwise  interested  in herring management are  invited  to participate in determining the scope and  significance  of issues  to  be  analyzed   by   submitting   written   comments   (see ADDRESSES) or by attending one of the scoping hearings.  Scoping consists  of  the  range  of  actions,  alternatives,  and  impacts  to  be considered.    Alternatives   include   the  following:  not  amending  the management plan (taking no action), developing  an  amendment that contains management  measures  such  as  those  discussed in this notice,  or  other reasonable  courses  of  action.  Impacts may  be  direct,  individual,  or cumulative.
        This scoping process will  also  identify  and  eliminate  from detailed analysis issues that are not significant.  When, after the scoping  process is completed, the Council proceeds with the development of an amendment  to the Herring FMP, the Council will prepare an SEIS to analyze the impacts of a  range of alternatives under consideration.  The Council will hold public hearings  to receive comments on the draft amendment and on the analysis of its impacts presented in the SEIS.
        Scoping Hearing Schedule
        The Council will discuss and take scoping comments at public meetings as follows:
        1.  Monday,  April  28,  2003, 7 p.m., Holiday Inn, 31 Hampshire Street, Mansfield, MA 02048. Telephone (508) 339-2200.
        2.  Tuesday, April 29, 2003,  7  p.m.,  Kings  Grant  Hotel, Trask Road, Route 128, Exit 21N, Danvers, MA 01923. Telephone (978) 774-6800.
        3.  Tuesday, May 6, 2003, 7 p.m., Samoset Resort and Conference  Center, 220    Warrenton    Street,    Rockport,    ME   04856.   Telephone   (207) 594-2511.
        4.  Monday, May 12, 2003, 7 p.m., Clarion  Hotel  and Conference Center, 6821 Black Horse Pike, Egg Harbor Township/Atlantic City  West,  NJ  08234. Telephone (609) 272-0200/(800) 782-9237.
        Special Accommodations

        The  meetings  are  accessible  to  people  with  physical disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Paul J. Howard (see ADDRESSES)  at  least  5 days prior to this meeting date.

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

          Dated:    April    9,   2003.
          Richard    W. Surdi,
          Acting  Director,   Office  of  Sustainable  Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 03-9059 Filed 4-11-03; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 62
        [EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0543; FRL-9933-94-Region 7]
        Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants; Missouri; Sewage Sludge Incinerators

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to approve revisions to the state plan for designated facilities and pollutants developed under sections 111(d) and 129 of the Clean Air Act for the State of Missouri. This proposed rule will amend the state plan to include a new plan and associated rule implementing emission guidelines for Sewage Sludge Incinerators published in the Federal Register on March 21, 2011.

          DATES:
          Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by October 16, 2015.

          ADDRESSES:

          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0543, by mail to Paula Higbee, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219. Comments may also be submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier by following the detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the direct final rule located in the rules section of this Federal Register.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Paula Higbee, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at 913-551-7028 or by email at higbee.paula@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        In the final rules section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the state's SIP revision as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial revision amendment and anticipates no relevant adverse comments to this action. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no relevant adverse comments are received in response to this action, no further activity is contemplated in relation to this action. If EPA receives relevant adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on part of this rule and if that part can be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those parts of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the rules section of this Federal Register.

          List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62
          Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Administrative practice and procedure, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sewage sludge incinerators.

          Dated: September 3, 2015.
          Becky Weber,
          Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.

      [FR Doc. 2015-23292 Filed 9-15-15; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
        Coast Guard
        33 CFR Part 117
        [Docket No. USCG-2017-0108]
        RIN 1625-AA09
        Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Tombigbee River, Near Jackson, Alabama

          AGENCY:
          Coast Guard, DHS.

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          The Coast Guard proposes to change the operating schedule that governs the Norfolk Southern Railroad (NSRR) Vertical Lift Span Bridge across Tombigbee River, mile 44.90, near Jackson, between Washington and Clarke Counties, Alabama. This rule proposes to move the current on-site bridge tender control station to a geographically remote centralized control point located in Decatur, Alabama.

          DATES:
          Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before September 11, 2017.

          ADDRESSES:

          You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2017-0108 using Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov.

          See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instruction on submitting comments.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          If you have questions on this proposed rule, call or email Ms. Donna Gagliano; Bridge Administration Branch, Eighth Coast Guard District; telephone 504-671-2128, email Donna.Gagliano@uscg.mil.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        I. Table of Abbreviations

          CFR Code of Federal Regulations
          DHS Department of Homeland Security
          E.O. Executive Order
          FR Federal Register
          NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
          U.S.C. United States Code
          NSRR Norfolk Southern Railroad
          Pub. L. Public Law
          § Section
          U.S.C. United States Code

        II. Background, Purpose and Legal Basis
        In accordance with 33 CFR 117.42, the District Commander may authorize a drawbridge to operate under an automated system or from a remote location. The purpose of this rule is to allow the draw of this bridge to operate from a remote location. The draw will continue to be maintained in the open to navigation position except during the passage of trains. Mariners should not experience any changes in the level of service.
        III. Discussion of the Proposed Rule
        The Coast Guard, at the request of NSRR, is changing the method of operation for the NSRR Vertical Lift Bridge across Tombigbee River, mile 44.90, near Jackson, Alabama. Due to the need for increased efficiency in railroad operations, NSRR requested a change to the method of operating the draw from on-site to a draw tender operating the bridge remotely.
        Presently, the draw is maintained in the open-to-navigation position and closed only for the passage of trains or maintenance. The bridge owner would like to operate the draw remotely using a drawtender at a centralized railroad operation in Decatur, Alabama, rather than maintaining the current on-site operation and drawtender. The implementation of this rule, in effect, removes the requirement that a drawtender be present on site at all times.
        Under the new remote operation procedure, the draw will continue to be maintained in the open-to-navigation position and lowered only for the passage of trains or for maintenance. There will be no modifications to the operation of the bridge as it relates to the passage of vessels. Instead, this change will allow the bridge owner to increase efficiency by coordinating bridge operations and vessel transits with train dispatch operations in Decatur, AL.
        IV. Regulatory Analyses
        We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statues and Executive Orders and we discuss First Amendment rights of protesters.
        A. Regulatory Planning and Review
        E.O.s 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under E.O. 12866. Accordingly, NPRM it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
        This interim rule is not a significant regulatory action because the draw will be maintained in the open-to-navigation position. Therefore, mariners will experience no changes in transiting through the bridge site. No new restrictions on or actions from the mariner are required by this rule.
        The intent of the proposed rule is to improve safety and efficiency of bridge operations as it relates to vessel and railroad traffic.
        Centralizing the bridge tender would have no impact on the existing regulations regarding hours or methods of bridge operations.
        B. Impact on Small Entities
        The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

        “While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the bridge may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.”

        If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

        Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
        C. Collection of Information
        This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
        D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Government
        A rule has implications for federalism under E.O. 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in E.O. 13132.

        Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.
        E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
        The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
        F. Environment
        We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule simply promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review, under Table 3-2, (L49), of the Instruction.
        Under Table 3-2, (L49), of the Instruction, a Memorandum for the Record (MFR) is not required for this rule. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.
        G. Protest Activities

        The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places or vessels.
        V. Public Participation and Request for Comments
        We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.

        We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions.

        We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 FR 15086).

        Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public comments, are in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published.

          List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117
          Bridges.

        For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:

          PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

        1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
          33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

        2. In § 117.118, redesignate introductory text as paragraph (a) and revise paragraphs (a) through (d) as paragraph (a)(1) through (a)(4); and add new paragraph (b) Tombigbee River to read as follows:

          § 117.118
          Tombigbee River.

          (b) The draw of the NSRR Vertical Lift Bridge across the Tombigbee River, mile 44.90, near Jackson, Washington and Clarke Counties, Alabama shall be maintained as follows:
          (1) The draw shall be maintained in the fully open-to-navigation position for vessels at all times, except during periods when it is closed for the passage of rail traffic or to perform periodic maintenance authorized in accordance with subpart A of this part.

          (2) The draw shall be remotely operated by the draw tender at Norfolk Southern Railroad's drawbridge in Decatur, Alabama. The estimated duration that the bridge will remain closed for the passage of rail traffic is 10 to 15 minutes per operation.
          (3) When a train approaches the bridge, the draw tender will initiate the bridge closing warning signal, consisting of radio calls via VHF-FM channels 13 and 16 and activation of flashing red warning lights at each end of the span. The radio calls will be broadcast at five (5) minutes prior to bridge closing and at two (2) minutes prior to bridge closing. Photoelectric (infrared) boat detectors will monitor the waterway beneath the bridge for the presence of vessels.
          (4) The drawtender will continuously monitor waterway traffic in the area using closed-circuit cameras mounted on the bridge. The draw will only be closed if the draw tender's visual inspection indicates that the channel is clear and there are no vessels transiting in the area. The draw tender will maintain constant surveillance of the navigation channel to ensure that no conflict with maritime traffic exists. If two or more closed-circuit cameras are inoperable or if there is inclement weather, the draw will only be operated by a draw tender located on site at the bridge.
          (5) At the end of the two-minute warning period, if no vessels have been detected by the draw tender, the draw closing sequence will automatically proceed.
          (6) Upon passage of the train, the draw will be returned to the fully open-to-navigation position to allow marine traffic to pass. The warning lights will continue to flash red until the draw has returned to the fully open-to-navigation position at which time they will deactivate.
          (7) After the passage of each train, the draw must be returned to it fully open-to-navigation position.
          (8) To request openings of the draw when the vertical lift span is in the closed-to-navigation position, mariners may contact NSRR via VHF-FM channel 13 or by telephone at the number displayed on the signs posted at the bridge.
          (9) The draw will be operated locally if:
          (i) Communication is lost between the drawbridge and the draw tender in Decatur, Alabama;
          (ii) More than two closed-circuit cameras are not working;
          (iii) The marine radio is inoperable;
          (iv) Weather conditions warrant; or
          (v) Ordered by the Coast Guard.

          Dated: June 22, 2017.
          D.R. Callahan,
          Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.

      [FR Doc. 2017-14606 Filed 7-11-17; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 63
        [EPA-R09-OAR-2007-0322; FRL-8309-8]
        Delegation of National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories; State of Arizona, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality; State of Nevada, Nevada Division of Environmental Protection

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          Pursuant to section 112(l) of the 1990 Clean Air Act, EPA granted delegation of specific national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) to the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality on March 16, 2007, and to the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection on January 12, 2007. EPA is proposing to revise the Code of Federal Regulations to reflect the current delegation status of NESHAP in Arizona and Nevada.

          DATES:
          Any comments on this proposal must arrive by June 7, 2007.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2007-0322, by one of the following methods:
          1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions.
          2. E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov.
          3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.

            Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. www.regulations.gov is an “anonymous access” system, and EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.

            Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Mae Wang, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-4124, wang.mae@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This document concerns the delegation of unchanged NESHAP to the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection. In the Rules and Regulations section of this Federal Register, EPA is amending regulations to reflect the current delegation status of NESHAP in Arizona and Nevada. EPA is taking direct final action without prior proposal because the Agency believes these actions are not controversial. If we receive adverse comments, however, we will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule and address the comments in subsequent action based on this proposed rule. Please note that if we receive adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, we may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.
        We do not plan to open a second comment period, so anyone interested in commenting should do so at this time. If we do not receive adverse comments, no further activity is planned. For further information, please see the direct final action.

          Authority:
          This action is issued under the authority of Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7412.

          Date Signed: April 19, 2007.
          Deborah Jordan,
          Director, Air Division, Region IX.

      [FR Doc. E7-8681 Filed 5-7-07; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        [Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2016-0137; FXES11130900000 178 FF09E42000]
        RIN 1018-BB89

        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reclassifying Echinocereus fendleri var. kuenzleri From Endangered to Threatened

          AGENCY:
           Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
           Proposed rule and 12-month petition finding.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to reclassify Echinocereus fendleri var. kuenzleri (Kuenzler hedgehog cactus) from endangered to threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). After review of the best available scientific and commercial information, we find that reclassifying E. fendleri var. kuenzleri as threatened is warranted. This document also serves as our 12-month finding on a petition to reclassify E. fendleri var. kuenzleri as threatened. We request information and comments from the public regarding this proposed rule and our 12-month finding.

          DATES:

          To ensure that we are able to consider your comments on this proposed rule, they must be received or postmarked on or before March 7, 2017. We must receive requests for public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by February 21, 2017.

          ADDRESSES:

            Written comments: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
          (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal:

            http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R2-ES-2016-0137, which is the docket number for this proposed rulemaking. Then, click on the Search button. On the resulting page, in the Search panel on the left side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, click on the Proposed Rules link to locate this document. You may submit a comment by clicking on “Comment Now!”
          (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R2-ES-2016-0137; Division of Policy, Performance, and Management Programs; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: BPHC; 5275 Leesburg Pike; Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.

          We request that you send comments only by one of the methods described above. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see Information Requested, below, for more information).

            Copies of documents: This proposed rule and supporting documents are available on http://www.regulations.gov. In addition, the supporting file for this proposed rule will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours, at the New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office, 2105 Osuna Road NE., Albuquerque, NM 87113; telephone 505-346-2525.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Wally Murphy, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office, 2105 Osuna Road NE., Albuquerque, NM 87113; telephone 505-761-2525; facsimile 505-346-2542. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Information Requested
        Any final action resulting from this proposed rule will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and be as accurate as possible. Therefore, we request comments or information from other concerned governmental agencies, Native American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or other interested parties concerning this proposed rule. The comments that will be most useful and likely to influence our decisions are those supported by data or peer-reviewed studies and those that include citations to, and analyses of, applicable laws and regulations. Please make your comments as specific as possible and explain the basis for them. In addition, please include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to authenticate any scientific or commercial data you reference or provide. In particular, we seek comments concerning the following:
        (1) Reasons why we should or should not reclassify Echinocereus fendleri var. kuenzleri under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
        (2) New biological or other relevant data concerning any threat (or lack thereof) to this plant and existing regulations that may be addressing these or any of the below threats.

        (3) New information concerning the population size or trends of E. fendleri var. kuenzleri.

        (4) New information on how E. fendleri var. kuenzleri responds to wildland and prescribed fire.

        (5) New information on the current or planned activities within the range of E. fendleri var. kuenzleri that may adversely affect or benefit the plant.

        (6) New information or data on the projected and reasonably likely impacts to E. fendleri var. kuenzleri or its habitat associated with climate change.
        Please note that submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the action under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or threatened species must be made “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.”
        Prior to issuing a final rule on this proposed action, we will take into consideration all comments and any additional information we receive. Such information may lead to a final rule that differs from this proposal. All comments and recommendations, including names and addresses, will become part of the administrative record.

        You may submit your comments and materials concerning the proposed rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. Comments must be submitted to http://www.regulations.gov before 11:59 p.m. (Eastern Time) on the date specified in DATES. We will not consider hand-delivered comments that we do not receive, or mailed comments that are not postmarked, by the date specified in DATES. Please note that comments posted to this Web site are not immediately viewable. When you submit a comment, the system receives it immediately. However, the comment will not be publicly viewable until we post it, which might not occur until several days after submission.

        If you mail or hand-deliver hardcopy comments that include personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. To ensure that the electronic docket for this rulemaking is complete and all comments we receive are publicly available, we will post all hardcopy submissions on http://www.regulations.gov.

        In addition, comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be available for public inspection in two ways:

        (1) You can view them on http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R2-ES-2016-0137, which is the docket number for this rulemaking.

        (2) You can make an appointment, during normal business hours, to view the comments and materials in person at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES).
        Public Hearing

        Section 4(b)(5)(E) of the Act provides for one or more public hearings on this proposed rule, if requested. We must receive requests for public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by the date shown in DATES. We will schedule public hearings on this proposal, if any are requested, and places of those hearings, as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in the Federal Register at least 15 days before the first hearing.
        Peer Review

        In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek the expert opinions of at least three appropriate and independent specialists regarding this proposed rule. A thorough review of information that we relied on in preparing this proposed rule—including information on taxonomy, genetics, life-history, ecology, population distribution and abundance, and potential threats from our recent 5-year review (Service 2016)—is available at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2016-0137. The purpose of peer review is to ensure that decisions are based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. A peer review panel will conduct an assessment of the proposed rule, and the specific assumptions and conclusions regarding the proposed reclassification from endangered to threatened (i.e., “downlisting”). This assessment will be completed during the public comment period.
        We will consider all comments and information we receive during the comment period on this proposed rule as we prepare the final determination. Prior to issuing a final rule on this proposed action, we will take into consideration all additional information and comments that we receive. Such information may lead to a final rule that differs from this proposal.
        Background

        Found on slopes of sandy gravel and amid rocky outcrops in southern New Mexico, Echinocereus fendleri var. kuenzleri is a very small member of the cactus family (Cactaceae) that grows in Great Plains grassland, oak woodland, or pinon-juniper woodland within elevations of 1,600 to 2,000 meters (5,200 to 6,600 feet). Individuals may be single stemmed or branched; when branched, the stems are usually fewer than four, but may number as many as eight (Service 1985, p. 3). Stems are normally short-conical, about 15 centimeters (cm) (6 inches (in)) long and 10 cm (4 in) wide, with 9 to 12 ribs with prominent tubercles from which the spine clusters originate, and central spines are usually absent (Castetter et al. 1976, pp. 76-82, Service 1985, p. 3). Useful characteristics to distinguish the taxon from other cacti within its range are its few, contorted, white, chalky-textured spines and large, magenta flowers (Service 1985, p. 4). Fruits are bright red when mature, with black seeds. The cactus flowers in late May and fruits ripen in July, with flowering occurring after only when a cactus reaches 4 to 5 years of age. Like other rare cacti related to this genus, it is believed that E. fendleri var. kuenzleri is an obligate outcrosser (self-incompatible) that requires pollination for sexual reproduction (Tepedino 1998). Little is known about the pollinators of this cactus, but it most likely involves a range of nectar- seeking insects (Ferguson 1989, pp. 217-224).
        When we originally listed this cactus in 1979, we were aware of only a single population of approximately 200 plants located on the east slope of the Sacramento Mountains in New Mexico (Chaves and Otero Counties) (44 FR 61924; October 26, 1979). When the recovery plan was adopted in 1985, the plant was known to exist in two locations with a total of fewer than 500 plants. It is now reasonable to estimate, based on recent surveys, that several thousand cacti exist within the known range of this taxon, with approximately 3,300 individuals observed within 11 known population centers since 1981, when more intensive surveys were initiated (Service 2005, entire; 2016, entire). Since 1979, the range of this plant has also been extended 10 miles to the west in Otero County, 40 miles north in Lincoln County (DeBruin 1993), and approximately 100 miles to the southeast (from its northwestern-most location in Lincoln County) into the Guadalupe Mountains of Eddy County. Numerous new locations within this range place it within the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) -Forest Service and U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI)- Bureau of Land Management (BLM) jurisdictions as well on private and State lands. It has also been found on the west side of the Sacramento Mountains in Lincoln County (Knight 1999), and on USDA-Forest Service and USDI-BLM lands in the northern Guadalupe Mountains in Eddy and Otero Counties (Chauvin et al. 2001, Sivinski 1996). Populations are not continuous within this range, but are patchy, scattered, and rare.
        Some have questioned the taxonomic status of Echinocereus fendleri var. kuenzleri, by considering it to be a synonym of the common and widespread E. fendleri var. fendleri (Anderson 2001, Zimmerman and Parfitt 2003). However, other assessments by local experts acknowledged that at the northwest edge of the cactus' range, within one of the 11 known populations, E. fendleri var. kuenzleri individuals occur along with the variety E. fendleri var. fendleri and intergradations between both varieties can be found (Rare Plant Technical Council of New Mexico 2005, Marron Associates 2000, entire; Baker 2007, entire). However, because the remaining 10 populations located more toward the center of E. fendleri var. kuenzleri's known distribution exhibit consistently reliable traits unique to this variety, the cactus warrants future study to verify a change in its taxonomic status (Rare Plant Technical Council of New Mexico 2005). The full taxonomic history can be found in the recovery plan (Service 1985) with the most recent updates in the 5-year review (Service 2016, entire). Recent taxonomic review of the varieties of Echinocereus fendleri retained kuenzleri as a variety (Felix et al. 2014). Because of the limited area of introgression and the identification of consistently reliable traits unique to this variety, we do not believe a taxonomic change is warranted at this time.
        For a detailed discussion of Echinocereus fendleri var. kuenzleri's description, taxonomy, life history, habitat, soils, distribution, and abundance, and a discussion of the role of fire in the taxon's regeneration, please see the recovery plan (Service 1985, entire) and the 5-year reviews (Service 2005, entire; 2016, entire) available for review at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2016-0137.
        Previous Federal Actions
        We proposed to list this plant, with the scientific name Echinocereus hempelli, as an endangered species under the Act on June 16, 1976 (41 FR 24524), because of threats from the great demand by private and commercial collectors, road maintenance and improvements, cattle grazing, and real estate development. We published a final rule listing the plant, with the scientific name Echinocereus kuenzleri, as an endangered species in the Federal Register on October 26, 1979 (44 FR 61924). We finalized a recovery plan for the plant, with the scientific name Echinocereus fendleri var. kuenzleri, in March 1985 (Service 1985).

        Under the Act, we maintain the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants at 50 CFR 17.11 (for wildlife) and 17.12 (for plants) (Lists). We amend the Lists by publishing final rules in the Federal Register. Section 4(c)(2)(A) of the Act requires that we conduct a review of listed species at least once every 5 years. Section 4(c)(2)(B) requires that we determine: (1) Whether a species no longer meets the definition of endangered or threatened and should be removed from the Lists (delisted), (2) whether a species listed as endangered more properly meets the definition of threatened and should be reclassified to threatened (“downlisted”), or (3) whether a species listed as threatened more properly meets the definition of endangered and should be reclassified to endangered (“uplisted”). In accordance with 50 CFR 424.11(d), using the best scientific and commercial data available, we will delist a species if the data substantiate that the species is neither endangered nor threatened for one or more of the following reasons: (1) The species is considered extinct; (2) the species is considered recovered; or (3) the original data available when the species was listed, or the interpretation of such data, were in error. On July 21, 2004, we published a notice (69 FR 43621) announcing that we were conducting a 5-year review of the status of E. fendleri var. kuenzleri under section 4(c)(2) of the Act. In that notice, we requested that the public provide us any new information concerning this plant. The 5-year review, completed on June 7, 2005 (Service 2005), resulted in a recommendation to change the status of this cactus from endangered to threatened. The 2005 and 2016 5-year reviews for E. fendleri var. kuenzleri are available on the Service's Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS) (https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/profile/speciesProfile?spcode=Q1VW).

        On July 16, 2012, we received a petition dated July 11, 2012, from The Pacific Legal Foundation, Jim Chilton, the New Mexico Cattle Growers' Association, New Mexico Farm & Livestock Bureau, New Mexico Federal Lands Council, and Texas Farm Bureau requesting the Service to reclassify Echinocereus fendleri var. kuenzleri from endangered to threatened. The petition was based on the analysis and recommendations contained in the most recent 5-year review for this taxon. On September 9, 2013 (78 FR 55046), we published in the Federal Register a 90-day finding for the 2012 petition to reclassify E. fendleri var. kuenzleri. In our 90-day finding, we determined the 2012 petition provided substantial information indicating the petitioned actions may be warranted, and we initiated a status review for E. fendleri var. kuenzleri. This proposed downlisting rule constitutes the 12-month finding and our 5-year status review for E. fendleri var. kuenzleri.

        Recovery and Recovery Plan Implementation
        Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to develop and implement recovery plans for the conservation and survival of endangered and threatened species unless we determine that such a plan will not promote the conservation of the species. Under section 4(f)(1)(B)(ii), recovery plans must, to the maximum extent practicable, include objective, measurable criteria which, when met, would result in a determination, in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the Act, that the species be removed from the List. However, revisions to the List (adding, removing, or reclassifying a species) must reflect determinations made in accordance with sections 4(a)(1) and 4(b) of the Act. Section 4(a)(1) requires that the Secretary determine whether a species is endangered or threatened (or not) because of one or more of five threat factors. Section 4(b) of the Act requires that the determination be made “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.” Therefore, recovery criteria should indicate when a species is no longer an endangered species or threatened species because of any of the five statutory factors.
        Thus, while recovery plans provide important guidance to the Service, States, and other partners on methods of minimizing threats to listed species and measurable objectives against which to measure progress towards recovery, they are not regulatory documents and cannot substitute for the determinations and promulgation of regulations required under section 4(a)(1) of the Act. A decision to revise the status of or remove a species from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants (50 CFR 17.12) is ultimately based on an analysis of the best scientific and commercial data then available to determine whether a species is no longer an endangered species or a threatened species, regardless of whether that information differs from the recovery plan.
        In 1985, we finalized a recovery plan for E. fendleri var. kuenzleri but it provides no delisting criteria (Service 1985). The recovery plan states that E. fendleri var. kuenzleri could be reclassified to threatened status when existing natural populations are increased to approximately 5,000 individual plants and when that population level is maintained for a period of 5 consecutive years (downlisting criterion 1) (Service 1985, p. iii). The second downlisting criterion is based on the need for the Service to develop policy for propagated cacti and the introduction of 10,000 artificially propagated E. fendleri var. kuenzleri into the commercial market to counter the threat at that time of collection.

        The first criterion was intended to address the point at which imminent threats to the plant had been ameliorated so that the populations were no longer in immediate risk of extirpation. Estimated abundance of individuals in all populations has changed over time, from approximately 200 individuals at the time of listing in 1979, to multiple populations with more than 3,300 individuals (Service 2005, p. 4; Service 2016, pp. 3-4). We believe there are likely more than 3,300 individuals across the range of E. fendleri var. kuenzleri because the difficulty in locating nonflowering plants and the lack of survey efforts in the entire suitable habitat limit the ability to observe many of these cacti potentially growing in areas of suitable habitat.
        Currently, E. fendleri var. kuenzleri occurs in 11 unique population clusters defined by occupied locations separated by several miles of unsuitable or unoccupied habitats. According to data maintained by Natural Heritage New Mexico, approximately 97 percent of known E. fendleri var. kuenzleri individuals occur on lands managed by either the USDA-Forest Service (FS) or USDI-BLM (2016). There are two populations in the Guadalupe Mountains (mid-range and north range), eight populations in the Sacramento Mountains (north of Carrizozo), and one population in the lower hills of the Guadalupe Mountains, east of the Sacramento range (Service 2005, p. 5; Service 2016, pp. 3-4). Based on this information, this plant is much more numerous than originally determined and is distributed over a broader area.

        The second criterion is for the Service to develop policy for commercial propagation and to introduce 10,000 propagated individuals into the commercial market. Echinocereus fendleri var. kuenzleri is now readily available on the open market from commercial growers with Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) certificates (see https://www.cites.org for additional information on CITES). Local populations, especially near the type locality (location where the species was first identified), may continue to be impacted by occasional poaching from growers and hobbyists; however, at this time, this taxon is unlikely to be seriously threatened in most of its range by cactus collectors, because of availability from commercial growers. Thus, collection is no longer considered a major threat to this cactus and this second criterion is no longer relevant.

        Various studies have occurred since development of the recovery plan that aid in our understanding of the status of Echinocereus fendleri var. kuenzleri. For example:
        • Recent surveys indicate that E. fendleri var. kuenzleri is broadly distributed within its range, plant density can vary from location to location, and populations may be more dynamic than they were expected to be. For example, at Ft. Stanton, the population demonstrated a shift from inside of the survey plot to establishment outside of the survey plot. (Chauvin et al. 2012, entire; Muldavin et al. 2013, entire).
        • May et al. (2008, p. 170) found E. fendleri var. kuenzleri was distributed randomly with respect to other vegetation and did not support the hypothesis that it is associated with vegetation that provides thermal protection.
        • Both Baker (2007, entire) and Felix et al. (2014, p. 64) found morphological characters than differentiate this taxon from other similar taxa.
        • Sivinski (2007, p. 93) found that wildfire can cause high mortality in this cactus, and it was slow to recover, with first flowering occurring at between four to five years after seedlings germinated.

        • May (2006, entire) and Wester and Britton (2007, p. 11) found that prescribed fire had little effect on E. fendleri var. kuenzleri under low fuel loads and that prescribed, low intensity fire could be used to lower fuel loads, reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfires.

        These and other data that we have analyzed indicate that most threats identified at listing and during the development of the recovery plan are reduced in areas occupied by E. fendleri var. kuenzleri and that the status of the cactus has improved, primarily due to finding additional populations over a broader range. However, more recent threats associated with fire regime alteration, the lack of a comprehensive habitat management plan, drought, and climate change effects may impede the plant's ability to recover.
        Summary of Factors Affecting E. fendleri var. kuenzleri

        Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for listing species on, reclassifying species on, or removing species from the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. The term “species” includes “any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment [DPS] of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). A species may be determined to be an endangered species or threatened species because of any one or a combination of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act: (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 man-made factors affecting its continued existence. A species may be reclassified on the same basis.
        Determining whether the status of a species has improved to the point that it can be reclassified from endangered to threatened (“downlisted”) requires consideration of whether the species is endangered or threatened because of the same five categories of threats specified in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. For species that are already listed as endangered or threatened, this analysis of threats is an evaluation of both the threats currently facing the species and the threats that are reasonably likely to affect the species in the foreseeable future following the delisting or downlisting and the removal of the Act's protections.

        A species is an “endangered species” for purposes of the Act if it is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range and is a “threatened species” if it is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The word “range” in the significant portion of its range phrase refers to the range in which the species currently exists. For the purposes of this analysis, we first evaluate the status of Echinocereus fendleri var. kuenzleri throughout all of its range, then consider whether this cactus is in danger of extinction or likely to become so in any significant portion of its range.
        At the time of listing, the primary threats to E. f. var. kuenzleri were private and commercial collection, road improvement and maintenance, real estate development, and livestock grazing (44 FR 61924; October 26, 1979). By the time the recovery plan was developed in 1985, the same threats were still considered relevant (Service 1985, pp. 8-12). Subsequently, we conducted 5-year status reviews that included an analysis of factors that affect the plant (Service 2005, pp. 12-14; Service 2016, p. 5). The 2005 5-year status review found that the threat of habitat loss from road improvement and maintenance and real estate development (Factor A), and a direct threat from commercial collection (Factor B) have decreased since the time of listing, and are no longer considered significant threats. Livestock grazing (Factor C), continues to be a threat by trampling, only if areas are improperly managed and cattle are aggregated in areas where the cacti are growing. The 2005 review also identified an additional threat of fire based on the alteration of the natural fire regime (Service 2005). The 2016 5-year status review added the threats of drought and effects due to climate change because drought has impacted several populations and the long-term trend in the range of the cactus is one of increased temperatures and drying (Service 2016).

        Recommendations to address the impacts of these emerging threats, including a long-term monitoring plan for Echinocereus fendleri var. kuenzleri, should be developed to further understand how these threats affect the long-term viability of the taxon.
        Habitat Loss—Road Construction and Maintenance, Residential Development

        Habitat loss by road construction and maintenance and through residential development is negligible in the area occupied by Echinocereus fendleri var. kuenzleri. Where road construction has occurred in occupied areas, individual cacti have been avoided or mitigation has been provided (Marron Associates 2013, entire). If this proposed rule is adopted, this avoidance would likely continue because Echinocereus fendleri var. kuenzleri would remain listed as threatened. Residential development has not been a threat due to the preference of the plant to grow in dry, rugged locations not favored for development. More importantly, the majority of the populations discovered after the recovery plan was written are found on federally managed lands that are not likely to be developed.
        Livestock Grazing

        Grazing at low intensity stocking rates can be compatible with the presence of Echinocereus fendleri var. kuenzleri, primarily because the cactus tends to be found in rocky outcrops amid rugged locations, although minimal trampling can occur. Areas on USDA-Forest Service and USDI-BLM lands have fenced out livestock to effectively protect the cactus in strategic locations. Additionally, federal grazing allotment permits are evaluated for renewal at least every 10 years and grazing impacts analysis is part of the permit review. Permits can be reviewed sooner to meet management goals. During this review, livestock numbers can be adjusted to achieve conservation goals. Each range improvement (e.g., water pipeline, fence, livestock water) on Federal surface is evaluated for impacts to special status species including endangered and threatened species. Each agency uses project-specific conservation measures to avoid impacts to E. fendleri var. kuenzleri.

        Private and Commercial Collection
        As mentioned previously, the collection of Echinocereus fendleri var. kuenzleri is uncommon at this time, due to the legal availability of the cactus in the commercial market. Certified commercial growers have Echinocereus fendleri var. kuenzleri readily available on the open market in accordance with CITES.

        The following sections provide a summary of the current threats impacting Echinocereus fendleri var. kuenzleri now and those that may occur in the foreseeable future. These threats include alteration of the fire regime (Factors A and E), drought (Factors A and E), effects due to climate change (Factors A and E), and the effect of any existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) or conservation efforts that are ameliorating these impacts.
        Fire Regime Alteration
        Both arid grasslands and pinyon-juniper savanna, where E. f. var. kuenzleri occurs, had short-interval fire frequency historically (Payson et al. 2000, p. 122; Gebow and Halverson 2005, p. 4). The fire frequency interval has been extended by fire suppression and grazing (Payson et al. 2000, pp. 126, 132; Gebow and Halverson 2005, p. 4). Livestock grazing reduces the total amount of fine fuels (grasses) that would otherwise carry wild fire across a landscape, thus, extending the period between hotter, more damaging fire events. Use of prescribed fire as a management tool has been growing and is currently implemented to restore grasslands and savannas that have been impacted by historical fire suppression and grazing (Knapp et al. 2009, p. 1). Fires, whether wild or prescribed, within the grassland habitats of Echinocereus fendleri var. kuenzleri can have impacts to the cactus (Sivinski 2007, entire), such as slowing recovery and lessening the cactus' ability to withstand a short-interval fire frequency. The cactus typically undergoes about four to five years of slow growth before individuals are able to flower and set seed, so recolonization after a fire can take many years (Sivinski 2007, p. 4). However, Wester and Britton (2007, p. 11) found no evidence that the plant was negatively affected by prescribed fire, although high fuel loads did increase individual mortality. This suggests that prescribed burns in Echinocereus fendleri var. kuenzleri habitat could be designed to remove fuel loads without causing direct mortality associated with wildfire (May 2006, p. 44). While we originally believed that fire would negatively impact the Echinocereus fendleri var. kuenzleri, we now believe that active management, including the use of low intensity prescribed fire at longer frequencies, could restore the landscape to a natural fire frequency interval, reducing the likelihood of catastrophic wild fires, and thus, reducing impacts on the cactus when fire does occur. Because the cactus is capable of reproducing from seed, but reestablishment of populations may take considerable time, fire frequencies between 25 and 50 years have been recommended (Sivinski 2007, Muldavin 2012) to achieve the best population sustainability. A comprehensive habitat management plan should be developed to ensure that the use of fire is coordinated to optimize conditions for Echinocereus fendleri var. kuenzleri.

        Drought

        During 11 of the last 15 years (2001-2015), there has been moderate to exceptional drought conditions in the area where Echinocereus fendleri var. kuenzleri occurs, with 10 percent of the time in exceptional drought (National Drought Mitigation Center 2015, Four County Data). The 2002-2003 drought spanned all of southwestern North America and was anomalously dry with unusually high temperatures (Breshears et al. 2005, pp. 15, 144); similar conditions occurred in 2011-2013.

          Echinocereus fendleri var. kuenzleri has likely experienced and rebounded from periods of drought in the past. However, should substantial effects due to climate change materialize with increased severity and frequency of drought, it would likely reduce the long-term survivorship of this cactus. Drought is also directly related to Echinocereus fendleri var. kuenzleri population health with regard to reproduction and establishment. As with many cactus species, seed germination and seedling survival is dependent on precipitation (Jordan and Nobel 1981, p. 905). Little is known about the Echinocereus fendleri var. kuenzleri seedbank. Even if seedbanks exist and persist, adequate precipitation during the seedling's first year of growth is essential for survival (Roller 1996a, p. 38). In studies of seed germination in similar cacti, Roller (1996a, p. 77) found that on average 88 percent of all seed produced during the summer monsoon season germinated; however, only a small portion of the seedlings survived. Surveys show few seedlings and young juvenile plants among the Echinocereus fendleri var. kuenzleri population survive (e.g. Ecosphere Environmental Services Inc. 1995, pp. 17-21; Schmalzel 2000d, p. 5; Baker 2011, pp. 5-7). Heat stress in adult cacti is minimal compared to other plant species, as they are able to survive heat stress due to both morphology and metabolism (Smith et al. 1984, pp. 647, 650; Wahid et al. 2007, p. 199). Extreme temperatures can, however, negatively impact seedling survival in many desert-adapted plants, and drought coupled with high temperatures lessens temperature tolerance in seedlings (Nobel 1984, pp. 310, 316). Finally, plants that are already stressed from prolonged drought are more susceptible to insect attack and disease. Without sufficient monitoring in place to assess Echinocereus fendleri var. kuenzleri's demographic responses and population trends, the severity of the threat of drought can only be surmised based on other cacti and other drought research.
        Climate Change

        Based on the unequivocal evidence of warming of the earth's climate from observations of increases in average global air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of glaciers and polar ice caps, and rising sea levels recorded in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report (IPCC 2007a, entire; 2013, entire), effects due to climate change are now a consideration for Federal agency analysis (Government Accounting Office 2007, entire). The Service will incorporate climate change into our decision making under the Act (Service 2010, entire). The earth's surface has warmed by an average of 0.74 degrees Celsius (°C) (1.3 degrees Fahrenheit (°F)) during the 20th century (IPCC 2007b, p. 30). The IPCC (2013, p. 7) projects that there will very likely be an increase in the frequency of hot extremes, heat waves, and heavy precipitation events as a result of climate change.

        This global climate information has been downscaled to our region of interest, and projected into the future under two different scenarios of possible emissions of greenhouse gases (Alder and Hostetler 2014, p. 2). Climate projections for the cactus area include a 5 to 6 percent increase in maximum temperature (up to 4 °C (7.2 °F)), an 11 percent decrease in precipitation, and a 25 percent increase in evaporative deficit over the next 25 years (National Climate Change Viewer, Four County Data, http://www2.usgs.gov/climate_landuse/clu_rd/nccv/viewer.asp, accessed May 15, 2016).
        Effects due to climate change also include an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, which is commonly associated with increased temperatures and the greenhouse effect. This increased carbon dioxide directly affects plant photosynthesis (Huxman and Scott 2007, p. 28). At the plant level, adapting to drought involves the ability to balance carbon sequestration (the uptake and storage of carbon) and carbon respiration (efflux back into the atmosphere), while also maintaining sustainable evapotranspiration rates (Huxman and Scott 2007, p. 28). Adaptation would also require a plant to change its phenology (timing of life cycle events) to coincide successfully with extreme shifts in temperature, precipitation, and soil moisture (Walther et al. 2002, p. 389), which are all part of the evapotranspiration equation. The potential for rapid climate change, which is predicted for the future, could pose significant challenges for plants because they may not be able to adjust their phenology or photosynthetic mechanisms quickly enough.
        Cacti have a unique photosynthetic pathway referred to as crassulacean acid metabolism (CAM), which is most effective in low soil moisture, intense sunlight, and high daytime temperature conditions, and is considered to be a desert adaptation (Nefzaoui et al. 2014, p. 121). CAM plants may have an advantage under these drier condition scenarios due to the effects of climate change (Reyes-Garcia and Andrade 2009, p. 755). If atypical cactus mortality occurs, this could be evidence that a climatic severity threshold may have been crossed even for this well-adapted CAM plant.

        Munson et al. (2013, p. 2,030) forecasts declines in vegetative cover including cacti in Chihuahuan Desert habitats due to climate change. This is because growing seasons are becoming longer and warmer and in many regions (Kunkel 2013, p. 1) including the Southwest (Cayan et al. 2001, p. 399; Easterling 2002, p. 1329) due to the effects of climate change. This trend of longer and warmer growing seasons is projected to continue in the current climate change assessments. Earlier soil moisture stress would result in decreased flowering and reproduction for Echinocereus fendleri var. kuenzleri. Based on the limited distribution of this cactus, we consider drought and climate change an ongoing, yet not imminent, threat to Echinocereus fendleri var. kuenzleri.

        Combination of Threats

        When stressors occur together, one may exacerbate the effects of another, causing effects not accounted for when stressors are analyzed individually. Synergistic or cumulative effects may be observed in a short amount of time or may not be noticeable for years into the future, and could affect the long-term viability of Echinocereus fendleri var. kuenzleri populations. Livestock grazing interacts with the effect of natural fire frequency within Echinocereus fendleri var. kuenzleri habitats. Removal of fine fuels by grazing animals reduces the ability of a fire to start and carry through the landscape. Land managers have in the past followed an aggressive wildfire suppression program. The result is a disruption of the natural fire regime and an increase of woody vegetation in grassland and savanna habitats. Land managers presently see the need to reintroduce low intensity fire into these habitats for the purpose of restoring grasslands and increasing forage for livestock production. Impacts of these interacting processes to E. fendleri var. kuenzleri can be variable, and will need to be studied and management will be needed to provide the best outcome for the cactus.

        Another threat combination can occur between drought, climate change effects, and predation. Although predation has not been a monitored factor for Echinocereus fendleri var. kuenzleri, in the case of other native small cacti, evidence of increased herbivory of adult cacti and seedlings by insect and mammalian predators has been observed during drought, most likely due to increases in thirst and decreases in other available forage. Rodents consume cacti for water, especially in times of drought (Riegel 1941, p. 96; Orr et al. 2015, p. 1058). Herbivory of cacti can also increase following damage to protective spines, such as post-fire. The rate of insect herbivory may increase due to warmer winters in recent decades (Rutman 2007, p. 6). Cacti already stressed from prolonged drought are more susceptible to insect attack and disease, which can cause declines in cactus populations.
        Overall Summary of Factors Affecting E. fendleri var. kuenzleri

        Alterations to the fire regime, including implementation of agency guidance to suppress wildland fires and changes to livestock grazing strategies, are likely the most immediate threatening factors to Echinocereus fendleri var. kuenzleri at this time. Staff at BLM and Fort Stanton are actively managing to keep fire from directly impacting Echinocereus fendleri var. kuenzleri individuals during prescribed burns. They are also implementing projects to remove pinyon and juniper trees thereby reducing heavy fuel loads. This management is expected to continue into the future. Increased emphasis on prescribed fire could mimic the natural historical fire regime and reduce the likelihood of damaging wildland fire in heavy fuel load areas. A comprehensive management plan that would guide standardized monitoring and address protection of the cactus for future prescribed fire programs may best be implemented after a species status assessment is conducted for E. f. var. kuenzleri, when more collaborators combine ideas of best adaptive management. This management plan will prove useful in addressing the remaining threats to the cactus.

        The effects of climate change may cause extended periods of drought and alter blooming seasons, thus reducing the chances of successful reproduction cycles. Due to the rugged locations of occupied habitats, impacts from surface development (road building and maintenance, urban development) are not considered major threats to the existence of Echinocereus fendleri var. kuenzleri. Collection of Echinocereus fendleri var. kuenzleri is no longer considered a major threat due to successful propagation in legal cactus trade and commercial availability of this cactus. In addition, taxonomic uncertainties have been resolved at a regional level.
        Finding

        The determination of whether a species is endangered or threatened under the Act is based on whether a species is in danger of extinction or likely to become so because of any of five factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. As required by section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we conducted a review of the status of this plant and assessed the five factors to evaluate whether Echinocereus fendleri var. kuenzleri is endangered or threatened throughout all of its range. We examined the best scientific and commercial information available regarding the past, present, and future threats faced by this cactus. We reviewed information presented in the 2012 petition, information available in our files and gathered through our 90-day finding in response to this petition, and other available published and unpublished information.
        In considering factors that might constitute threats to a species, we must look beyond the exposure of the species to a factor to evaluate whether the species responds to the factor in a way that causes impacts to the species or is likely to cause impacts in the future. If a species responds negatively to such exposure, the factor may be a threat and, during the status review, our aim is to determine whether impacts are or will be of an intensity or magnitude to place the species at risk. The factor is a threat if it drives, or contributes to, the risk of extinction of the species such that the species warrants listing as an endangered or threatened species as those terms are defined by the Act. This does not necessarily require empirical proof of a threat. The combination of exposure and some corroborating evidence of how the species is likely affected could suffice. In sum, the mere identification of factors that could affect a species negatively is not sufficient to compel a finding that listing is appropriate; we require evidence that these factors act on the species to the point that the species meets the definition of an endangered or threatened species.
        The known range of Echinocereus fendleri var. kuenzleri consisted of a single population of approximately 200 individuals when we listed it as endangered. As such, it was perceived to be upon the brink of extinction. The most serious threat to such a small population would be the elimination of plants in the wild by commercial and hobbyist collectors. Subsequent information on the range and abundance of this cactus has significantly altered this perception. In reality, Echinocereus fendleri var. kuenzleri exists across a much broader geographic range in several populations. Increased survey efforts and habitat model development have resulted in more occupied habitat identified, leaving open the potential of finding even more Echinocereus fendleri var. kuenzleri plants. Protection under the Act and CITES has curtailed unauthorized take by collectors. Dry conditions and remote growing locations of Echinocereus fendleri var. kuenzleri have lessened the impacts of land use within occupied habitats, and most of these habitats have been determined to exist on Federal lands. Thus, threats of collection and development have been diminished. Therefore, Echinocereus fendleri var. kuenzleri is no longer in danger of extinction now. Although now known to be more widespread and abundant than previously thought, Echinocereus fendleri var. kuenzleri remains a relatively rare plant taxon. It occurs only on the lower slopes of Sacramento and Guadalupe Mountain ranges and is an uncommon plant within this limited geographic range. Populations are generally small and scattered, and some habitat that appears suitable is presently unoccupied. Threats remain related to its limited population numbers and distribution, to wild or prescribed fires, and to trampling and erosion from livestock grazing and fire. However, because nearly all of known occupied habitat falls on lands managed by Federal agencies, conservation of the species will continue by addressing potential fire and grazing threats.
        The recently published taxonomic determinations of Echinocereus fendleri var. kuenzleri status represent broad-brushed approaches that may not adequately address local variation. To establish the taxonomic status of Echinocereus fendleri var. kuenzleri, surveys are needed to determine the extent of interbreeding at the northern edge of the range and molecular research is needed to determine the genetic variation within E. fendleri. The controversy and lack of definitive data regarding the taxonomy of Echinocereus fendleri var. kuenzleri, combined with the limited distribution and actual population numbers, preclude a recommendation to delist based on taxonomic revision at this time.

        As a result of recent information, we know that there are 11 known populations of Echinocereus fendleri var. kuenzleri compared to only 2 that were known at the time of listing and these individuals are spread across a 100 miles of rocky, isolated habitat patches. Significant impacts at the time of listing such as over collection and residential development that could have resulted in the extirpation of all or parts of populations have been eliminated or reduced since listing. We conclude that the previously recognized impacts to E. fendleri var. kuenzleri from present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range (specifically, residential development, road maintenance) (Factor A); overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes (Factor B); disease or predation (Factor C); and other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence (specifically, reproductive isolation) (Factor E) do not rise to a level of significance, either individually or in combination, such that the species is in danger of extinction now. However, there continues to be concern about the long term impacts of drought, catastrophic wildfire, and effects due to climate change throughout the range of the species. Climate change data indicate an increase in temperature and a decrease in precipitation within the occupied Echinocereus fendleri var. kuenzleri range over the next 25 years. We anticipate that effects due to climate change, fire, and increased drought, and the compounding effects of these threats, including any associated threats such as increased herbivory and predation, are anticipated to impact all of the populations. However, none of these is an imminent threat or at a magnitude such that the taxon warrants endangered status. We conclude that these same factors support the status of threatened, as the cactus is still likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.

        In conclusion, we have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial information available regarding the past, present, and future threats faced by Echinocereus fendleri var. kuenzleri. After review of the information pertaining to the five factors, we find that the ongoing threats are not of sufficient imminence, intensity, or magnitude to indicate that E. fendleri var. kuenzleri is presently in danger of extinction throughout all of its range. Yet, due to threats with ongoing impacts, we find that E. fendleri var. kuenzleri is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range.
        Significant Portion of the Range Analysis

        On July 1, 2014, we published a final policy interpreting the phrase “significant portion of its range” (SPR) (79 FR 37578). The SPR policy is applied to all status determinations, including analyses for the purposes of making listing, delisting, and reclassification determinations. The procedure for analyzing whether any portion is an SPR is similar, regardless of the type of status determination we are making. The first step in our analysis of the status of a species is to determine its status throughout all of its range. If we determine that the species is in danger of extinction, or likely to become so in the foreseeable future, throughout all of its range, we list the species as an endangered or threatened species and no SPR analysis will be required. Because we are proposing to reclassify the listing status of E. f. var. kuenzleri as a threatened species under the Act, we are not conducting an SPR analysis for this taxon.
        Effects of This Rule

        If this proposed rule is made final, it would revise 50 CFR 17.12(h) to reclassify Echinocereus fendleri var. kuenzleri from endangered to threatened on the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants. However, this reclassification does not significantly change the protections afforded this plant under the Act. Pursuant to section 7 of the Act, all Federal agencies must ensure that any actions they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of Echinocereus fendleri var. kuenzleri. The prohibitions of section 9 of the Act only apply directly to endangered species. However, the Service has extended most of these prohibitions to threatened plants through 50 CFR 17.71. The Act allows for the promulgation of a rule under section 4(d) that modifies the standard protections for threatened plants (found at 50 CFR 17.71); however no such rule is proposed here. In light of this, the prohibitions of 50 CFR 17.71 will apply for this species.
        As applicable, recovery actions directed at Echinocereus fendleri var. kuenzleri will continue to be implemented as outlined in the recovery plan for this taxon (Service 1985, entire). One of the primary actions will be to develop a species status assessment, upon which we will base a revised recovery plan with delisting criteria for the cactus. Section 4(b)(6)(C) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(6)(C)) requires critical habitat to be designated concurrently with a final reclassification rule, unless it is not prudent or determinable. We will determine if critical habitat is prudent and determinable, and publish proposed critical habitat as necessary.
        Required Determinations
        Clarity of the Rule
        We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule we publish must:
        (a) Be logically organized;
        (b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
        (c) Use clear language rather than jargon;
        (d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
        (e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.

        If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For example, you should tell us the names of the sections or paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.
        National Environmental Policy Act

        We determined we do not need to prepare an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement, as defined under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), in connection with regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
        References Cited

        A complete list of all references cited in this proposed rule is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2016-0137 or upon request from the Field Supervisor, New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
        Author

        The primary author of this proposed rule is the Southwest Regional Office in Albuquerque, New Mexico, in coordination with the New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office in Albuquerque, New Mexico (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
          Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

        Proposed Regulation Promulgation
        Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

          PART 17—ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

        1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; 4201-4245, unless otherwise noted.

        2. Amend § 17.12(h) by revising the entry for “Echinocereus fendleri var. kuenzleri” under FLOWERING PLANTS in the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants to read as follows:

          § 17.12
          Endangered and threatened plants.

          (h) * * *

              Scientific name
              Common name
              Where listed
              Status
              Listing citations and applicable rules

              FLOWERING PLANTS

              *         *         *         *         *         *         *

                Echinocereus fendleri var. kuenzleri

              Kuenzler hedgehog cactus
              Wherever found
              T
              44 FR 61924, 10/26/1979; [Federal Register citation of the final rule].

              *         *         *         *         *         *         *

          Dated: December 22, 2016.
          James W. Kurth,
          Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

      [FR Doc. 2016-31763 Filed 1-5-17; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 4333-15-P