        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 55
        [EPA-R01-OAR-2018-0011; FRL-9976-49—Region 1]
        Outer Continental Shelf Air Regulations; Consistency Update for Massachusetts; Reopening of Comment Period

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; reopening of the public comment period.

          SUMMARY:

          The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a proposed rule in the Federal Register on February 12, 2018, proposing to update a portion of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Air Regulations that pertains to the requirements for OCS sources for which Massachusetts is the designated the Corresponding Onshore Area (COA). On March 9, 2018, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts amended certain regulatory provisions that pertain to the EPA's February 12, 2018 proposed rulemaking. This document reopens the comment period for 30 days and provides notice that the EPA has modified the proposed regulatory text for incorporation by reference in the EPA final rule for this action. The EPA has also added additional information to the docket.

          DATES:
          Written comments on the proposed rule published in the Federal Register on February 12, 2018 (83 FR 5971) should be received on or before June 8, 2018.

          ADDRESSES:

          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-2018-0011 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to wortman.eric@epa.gov. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. Publicly available docket materials are available at https://www.regulations.gov or at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Eric Wortman, Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square (Mail Code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109, (617) 918-1624, wortman.eric@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.
        Table of Contents

          I. Background and Purpose
          II. Why is the EPA reopening the comment period?
          III. Incorporation by Reference

        I. Background and Purpose

        On February 12, 2018, the EPA published a proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register to update a portion of the OCS Air Regulations. See 83 FR 5971. As stated in the EPA's February 12, 2018 proposed rulemaking, requirements applying to OCS sources located within 25 miles of states' seaward boundaries must be updated periodically to remain consistent with the requirements of the COA, as mandated by section 328(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act. The portion of the OCS air regulations that is being updated in the proposed rulemaking pertains to the requirements for OCS sources for which Massachusetts is the designated COA. The intended effect of approving the OCS requirements for the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) is to regulate emissions from OCS sources in accordance with the requirements for onshore sources. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts' requirements discussed in the EPA's proposed rulemaking will be incorporated by reference into the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and listed in the appendix to the OCS air regulations in 40 CFR part 55.
        II. Why is the EPA reopening the comment period?

        Among other things, the EPA's February 12, 2018 action proposed to incorporate into 40 CFR part 55 the applicable provisions of 310 Code of Massachusetts Regulations (CMR) 7.00: Air Pollution Control, as amended through January 16, 2018. On March 9, 2018, the MassDEP promulgated amendments to the regulations at 310 CMR 7.00. Pursuant to 40 CFR 55.12, consistency reviews will occur if the EPA finds that part 55 is inconsistent with the requirements in effect in the COA. Therefore, the EPA is including the Commonwealth's March 9, 2018 amended regulations for 310 CMR 7.00 in the EPA's proposed consistency update to 40 CFR part 55 in addition to the other regulations EPA proposed for inclusion in the February 12, 2018 proposed rulemaking. The EPA has added the amended regulations at 310 CMR 7.00 to the docket and is reopening the comment period to give all interested persons the opportunity to comment on the incorporation by reference of the amended regulations at 310 CMR 7.00.1

           This document reopens the public comment period established in the Federal Register document on February 12, 2018 (83 FR 5971) (FRL-9974-28—Region 1).

            1 The EPA is required to submit a true copy of the regulations, attested by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, to the Office of the Federal Register for incorporation by reference in the final rule. The EPA obtained a true copy of the amended regulations in effect as of March 9, 2018. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts State Bookstore bundles 310 CMR 6.00, 310 CMR 7.00, and 310 CMR 8.00 into a single package for the purpose of attesting a true copy. Although the regulations at 310 CMR 6.00 and 310 CMR 8.00 were not part of the March 9, 2018 amendments, the EPA has updated the effective date for 310 CMR 6.00-8.00 in the regulatory text proposed for incorporation by reference for consistency with the updated true copy of the regulations. The true copy of the regulations for 310 CMR 6.00-8.00 obtained by the EPA has been added to the docket for this action.

        To submit comments, or access the docket, please follow the detailed instructions provided in the ADDRESSES section of this Federal Register. Please refer to the EPA's February 12, 2018 (83 FR 5971) proposed rulemaking for more detailed information regarding this rulemaking action.
        III. Incorporation by Reference

        In the February 12, 2018 action, the EPA proposed to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. The EPA is including the updated regulatory text below to reflect the March 9, 2018 effective date of the Commonwealth's amended regulations discussed in this document. In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the Code of Massachusetts Regulations rules set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA New England Region 1 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for more information).

          List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 55
          Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Outer continental shelf, Ozone, Particulate matter, Permits, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

          Dated: April 19, 2018.
          Alexandra Dunn,
          Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 55, is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 55—OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF AIR REGULATIONS

        1. The authority citation for part 55 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
           Section 328 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) as amended by Public Law 101-549.

        2. Section 55.14 is amended by revising paragraph (e)(11)(i)(A) to read as follows:

          § 55.14
           Requirements that apply to OCS sources located within 25 miles of States' seaward boundaries, by State.

          (e) * * *
          (11) * * *
          (i) * * *
          (A) Commonwealth of Massachusetts Requirements Applicable to OCS Sources, March 9, 2018.

        3. Appendix A to part 55 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1) under the heading “Massachusetts” to read as follows:

          Appendix A to Part 55—Listing of State and Local Requirements Incorporated by Reference Into Part 55, by State

          Massachusetts
          (a) State requirements.
          (1) The following Commonwealth of Massachusetts requirements are applicable to OCS Sources, March 9, 2018, Commonwealth of Massachusetts—Department of Environmental Protection.
          The following sections of 310 CMR 4.00, 310 CMR 6.00, 310 CMR 7.00 and 310 CMR 8.00:
          310 CMR 4.00: Timely Action Schedule and Fee Provisions
          Section 4.01: Purpose, Authority and General Provisions (Effective 3/24/2017)
          Section 4.02: Definitions (Effective 3/24/2017)
          Section 4.03: Annual Compliance Assurance Fee (Effective 3/24/2017)
          Section 4.04: Permit Application Schedules and Fee (Effective 3/24/2017)
          Section 4.10: Appendix: Schedules for Timely Action and Permit Application Fees (Effective 3/24/2017)
          310 CMR 6.00: Ambient Air Quality Standards for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
          Section 6.01: Definitions (Effective 3/9/2018)
          Section 6.02: Scope (Effective 3/9/2018)
          Section 6.03: Reference Conditions (Effective 3/9/2018)
          Section 6.04: Standards (Effective 3/9/2018)
          310 CMR 7.00: Air Pollution Control
          Section 7.00: Statutory Authority; Legend; Preamble; Definitions (Effective 3/9/2018)
          Section 7.01: General Regulations to Prevent Air Pollution (Effective 3/9/2018)
          Section 7.02: U Plan Approval and Emission Limitations (Effective 3/9/2018)
          Section 7.03: U Plan Approval Exemptions: Construction Requirements (Effective 3/9/2018)
          Section 7.04: U Fossil Fuel Utilization Facilities (Effective 3/9/2018)
          Section 7.05: U Fuels All Districts (Effective 3/9/2018)
          Section 7.06: U Visible Emissions (Effective 3/9/2018)
          Section 7.07: U Open Burning (Effective 3/9/2018)
          Section 7.08: U Incinerators (Effective 3/9/2018)
          Section 7.09: U Dust, Odor, Construction and Demolition (Effective 3/9/2018)
          Section 7.11: U Transportation Media (Effective 3/9/2018)
          Section 7.12: U Source Registration (Effective 3/9/2018)
          Section 7.13: U Stack Testing (Effective 3/9/2018)
          Section 7.14: U Monitoring Devices and Reports (Effective 3/9/2018)
          Section 7.18: U Volatile and Halogenated Organic Compounds (Effective 3/9/2018)

          Section 7.19: U Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for Sources of Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) (Effective 3/9/2018)
          Section 7.21: Sulfur Dioxide Emissions Limitations (Effective 3/9/2018)
          Section 7.22: Sulfur Dioxide Emissions Reductions for the Purpose of Reducing Acid Rain (Effective 3/9/2018)
          Section 7.24: U Organic Material Storage and Distribution (Effective 3/9/2018)
          Section 7.25: U Best Available Controls for Consumer and Commercial Products (Effective 3/9/2018)
          Section 7.26: Industry Performance Standards (Effective 3/9/2018)
          Section 7.60: U Severability (Effective 3/9/2018)
          Section 7.00: Appendix A (Effective 3/9/2018)
          Section 7.00: Appendix B (Effective 3/9/2018)
          Section 7.00: Appendix C (Effective 3/9/2018)
          310 CMR 8.00: The Prevention and/or Abatement of Air Pollution Episode and Air Pollution Incident Emergencies
          Section 8.01: Introduction (Effective 3/9/2018)
          Section 8.02: Definitions (Effective 3/9/2018)

          Section 8.03: Air Pollution Episode Criteria (Effective 3/9/2018)

          Section 8.04: Air Pollution Episode Potential Advisories (Effective 3/9/2018)
          Section 8.05: Declaration of Air Pollution Episodes and Incidents (Effective 3/9/2018)
          Section 8.06: Termination of Air Pollution Episodes and Incident Emergencies (Effective 3/9/2018)
          Section 8.07: Emission Reductions Strategies (Effective 3/9/2018)
          Section 8.08: Emission Reduction Plans (Effective 3/9/2018)
          Section 8.15: Air Pollution Incident Emergency (Effective 3/9/2018)
          Section 8.30: Severability (Effective 3/9/2018)
          (2) [Reserved]

      [FR Doc. 2018-09646 Filed 5-8-18; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 635
        [Docket No. 160328287-6486-01]
        RIN 0648-BF94
        Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS); Porbeagle Shark Management Measures

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:

          NMFS is proposing to implement the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) Recommendation 15-06 regarding porbeagle sharks (Lamna nasus) caught in association with ICCAT fisheries. Recommendation 15-06 requires, among other things, fishing vessels to promptly release unharmed, to the extent practicable, porbeagle sharks caught in association with ICCAT fisheries when brought alive alongside for taking on board the vessel. This action would affect fishermen fishing in the commercial HMS pelagic longline fishery and the HMS recreational fisheries for tunas, swordfish, and billfish in the Atlantic Ocean, including the Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico. This action would implement an ICCAT recommendation, consistent with the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA), and would further domestic management objectives under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received by July 15, 2016. An operator-assisted public conference call and webinar will be held on July 5, 2016, from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m., EST.

          ADDRESSES:

          The conference call information is phone number 1 (888) 989-4573; participant passcode 9905999. Participants are strongly encouraged to log/dial in fifteen minutes prior to the meeting. NMFS will show a brief presentation via webinar followed by public comment. To join the webinar go to: https://noaaevents2.webex.com/noaaevents2/onstage/g.php?MTID=e0db6c21990ed890e2857b1eb1746cd71, event password: NOAA, event number: 990 192 262. Participants that have not used WebEx before will be prompted to download and run a plug-in program that will enable them to view the webinar.
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2016-0066, by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2016-0066, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to Margo Schulze-Haugen, Chief, Atlantic HMS Management Division at 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

            Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Larry Redd, Carrie Soltanoff, or Karyl Brewster-Geisz by phone at 301-427-8503.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Atlantic HMS are managed under the 2006 Consolidated HMS Fishery Management Plan (FMP). Implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 635 are issued under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., and Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA), 16 U.S.C. 927 et seq. ATCA requires the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to promulgate regulations as may be necessary and appropriate to implement ICCAT recommendations.

        At its 24th Annual Meeting in 2015, ICCAT adopted Recommendation 15-06 on “Porbeagle [Sharks] Caught in Association with ICCAT Fisheries.” Recommendation 15-06 requires, among other things, fishing vessels “. . . to promptly release unharmed, to the extent practicable, porbeagle sharks caught in association with ICCAT fisheries when brought alive alongside for taking on board the vessel.” Recommendation 15-06 notes that, according to the ICCAT Standing Committee for Research and Statistics (SCRS), biomass of northwest Atlantic and northeast Atlantic porbeagle sharks is depleted to well below the biomass at maximum sustainable yield, but recent fishing mortality is below the fishing mortality at maximum sustainable yield (i.e., the stocks are overfished but overfishing is not occurring). Recommendation 15-06 further notes that the 2008 and 2012 Ecological Risk Assessments concluded that porbeagle shark was among the most vulnerable of shark species, which, even at low fishing mortality levels, makes it more susceptible to overfishing. Thus, Recommendation 15-06 was adopted by ICCAT to reduce fishing mortality of porbeagle sharks caught in association with ICCAT fisheries in order to reduce porbeagle shark fishing even further, and thus assist in rebuilding stocks which are currently overfished.
        In this proposed rule, NMFS considers changes to the regulations at 50 CFR part 635 consistent with Recommendation 15-06. Specifically, NMFS is proposing regulatory changes that would require fishermen to release unharmed, to the extent practicable, any live porbeagle sharks that are caught in association with ICCAT fisheries, including commercial fishermen that use pelagic longline gear or recreational fishermen that hold an HMS recreational permit and retain tunas, swordfish, or billfish. The proposed regulations would not affect HMS recreational fishermen who retain sharks and do not retain tunas, swordfish, or billfish, since such fishing would not be “in association with” fishing for tuna and tuna-like species.

        Currently, very few porbeagle sharks are kept annually by commercial and recreational HMS fishermen, as shown by analysis of data collected from 2010 through 2015. HMS pelagic longline fishery logbook data indicate that 3 to 23 porbeagle sharks were retained annually from 2010 through 2012 and no porbeagle sharks were retained from 2013 through 2015. According to HMS logbook data, of the porbeagle sharks that were caught, on average 554 porbeagle sharks were released alive each year (approximately 74 percent of those caught) and 193 were released dead each year (approximately 26 percent of those caught). Pelagic Observer Program (POP) data from 2010 through 2015 show similar trends. Specifically, POP data indicate that no porbeagle sharks were kept from 2010 through 2014 and one porbeagle shark was kept in 2015 (likely misidentified as a shortfin mako by the vessel owner). Of those observed caught, on average 66 porbeagle sharks were released alive each year (approximately 63 percent of those caught) and 36 were discarded dead per year (approximately 34 percent of those caught). Thus, according to HMS logbook and POP data, approximately 97 percent of porbeagle sharks were released (alive and dead) from 2010-2015.
        Based on recreational data collected from the Large Pelagics Survey (LPS), which covers federal and state waters from Virginia to Maine, from 2010 through 2015, NMFS estimates that on average 86 porbeagle sharks were kept annually and 746 were released alive, for an average annual release of approximately 90 percent. LPS data indicate that no porbeagle sharks were discarded dead between 2010 and 2015. Specific to HMS Charter/Headboat vessels, NMFS estimates that on average 15 porbeagle sharks were kept annually and 146 were released, for an average annual release of approximately 91 percent. It is unknown whether the porbeagle sharks that were kept were dead or alive when brought to the vessel.
        Under current regulations, commercial and recreational HMS fishermen that operate in ICCAT fisheries are authorized to retain any porbeagle shark, regardless of whether the shark is dead or alive at haulback. Even so, most fishermen keep very few porbeagle sharks and 90 percent or more of porbeagle sharks are released. Under the proposed rule, all live porbeagle sharks would have to be released by commercial and recreational HMS fishermen operating in ICCAT fisheries, as determined by the permits they hold or, in the case of recreational fisheries, whether they have also retained tuna-like species on a given trip. Because so few porbeagle sharks are kept now, NMFS expects that this proposed rule would have little ecological impact. If there are any ecological impacts, those impacts would be beneficial, and would only apply to those few sharks that otherwise would have been retained rather than released alive (approximately 23 sharks kept in the commercial pelagic longline fishery before 2013 and the approximately 86 sharks kept annually in HMS recreational fisheries). Additionally, among the approximately 86 porbeagle sharks retained annually in HMS recreational fisheries, those ecological benefits would apply only when fishermen were also retaining tunas, swordfish, or billfish; if the porbeagle sharks were caught by fishermen not retaining tunas, swordfish, or billfish, porbeagle sharks could still be retained under this proposed rule. Similarly, under the proposed rule, these few porbeagle sharks may still be retained by all fishermen if the sharks are dead when brought to the vessel. Furthermore, because the commercial and recreational data indicate that fishermen already release 90 to 97 percent of porbeagle sharks, it is unlikely that a requirement to release live sharks would result in social or economic impacts on fishermen fishing in association with ICCAT fisheries. Therefore, this action is expected to have neutral socioeconomic impacts.
        Request for Comments

        NMFS is requesting comments on this proposed rule which would require commercial and recreational HMS fishing vessels fishing in ICCAT fisheries to release unharmed, to the extent practicable, porbeagle sharks that are alive when brought alongside a vessel. Comments on this proposed rule may be submitted via http://www.regulations.gov, or by mail. Written comments must be received by July 15, 2016. Please see the ADRRESSES section for more information about submitting comments.
        Public Conference Call and Webinar

        NMFS is requesting comments on the measures and analyses described in this proposed rule. During the comment period, NMFS will hold one conference call and webinar for this proposed rule. The conference call and webinar will be held on July 5, 2016, from 1:00-3:00 p.m. EST. Please see the DATES and ADDRESSES headings for more information. The public is reminded that NMFS expects participants on phone conferences to conduct themselves appropriately. At the beginning of the conference call, a representative of NMFS will explain the ground rules (e.g., all comments are to be directed to the agency on the proposed action; attendees will be called to give their comments in the order in which they registered to speak; each attendee will have an equal amount of time to speak; attendees may not interrupt one another; etc.). NMFS representative(s) will structure the meeting so that all attending members of the public will be able to comment, if they so choose, regardless of the controversial nature of the subject(s). Attendees are expected to respect the ground rules, and those that do not may be removed from the conference call.
        Public hearings on this proposed rule are not currently scheduled. If you would like to request a public hearing, please contact Larry Redd, Carrie Soltanoff, or Karyl Brewster-Geisz by phone at 301-427-8503.
        Classification
        The NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that the proposed rule is consistent with the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, ATCA, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866.

        NMFS has made a preliminary determination that this action qualifies to be categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment in accordance with NMFS' Environmental Review Procedures for Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NOAA Administrative Order 216-6), subject to further consideration after public comment. Section 6.03a.3.(b)(1) of the Administrative Order specifies that an action may be categorically excluded from further NEPA analysis where, “the action is an amendment or change to a previously analyzed and approved action and the proposed change has no effect individually or cumulatively on the human environment. . . .” In Amendment 2 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP, NMFS adopted a rebuilding plan and TAC for porbeagle sharks, which were overfished but without overfishing occurring. Through the amendment, a commercial quota of 1.7 mt dw was established, and NMFS estimated that commercial discards would be approximately 9.5 mt dw, and recreational catch, including landings in tournaments, would be approximately 0.1 mt dw per year. The overall TAC of 11.3 mt dw was adopted to increase the likelihood that fishing mortality would remain low, allowing the stock to rebuild within 100 years as set out in a rebuilding plan in the Final Environmental Impact Statement. The final rule acknowledged that while some bycatch of porbeagle sharks would continue, the majority of porbeagle sharks caught are discarded alive. This action implementing ICCAT Recommendation 15-06 only slightly modifies the fishing practices analyzed in an extensive Environmental Impact Statement for Amendment 2 to require the release of sharks, all but a handful of which are already being released under the management measures previously adopted and analyzed. Thus, this action is properly considered a minor change to a previously-analyzed and approved action (Amendment 2 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP; 73 FR 40658; July 15, 2008), and one which is expected to have no effect individually or cumulatively on the human environment.
        NMFS determined that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not affect the coastal zone of any state, and a negative determination pursuant to 15 CFR 930.35 is not required. Therefore, pursuant to 15 CFR 930.33(a)(2), coordination with appropriate state agencies under section 307 of the CZMA is not required. Since 90 to 97 percent of porbeagle sharks in the U.S. HMS fisheries currently are released, this rule, if adopted, is not expected to result in ecological, social, or economic impacts beyond the few additional sharks that will be released alive as a result. Given the high vulnerability of the species at low fishing mortality, this proposed rule would assist in the overall reduction of fishing mortality for porbeagle sharks in the Northwest Atlantic. Although interactions between U.S. fleets and porbeagle sharks are minor, because the ICCAT measure was adopted by multiple parties, U.S. compliance in addition to compliance by other nations would provide long-term benefits for the Atlantic-wide porbeagle stock.
        The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule to implement ICCAT Recommendation 15-06 on porbeagle sharks, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA).
        As discussed above, this proposed rule is necessary to implement ICCAT recommendations, as required by ATCA, and to achieve domestic management objectives under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Under ATCA, the Secretary shall promulgate such regulations as may be necessary and appropriate to carry out ICCAT recommendations. The proposed action considers implementing ICCAT Recommendation 15-06 on porbeagle sharks, in the Atlantic HMS fisheries that target tuna and tuna-like species because the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) considers these fisheries to be “ICCAT-managed fisheries.”
        ICCAT Recommendation 15-06 requires, among other things, fishing vessels “. . . to promptly release unharmed, to the extent practicable, porbeagle sharks caught in association with ICCAT fisheries when brought alive alongside for taking on board the vessel.” The regulatory changes would affect HMS vessels that catch sharks in ICCAT fisheries on commercial vessels that deploy pelagic longline gear and HMS Angling and Charter/Headboat (CHB) vessels that retain tunas, swordfish, or billfish. The proposed regulations would not affect HMS-permitted fishermen who do not retain tunas, swordfish, or billfish.
        NMFS has estimated that, as of October 2015, 280 vessels were issued an Atlantic Tunas Longline permit and can be reasonably assumed to use pelagic longline gear, and could be affected by this action. Of the 3,596 vessels that were issued an Atlantic HMS CHB permit only those vessels that retain porbeagle sharks at the same time as tunas, swordfish, or billfish would be affected by this action. Between 2010 and 2015, fewer than one percent of CHB vessels issued permits retained porbeagle sharks; NMFS does not know how many of those that retained porbeagle sharks also retained tunas, swordfish, or billfish during the same trip. As such, NMFS estimates that, at most, fewer than one percent of all CHB vessels would be affected by this action. Those Atlantic HMS CHB vessels that do not retain porbeagle sharks or that do not retain tunas, swordfish, or billfish would not be affected by this action. Most commercial pelagic longline and Atlantic HMS CHB vessels have not historically interacted with porbeagle sharks as detailed below.
        For the purpose of this analysis, all fishermen affected by this rule are considered small entities based on the historical levels of revenue earned by these fishing vessels. HMS pelagic longline fishery logbook data indicate that 3 to 23 porbeagle sharks were retained annually by four vessels from 2010 through 2012 and no porbeagle sharks were retained from 2013 through 2015. From 2010 through 2015, vessels made an average of 1,386 trips per year. Only 18 of those trips on average interacted with porbeagle sharks (approximately 1 percent of all trips). According to HMS logbook data, of the porbeagle sharks that were caught, on average 554 were released alive each year (approximately 74 percent of those caught) and 193 were released dead each year (approximately 26 percent of those caught). Pelagic Observer Program (POP) data from 2010 through 2015 show similar trends. Specifically, POP data indicate that no porbeagle sharks were kept from 2010 through 2014 and one porbeagle shark was kept in 2015. NMFS believes that this one porbeagle shark reported by the observer was likely misidentified as a shortfin mako by the vessel owner. Of those observed caught, on average 66 porbeagle sharks were released alive each year (approximately 63 percent of those caught) and 36 were discarded dead per year (approximately 34 percent of those caught). Thus, according to HMS logbook and Pelagic Observer Program data, approximately 97 percent of porbeagle sharks were released (alive and dead) from 2010-2015.
        Based on recreational data collected from the Large Pelagics Survey (LPS), which covers federal and state waters from Virginia to Maine, from 2010 through 2015, NMFS estimates that on average 86 porbeagle sharks were kept annually and 746 were released alive by Atlantic HMS recreational vessels, for an average annual release of approximately 90 percent. LPS data indicate that no porbeagle sharks were discarded dead between 2010 and 2015. Specific to CHB vessels, NMFS estimates that on average approximately 15 porbeagle sharks were kept annually and 146 were released, for an average annual release of approximately 91 percent. It is unknown whether the porbeagle sharks that were kept were dead or alive when brought to the vessel.
        HMS dealer data indicate that total ex-vessel revenues from porbeagle sharks caught on pelagic longline gear ranged from approximately $560 per year to $4,040 per year from 2010 through 2012. From 2013 through 2015, no porbeagle sharks were kept and no resulting revenue was earned. Thus, this action would likely not result in significant operational changes or adverse socioeconomic impacts on commercial HMS fishermen. This proposed rule is intended to ensure U.S. compliance with ICCAT Recommendation 15-06 and would continue to be consistent with the objectives of the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic HMS FMP and its amendments, as well as other requirements. Because this proposed rule, if implemented, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 635
          Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels, Foreign relations, Imports, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Treaties.

          Dated: June 9, 2016.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 635 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 635—ATLANTIC HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES

        1. The authority citation for part 635 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

        2. In § 635.21, add paragraph (c)(1)(iii) to read as follows:

          § 635.21
          Gear operation and deployment restrictions.

          (c) * * *
          (1) * * *
          (iii) Has pelagic longline gear on board, persons aboard that vessel are required to release unharmed, to the extent practicable, porbeagle sharks that are alive at the time of haulback.

        3. In § 635.22, add paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:

          § 635.22
          Recreational retention limits.
          (a) * * *
          (3) Vessels issued an HMS General Category permit under § 635.4(d) that are participating in an HMS registered tournament, vessels issued a HMS Angling category permit under § 635.4(c), or vessels issued a HMS Charter/Headboat permit under § 635.4(b) are required to release unharmed, to the extent practicable, porbeagle sharks that are alive at the time of haulback if swordfish, tuna, or billfish are retained or possessed on board, or offloaded from, the vessel during that trip.

        4. In § 635.24, add paragraph (a)(10) to read as follows:

          § 635.24
          Commercial retention limits for sharks, swordfish, and BAYS tunas.

          (a) * * *
          (10) Notwithstanding other provisions in this paragraph (a), vessels issued a permit under this part that have pelagic longline gear on board or on vessels issued both an HMS Charter/Headboat permit and a commercial shark permit when tuna, swordfish, or billfish are on board the vessel, offloaded from the vessel, or being offloaded from the vessel, are required to release unharmed, to the extent practicable, porbeagle sharks that are alive at the time of haulback.

        5. In § 635.71, add paragraph (d)(20) to read as follows:

          § 635.71
          Prohibitions.

          (d) * * *
          (20) Retain, possess, or land porbeagle sharks that were alive at the time of haulback as specified in §§ 635.21(c)(1)(iii), 635.22(a)(3), and 635.24(a)(10).

      [FR Doc. 2016-14081 Filed 6-14-16; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17

        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Anticipated Delisting of Astragalus desereticus (Deseret milk-vetch) From the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants; Prudency Determination for Designation of Critical Habitat

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Advanced notice of proposed rulemaking; notice of critical habitat prudency determination.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce our intention to conduct rulemaking under the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973 as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) for the purpose of removing
            Astragalus desereticus (Deseret milk-vetch) from the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants in the near future. Specifically, we intend to propose delisting A. desereticus because threats to the species as identified in the final listing rule (64 FR 56590, October 20, 1999) are not as significant as earlier believed and are managed such that the species is not likely to become in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range in the foreseeable future. Upon delisting, A. desereticus would be managed pursuant to a Conservation Agreement among the Service and Utah State agencies.

          In response to a stipulated settlement agreement we have reconsidered whether designating critical habitat for Astragalus desereticus would be prudent based on this species' current status. We have determined that such a designation is not prudent because, as described in this advanced notice, we believe that designating critical habitat would not be beneficial to the species (50 CFR 424.12). This is because no area meets the definition of “critical habitat” (i.e., there are no areas essential to the conservation of the species which require special management considerations, and protections afforded by the species' current listing status appear to be no longer necessary).

          DATES:
          Comments and information must be submitted before March 26, 2007.

          ADDRESSES:
          If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and materials by any one of the following methods:
          (1) You may mail or hand-deliver written comments and information to Field Supervisor, Utah Ecological Services Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2369 West Orton Circle, Suite 50, West Valley City, Utah 84119.
          (2) You may electronic mail (e-mail) your comments to deseretmilkvetch@fws.gov. For directions on how to submit comments by e-mail, see the “Public Comments Solicited” section of this notice. In the event that our Internet connection is not functional, please submit your comments by mail, hand delivery, or fax to 801-975-3331.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Larry England, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2369 West Orton Circle, Suite 50, West Valley City, Utah 84119 (telephone 801-975-3330; fax 801-975-3331; e-mail larry_england@fws.gov).

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Public Comments Solicited

        This notice announces the opening of a 60-day comment period on our advanced notice of proposed rulemaking. We encourage interested parties to provide comments on A. desereticus to the Project Leader, Utah Ecological Services Office (see ADDRESSES). We will base rulemaking on a review of the best scientific and commercial information available, including all such information received during the public comment period. Information regarding the following topics would be particularly useful: (1) Species biology, including but not limited to population trends, distribution, abundance, demographics, genetics, and taxonomy; (2) habitat conditions, including but not limited to amount, distribution, and suitability; (3) conservation measures that have been implemented that benefit the species; (4) threat status and trends; and (5) other new information or data. Information submitted should be supported by documentation such as maps, bibliographic references, methods used to gather and analyze the data, and/or copies of any pertinent publications, reports, or letters by knowledgeable sources.

        Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home addresses from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which we would withhold from the rulemaking record a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment, but you should be aware that the Service may be required to disclose your name and address pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety. Comments and materials received will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the address indicated in the ADDRESSES section.

        Please submit electronic comments in an ASCII or Microsoft Word file and avoid the use of any special characters or any form of encryption. Also, please include “Attn: Astragalus desereticus” and your name and return address in your e-mail message. If you do not receive a confirmation from the system that we have received your e-mail message, please submit your comments in writing using one of the alternate methods described above.
        Background

          Astragalus desereticus is a perennial, herbaceous, subacaulescent (almost stemless) plant (Barneby 1989) in the legume family. It is approximately 2-6 inches (in) (5.1-15.2 centimeters (cm)) in height, and has pinnately compound leaves (feather-like arrangement with leaflets displayed on a central stalk) that are 2-4 inches (in) (5.1-10.2 cm) long with 11-17 leaflets. The flower petals are whitish except for pinkish wings and a lilac keel-tip, and seed pods are 0.4-0.8 in (1.0-2.0 cm) long and densely covered with lustrous hairs.

          Astragalus desereticus habitat is narrowly restricted to steep, sandy bluffs (Barneby 1989) associated with south and west facing slopes (Franklin 1990) within the Moroni Formation at elevations between 5,400 and 5,600 feet (1,646 and 1,707 meters (m)) (Franklin 1990). The current known range of A. desereticus is limited to the Birdseye population (Stone 1992) which occupies an area approximately 1 mile (mi) (1.6 kilometers (km)) long by 0.3 mi (0.5 km) wide, or about 345 acres (ac) (139.6 hectares (ha)), in the Thistle Creek watershed immediately east of Birdseye, Utah. Approximately 230 ac (93 ha) are owned by the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) in the Birdseye Unit of the Northwest Manti Wildlife Management Area (WMA), 25 ac (10.1 ha) are owned by the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT), and 90 ac (36.4 ha) are on private lands owned by several landowners. The WMA extends across the northern and central portions of the population. The mineral rights under the WMA and the majority of the mineral rights under the private lands are owned by the Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA).

        Franklin (1990) estimated the population in May 1990 at fewer than 5,000 plants. Stone (1992) resurveyed the population in late May 1992 and reported more than 10,000 plants, indicating that a substantial seed bank existed in the soil. He reported that the northern portion of the population appeared the same as in 1990, but high densities of seedlings and young milk-vetch plants occurred locally in the southern portion. Observations of Astragalus desereticus on the WMA show that the species population increased by 31 percent from 2000-2005 (Astragalus desereticus monitoring plot data conducted by the Service, 2000 and 2005, USFWS, Salt Lake City, Utah; hereinafter cited as Service 2005).

        Previous Federal Actions

          Astragalus desereticus was listed as a threatened species due to small population size, restricted distribution, development, cattle grazing (including erosion and trampling), and impacts to pollinator habitat (64 FR 56590, October 20, 1999). At the time of listing, we determined that designating critical habitat for A. desereticus was not prudent due to the lack of benefit to the species. Specifically, we discussed application of sections 4 and 7 of the Act and management of the species' habitat by UDWR.

        On July 5, 2005, the Center for Native Ecosystems, Forest Guardians, and the Utah Native Plant Society filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging our determination that designating critical habitat was “not prudent” (Center for Native Ecosystems, Forest Guardians, and Utah Native Plant Society v. Gale Norton (05-CV-01336-RCL)). In a stipulated settlement agreement, we agreed to submit for publication in the Federal  Register a new critical habitat determination for Astragalus desereticus by January 19, 2007.

        This advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) announces our intent to remove Astragalus desereticus from the Federal list of Endangered and Threatened Plants, based on a combination of recovery and original data error, including: (1) The species' habitat remains intact and little changed from the early 1990s when monitoring activities were first initiated (UDWR et al. 2006); (2) the population has grown considerably since listing; and (3) threats are not as significant as we had anticipated at the time of listing, and they are adequately managed such that the species is not likely to become in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range in the foreseeable future. This notice also constitutes our new prudency determination in fulfillment of the stipulated settlement agreement.
        Review of Available Information
        Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part 424.11) set forth procedures for removing species from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) state that the factors considered in delisting a species are the following, as they relate to the definitions of endangered or threatened species: (A) Present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. A delisting must be supported by the best scientific and commercial data available to the Secretary after conducting a review of the status of the species. A species may be delisted only if such data substantiate that it is neither endangered nor threatened for one or more of the following reasons: (1) Extinction; (2) recovery; and (3) original data for classification in error.
        When we listed Astragalus desereticus, we identified several threats to the species, all but one habitat related. These threats included primary and secondary effects of urban expansion, road construction, and cattle grazing (all identified pursuant to factors A and E). Factor D, inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, was also identified as a threat. Information available at this time indicates that some of these threats did not materialize, and others are not as significant as we had anticipated. In addition, a recently completed Conservation Agreement (cited herein as UDWR et al. 2006) among the Service, UDWR, UDOT, and SITLA should adequately address our concerns pursuant to factor D. We are not aware of any new threats at this time that were not identified when the species was listed.

        Although the species' distribution is still small and restricted, there has been little to no habitat disturbance in recent years and there are no foreseeable potential threats to the State-owned portion of the species' range (UDWR et al. 2006). Occupied habitat continues to be intact and little has changed since the early 1990s when Stone (1992) concluded that the population was not subject to any deterministic threats (i.e., habitat destruction or attempts at eradication) (UDWR et al. 2006). One house has been built on private property within the species' range, affecting about 2 ac (0.8 ha), or less than 1 percent of occupied habitat. Residential development could directly affect up to about 10 percent of the species' habitat in the future (England 2006); however, this is not considered to be a significant threat, given that the majority of the species habitat would remain protected on the State WMA for the foreseeable future. We are not aware of any specific development plans at this time.

        There are currently no plans for highway widening (West 2006). Should highway widening occur in the future, there is adequate right-of-way space to minimize impacts to Astragalus desereticus individuals. In addition, mineral development does not appear to be a significant threat because SITLA owns the mineral rights on most of the occupied habitat. These mineral rights have not been leased (Durrant 2006), and SITLA has agreed to work with lessees to ensure disturbances to occupied habitat are avoided or that unavoidable impacts are appropriately mitigated (UDWR et al. 2006).

        Prior to state acquisition of the WMA, livestock grazing (primarily sheep) had occurred for over 100 years on occupied Astragalus desereticus habitat (England 2006). The WMA is now being managed as big game winter range and UDWR controls all grazing rights on the property. Cattle grazing has been used as a management tool by UDWR, but only on a limited basis. A. desereticus occupied habitat is largely unsuitable for cattle grazing (Green 2006). There is no evidence that current wildlife or livestock browsing levels are negatively impacting A. desereticus populations (UDWR et al. 2006).

        A significant portion of the species' range (approximately 67 percent) is managed by UDWR as part of the Northwest Manti WMA. Plants occurring on the WMA constitute the core of the species' population, providing the seed source for reproduction and maintenance of the seed bank (UDWR et al. 2006). Historic data and recent observations indicate that the population has grown substantially since listing (Franklin 1990; Stone 1992; Service 2005). Plant density on the WMA , as measured by Service personnel, increased by 31 percent between 2000 and 2005 (Service 2005); therefore, the species and its habitat are considered stable (UDWR et al. 2006).

        Natural events such as drought and fire may occur in the areas of A. desereticus habitat. However, we have no information to indicate that natural events have or may cause long-term population reductions. Vegetation within the species' range is an open to sparse woodland overstory, not prone to fire outbreaks (Franklin 1990, England 2006).

        The Service, UDWR, UDOT, and SITLA signed a Conservation Agreement (CA) dated October 10, 2006, that was specifically developed to ensure long-term survival and conservation of Astragalus desereticus (UDWR et al. 2006). The CA is designed to formalize a program of conservation measures that address potential threats and maintain the species' specialized habitat. These measures are consistent with actions taken by UDWR and they have a proven track record of protecting and enhancing the species. Measures include: (1) Habitat maintenance (including maintenance of the current pinyon-juniper woodland vegetation type with its current diverse understory of native shrubs, grasses and forbs; restricting habitat disturbing actions such as livestock grazing and road and mineral development; ensuring that the destruction of individual plants does not occur and that appropriate mitigation is provided for any unavoidable effects to individual plants or their habitat); (2) retention of A. desereticus habitat on the Birdseye Unit of the Northwest Manti WMA in State of Utah ownership under the management of the UDWR; and (3) avoidance of herbicide use in A. desereticus habitat, including along highway right-of-ways. The CA also includes an annual monitoring program and provides a mechanism to evaluate the feasibility of acquiring private lands to benefit A. desereticus.

        Based on our evaluation, we conclude that the CA is sufficient to address potential future threats to the species on State of Utah lands, providing long-term protection and enhancement measures. In accordance with the CA, efforts will be made to work with adjacent private landowners to provide species conservation measures and easements. However, long-term species conservation can be achieved solely on the State of Utah WMA which provides the core of the species population, providing the seed source for reproduction, and maintenance of the seed bank (UDWR et al. 2006).
        Prudency Determination
        As mentioned above, we believe that designating critical habitat would not be beneficial to the species (50 CFR 424.12). Specifically, we believe that there are no habitat areas containing physical or biological features that are essential to the conservation of the species and that may require special management consideration or protection, and available information at the time of this determination indicates that the threats to the species identified at the time of listing are no longer significant or have never materialized.

          Astragalus desereticus habitat does not require additional special management considerations or protection given proven and effective management strategies already implemented by the State of Utah. The recently signed CA (UDWR et al. 2006) provides assurances for continued management and protection of the species under these proven strategies, which should maintain habitat of sufficient quantity and quality to ensure viable populations for the foreseeable future. Available information indicates that the A. desereticus population has grown substantially since listing, and the species and its habitat are considered stable (UDWR et al. 2006). Because of the population growth, the Conservation Agreement and the fact that threats identified at the time of listing are no longer significant or have never materialized, available information indicates that habitat destruction is no longer a threat to the species.

        Therefore, based on our regulations and the information available to us at this time, we find there are no areas that constitute critical habitat for A. desereticus because no areas meet the definition of critical habitat pursuant to section 3(5)(A) of the Act. Thus, critical habitat designation would not be beneficial to the species. Designation of critical habitat is, therefore, not prudent.
        Effects of This Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

        This Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking announces our intent to propose rulemaking which may remove protections afforded Astragalus desereticus under the Act. This rule, if made final, would revise 50 CFR 17.12(h) to remove A. desereticus from the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants. Because no critical habitat was ever designated for this species, this rule would not affect 50 CFR 17.96.
        If we make a final decision to delist Astragalus desereticus, the prohibitions and conservation measures provided by the Act would no longer apply to this species. Federal agencies would no longer be required to consult with us under section 7 of the Act to ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out would not likely jeopardize the continued existence of A. desereticus or destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. Until A. desereticus is delisted, any Federal actions, or federally funded or permitted actions, must comply with the Act. If delisting occurs, we anticipate that the CA discussed above would guide A. desereticus management.
        Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

        This rule does not contain any new collections of information that require approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This rule will not impose recordkeeping or reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals, businesses, or organizations. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
        National Environmental Policy Act

        We have determined that we do not need to prepare an Environmental Assessment, as defined by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, in connection with regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Endangered Species 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 herein is available, upon request, from the Utah Ecological Services Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see ADDRESSES section).
        Author

        The primary author of this document is Larry England, Botanist, Utah Ecological Services Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see ADDRESSES section).
        Authority

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

          Dated: January 18, 2007.
          Todd Willens,
          Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

       [FR Doc. E7-1062 Filed 1-24-07; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List Agave eggersiana and Solanum conocarpum as Endangered

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Notice of 12-month petition finding.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 12-month finding on a petition to list the plants Agave eggersiana (no common name) and Solanum conocarpum (marrón bacora) as endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). After reviewing the best available scientific and commercial information, we find that listing A. eggersiana and S. conocarpum is not warranted at this time. However, we will continue to seek new information on the biology of these species as well as potential threats. We also ask the public to submit to us any new information that becomes available concerning the status of, or threats to, A. eggersiana and S. conocarpum. This information will help us monitor the status of these species. If additional data become available, we may reassess the need for listing.

          DATES:
          The finding announced in this document was made on February 22, 2006.

          ADDRESSES:
          The complete file for this finding is available for inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the Boquerón Ecological Services Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Road 301, Km. 5.1 in Boquerón, Puerto Rico. Please submit any new information, materials, comments, or questions concerning these species or this finding to the above address or P.O. Box 491, Boquerón, Puerto Rico 00622.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Dr. Jorge E. Saliva, Wildlife Biologist, Boquerón Field Office, at the address above (787-851-7297, ext. 224).

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Background
        Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that, for any petition to revise the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants that contains substantial scientific and commercial information that listing may be warranted, we make a finding within 12 months of the date of receipt of the petition. The finding must be that the petitioned action is (a) Not warranted; (b) warranted; or (c) warranted, but that the immediate proposal of a regulation implementing the petitioned action is precluded by other pending proposals to determine whether any species is threatened or endangered, and expeditious progress is being made to add or remove qualified species from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Section 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that a petition for which the requested action is found to be warranted but precluded be treated as though resubmitted on the date of such finding (that is, requiring a subsequent finding to be made within 12 months). Each subsequent 12-month finding will be published in the Federal Register.

        On November 21, 1996, we received a petition from the U.S. Virgin Islands Department of Planning and Natural Resources (DPNR) requesting that we list two species of plants in the U.S. Virgin Islands as endangered: Agave eggersiana and Solanum conocarpum. We published our finding that the petition to list A. eggersiana and S. conocarpum presented substantial information indicating that the requested action may be warranted in the Federal Register on November 16, 1998 (63 FR 63659) and initiated a status review on these two plants. On September 1, 2004, a lawsuit was filed against the Department of the Interior and the Service by the Center for Biological Diversity challenging our alleged failure to publish a 12-month finding (Center for Biological Diversity v. Gale Norton et al., Civil Action No. 1:04-CV-2553 CAP) (N.D. Ga.). In a Stipulated Settlement Agreement, signed April 27, 2005, we agreed to submit our 12-month finding to the Federal Register by February 28, 2006.
        Biology and Distribution
        Agave eggersiana

          Agave eggersiana (no common name) is a flowering plant of the family Agavaceae (century plant family) known only from the island of St. Croix in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Two other species occur naturally in the Virgin Islands, A. missionum (corita) and A. sisalana (sisal), neither of which are endemic to St. Croix. A. eggersiana was originally described in 1913 by Trelease from material collected on St. Croix, and it is distinguished from other members of the Agavaceae family by its acaulescent (without an evident leafy stem), non-suckering growth habit (does not reproduce vegetatively by forming offshoots around its base), and fleshy, nearly straight leaves with small marginal prickles (1.00 millimeter (mm) (0.04 inches (in)) long) that are nearly straight (Britton and Wilson 1923; Proctor and Acevedo-Rodríguez 2005). Its flowers are deep yellow, 5 to 6 centimeters (cm) (1.95 to 2.34 in) long. Fruits are unknown; after flowering, the panicles (inflorescence) produce numerous small vegetative bulbs, from which the species can be propagated (Proctor and Acevedo-Rodríguez 2005). There is no information available on the biology, ecology, and phenology of A. eggersiana.

          A. eggersiana was originally collected in 1913 by Trelease on St. Croix (type location) (Britton and Wilson 1923; Acevedo-Rodríguez 1996; Proctor and Acevedo-Rodríguez 2005). Britton and Wilson (1923) reported the species from hillsides and plains in the eastern dry districts of St. Croix but did not provide population estimates. Information provided in the petition letter (B. Kojis and R. Boulon, DPNR, pers. comm. 1996) specified that the species was last observed growing in the wild around 1984 to 1986 on St. Croix. In a subsequent letter, DPNR stated that the species “may be extinct” but that “descendants from original plants may exist to the north of Great Pond near the original site of camp Arawak” (D. Plaskett, DPNR, pers. comm. 2003). However, no information was provided to clarify whether or not field surveys had been conducted in the area to search for the original plants. Furthermore, neither letter provided any scientific literature citations or systematic survey information in support of the possibility of extinction or, rather, extirpation from the wild. Proctor and Acevedo-Rodríguez (2005) provided a general description of the species and state that the species “now appears to be extinct in the wild.” However, no citations or survey information were provided. The Service is uncertain about the original source that reported the extirpation of this species from the wild and has not confirmed that any systematic surveys for this species have been conducted. Therefore, we believe that at present, the status of this species in the wild is unknown.
        All currently known occurrences of A. eggersiana are plants that were cultivated. Britton and Wilson (1923) noted that A. eggersiana has been in cultivation on St. Croix and St. Thomas as an ornamental plant since the early 20th century. The 1996 petition letter reported the existence of several small populations of A. eggersiana established on St. Croix through propagation efforts conducted by local horticulturists and botanical gardens. They mentioned that propagated plants were distributed to private individuals for planting as an effort to prevent extinction of this species. However, no information was provided regarding the origin of propagated materials. D. Plaskett (pers. comm. 2003) stated that cultivated plants “have been established” and specified one privately owned residential location. We know of other cultivated specimens on the airport grounds in St. Croix, the University of Virgin Islands in St. Thomas (Acevedo-Rodríguez, Smithsonian Institution, pers. comm. 2005), and at botanical gardens in the United States, such as Fairchild Tropical Garden in Miami, Florida.
        In summary, both the historic and present status of A. eggersiana are unknown; all known plant individuals are cultivars; systematic surveys for the species are lacking; no information is available on the species biology, ecology, and phenology; and no genetic studies have been conducted to determine if there is genetic variability among known individuals.

          Solanum conocarpum

          Solanum conocarpum (marrón bacora) is a dry forest shrub of the Solanaceae, or tomato, family that may attain 3 m (9.8 ft) in height. Its leaves are from 3.5 to 7 cm (0.62 to 1.5 in) wide, oblong-elliptic or oblanceolate (broader at the distal third than the middle), coriaceous (leathery texture), glabrous (not hairy), and have a yellowish midvein. The flowers are usually paired in nearly sessile (not stalked) lateral or terminal cymes (flat-topped flower cluster). The corolla consists of five separate petals that are light violet, greenish at the base, and about 2 cm (0.78 in) wide. The fruit, a berry, is ovoid-conical (teardrop shaped), 2 to 3 cm (0.78 to 1.2 in) long, and turns from green with white striations to golden yellow when ripe (Acevedo-Rodríguez 1996). Little is known about the reproductive biology of this species (Ray and Stanford 2003). Ongoing propagation efforts (such as Ray 2005) will likely provide additional information.

        Although in the petition letter B. Kojis and R. Boulon (pers. comm. 1996) suggested that S. conocarpum might be functionally dioecious (having male and female flowers on different plants), P. Acevedo-Rodríguez (pers. comm. 2002) contradicted this possibility. He believes that the species is not dioecious and documented flowers and fruits in one wild individual he discovered in the White Cliff area (although it was the only individual on that side of the island). Ray and Stanford (2003) documented that the seeds have thin coats and are therefore unlikely to be represented in the soil seed bank. Ray (2005) reported ample fruit and seed production in the wild. Although no seedling recruitment was observed in the wild by Ray and Stanford (2003) and J. Saliva (USFWS, pers. observation (obs.) 2004), Ray (2005) reported that a few seedlings were observed in the wild population located in Estate Concordia.

          S. conocarpum was originally known from a type specimen collected by L.C. Richard at Coral Bay, St. John (U.S. Virgin Islands), in 1787 (Acevedo-Rodríguez 1996). Although no population estimates are available for the type locality, P. Acevedo-Rodríguez (pers. comm. 2002) reported that the species seemed to be locally common at the beginning of the 19th century. The species was rediscovered in 1992 by P. Acevedo-Rodríguez on the island of St. John (Ray and Stanford 2003). B. Kojis and R. Boulon (pers. comm. 1996) mentioned that only two individuals were known growing in the wild on St. John: One individual on Virgin Islands National Park (VINP) land, and the other growing on private land. These two localities are consistent with the localities reported by Acevedo-Rodríguez (1996; pers. comm. 2002), who described the habitat as dry, deciduous forest.

        Acevedo-Rodríguez (1996) referenced the possibility of the species being present on St. Thomas and mentioned a collection of a sterile specimen from Virgin Gorda (British Virgin Islands (BVI)). Information provided by the B. Kojis and R. Boulon (pers. comm. 1996), however, reported the collection of a sterile specimen from Tortola, BVI. P. Acevedo-Rodríguez (pers. comm. 2002) clarified that his collection of the sterile specimen was from Virgin Gorda, but he believes that the specimen belongs to a different species, Cestrum laurifolium, and not S. conocarpum. However, no surveys have been conducted in St. Thomas or the BVI to determine if this species is present.

        On St. John, Ray and Stanford (2003) reported five mature individuals from a total of six individuals in two locations within VINP (Europa Bay and Reef Bay Valley) and two locations on private land (Base Hill and Sabbat Point). Ray (2005) reported two additional locations (Estate Concordia and Johnson, Friis, and John's Folly Bays) and estimates close to 200 individuals in the wild. The largest population of S. conocarpum is near Nanny Point in Estate Concordia (J. Saliva, pers. obs. 2004). This population consists of approximately 184 plants that had been distributed across three contiguous parcels of privately owned land. Recently, one of the private property owners donated a portion of his property with a significant number of plants to the VINP (R. Boulon, NPS, pers. comm. 2006). The next largest wild population consists of 33 plants located on private land above Johnson, Friis, and John's Folly Bays' catchments.
        Several efforts have been conducted to propagate S. conocarpum in the last decade. B. Kojis and R. Boulon (pers. comm. 1996) reported that a local horticulturist, E. Gibney, was able to propagate the species by cuttings (asexually) collected from the two individuals known from the wild and to get them to reproduce sexually by dusting the flowers. They further report that the “many” seedlings produced “appear to grow vigorously.” This information was corroborated by P. Acevedo-Rodríguez (pers. comm. 2002). He reported that Gibney has successfully reproduced this species and distributed specimens to various places in the Virgin Islands. He reported planted individuals (cultivars) in the Campus of the University of Virgin Islands in St. Thomas, which are sexually reproducing; a few more in the St. George Botanical Garden in St. Croix; and a few plants in Tortola, Cannel Bay Hotel on St. John, New York Botanical Garden, National Botanical Garden in Dominican Republic, and Puerto Rico Botanical Garden. He has performed germination tests and found 100 percent viability.

        Ray and Stanford (2003) developed an implementation plan to conduct shadehouse propagation and reintroduce seedlings within the VINP on St. John. This project is in progress. R. Boulon (pers. comm. 2004) reported that Dr. Ray planted approximately 128 individuals in the park. Ray (2005) started a propagation project from cuttings (cloning) to augment populations of S. conocarpum in a private property on St. John. More than 300 cuttings were produced. Rooted cuttings will be planted during the 2006 rainy season (April to May).

        P. Acevedo-Rodríguez (pers. comm. 2002), believes that both A. eggersiana and S. conocarpum have either small populations or may be nearly extinct. However, he believes this is not due to the current threat of development, but rather past land use history on the islands of St. Croix and St. John. From the 1700s through the late 1800s, 95 percent or more of these islands suffered intensive and extensive deforestation. St. Croix was colonized in the mid-to late-1600s and sugar cane was the principal product through the late 19th century. St. John was colonized in the early 1700s and divided into estates that principally cultivated sugar cane and cotton on most of the island (Woodbury and Weaver 1987). Acevedo-Rodríguez (1996) believed that the first 130 years of colonization had been “particularly harsh” on the natural resources of St. John. However, Woodbury and Weaver (1987) report that many of the estates were abandoned by the late 19th century and that common trees and shrubs regenerated, resulting in most of the island being covered by secondary forest at the time of their report. Approximately three-quarters of St. John is under the administration of the VINP, which was established in 1956 (Woodbury and Weaver 1987).
        Previous Federal Actions
        We identified A. eggersiana as a category 2 candidate species in the Notice of Review published in the Federal Register on September 30, 1993 (58 FR 51144). Before 1996, a category 2 species was one for which the Service had information that proposing as endangered or threatened may be appropriate but for which sufficient information was not currently available to support a proposed rule. Designation of category 2 species was discontinued in the February 28, 1996, Notice of Review (61 FR 7596). This notice redefined candidates to include only species for which we have information needed to propose them for listing.
        We previously considered S. conocarpum as a category 1 candidate species in the Notices of Review published on September 27, 1985 (50 FR 39526) and February 21, 1990 (55 FR 6184). Category 1 candidate species were species for which the Service had information to support a proposed rule to list them as endangered or threatened. We reclassified S. conocarpum to a category 2 candidate species in the Notice of Review published on September 30, 1993 (58 FR 51144), due to a lack of available information on the species' distribution and abundance.
        Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

        Section 4 of the Act, and implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 424, set forth procedures for adding species to the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. In making this finding, information regarding the status and threats to these species in relation to the five factors provided in section 4(a)(1) of the Act is summarized below. Listing determinations are made solely on the best scientific and commercial data available, taking into account any efforts being made by any State, private citizen, corporation, or foreign nation to protect the species. We have examined each of the five listing factors under the Act for their application to A. eggersiana and S. conocarpum as follows:
        Factor A: The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of the Species' Habitat or Range

          Agave eggersiana:
          A. eggersiana is endemic to the island of St. Croix. Its status in the wild is uncertain, and all known individuals are cultivars planted as ornaments in several areas and facilities in St. Croix and St. Thomas (Proctor and Acevedo-Rodríguez 2005; P. Acevedo-Rodríguez, pers. comm. 2005; D. Plaskett, pers. comm. 2003; B. Kojis and R. Boulon, pers. comm. 1996; Britton and Wilson 1923). Acevedo-Rodríguez (pers. comm. 2002) believes that past land use history, as opposed to the current threat of development, is the likely cause of A. eggersiana's apparent small population numbers.

        We believe that there is not sufficient information to evaluate the extent and imminence of threats and cannot conclude that A. eggersiana is threatened or endangered due to the destruction and curtailment of its habitat or range. To our knowledge, no systematic surveys for the species have ever been conducted to determine its true status.

          Solanum conocarpum: The presence of S. conocarpum in the wild has been confirmed only on the island of St. John. When the species was petitioned for listing in 1996, only two individuals were known to exist in the wild (B. Kojis and R. Boulon, pers. comm. 1996). Acevedo-Rodríguez (1996) suggests that as a result of destruction of more than 90 percent of the natural vegetation in St. John, primarily due to cultivation in the first 130 years of colonization, some of the native and endemic plant species have become extinct or nearly extinct. For S. conocarpum specifically, P. Acevedo-Rodríguez, (pers. comm. 2002) believes that past land use history, as opposed to the current threat of development, was the likely cause of the species' apparent small population numbers. Furthermore, much of the island regenerated to varying degrees, including secondary successional forest (Woodbury and Weaver 1987; Acevedo-Rodríguez 1996).

        At present, the species is known from almost 200 wild individuals in six locations. Of the six locations, three are on privately owned land, two are within VINP, and one occurs on both private and VINP land. At the site of the largest number of plants (Estate Concordia/VINP-area), the Service has been working with a private landowner and VINP to implement conservation measures for the species, to protect in perpetuity around 80 percent of the known population, and to expand the current propagation efforts to double existing population in the wild (400 to 500 individuals). Additionally, a portion of the private property where a large number of the plants in this area are found was recently donated to the VINP (R. Boulon, pers. comm. 2006). We do not have evidence suggesting that remaining localities under private ownership where S. conocarpum is found are under threat of development.
        VINP manages for sensitive species, including S. conocarpum, within the park. VINP is currently working with the Service and an adjacent landowner in the development of conservation measures and recently accepted the donation of a portion of the private land into VINP ownership (R. Boulon, pers. comm. 2006). Additionally, VINP has a General Management Plan (GMP) that is in place and being implemented. One purpose of the GMP is to establish strategies and approaches to achieve and maintain desired conditions for the park's cultural and natural resources, including protecting native plants like S. conocarpum and their habitats.

        While residential and tourism development may impact this species, we do not have information suggesting that these threats are occurring or are imminent. Furthermore, we do not know if the species now occurs on St. Thomas or the BVI. Therefore, we do not have sufficient information to conclude that S. conocarpum is either threatened or endangered due to the destruction and curtailment of its habitat or range.
        Factor B: Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes

        The information available on the species does not suggest that overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes has contributed to the current status of either A. eggersiana or S. conocarpum or that any such activities are threats to these species.
        Factor C: Disease or Predation

        There have been no systematic studies to identify parasites or disease in these species. Therefore, the role of parasites or disease of A. eggersiana and S. conocarpum is unknown.

        Feral pigs uproot juvenile plants and destroy the root system of other species of Agave on Mona Island, apparently to feed on or obtain moisture from the roots (J. Saliva, pers. obs. 1983, 1996). Theoretically, should A. eggersiana be reintroduced in the wild, it is possible that feral pigs could cause similar impacts, particularly to young plants.

        Feral donkeys, pigs, and goats could directly and indirectly affect populations of S. conocarpum by uprooting and eating seedlings, destabilizing slopes, and dispersing exotic plant species, thus preventing or reducing sustainability of populations of S. conocarpum; however, the extent of such threats to the species is “speculative” (NPS 2003) and “imprecise” (NPS 2004). VINP is implementing reduction plans to control the populations of nonnative feral pigs, goats, and sheep within VINP (NPS 2003, 2004). Feral pig populations in VINP are low, and reduction efforts have been targeted to problem areas (NPS unpublished report. 2006). VINP believes some goats were removed from the park even before the reduction plan commenced, and that removal efforts by VINP were successful at two locations where there have been no reports of goats returning and vegetative growth has increased (NPS unpublished report 2006). Although vegetation trampling by donkeys has been observed at the Estate Concordia population of S. conocarpum (M. Carper, property owner, and J. Saliva, pers. obs., 2004), we do not have evidence to conclude that trampling has or would result in mortality of S. conocarpum.
        No seedlings have been reported under mature S. conocarpum shrubs. Other than gravity, its fruit dispersal agent is unknown. Where shrub densities are high, hermit crabs have been observed feeding on the fruit (Ray 2005). Fruit and seed production in the largest known wild population of S. conocarpum is reported as “ample” (Ray 2005). While hermit crabs consume fallen fruit in large quantities (Ray 2005), we do not know if the crabs act as seed predators (for example, by crushing seed embryos as they feed) and are partly responsible for the low seedling recruitment at this location.

        At this time, there is no evidence that donkeys, pigs, or goats constitute a specific threat to A. eggersiana or S. conocarpum by feeding on young or adult, wild or reintroduced, individuals of these species. The effects of consumption of S. conocarpum fruits by hermit crabs are uncertain. Therefore, we believe that there is no substantial evidence indicating that either A. eggersiana or S. conocarpum is threatened or endangered due to disease or predation.
        Factor D: The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

        The Territory of the U.S. Virgin Islands currently considers A. eggersiana and S. conocarpum to be endangered under the Virgin Islands Indigenous and Endangered Species Act (V.I. Code, Title 12, Chapter 2), and has amended an existing regulation (Bill No. 18-0403) to protect endangered and threatened wildlife and plants by prohibiting the take, injury, or possession of indigenous plants.

        The available information on the species does not suggest that inadequacy of current regulatory mechanisms has contributed to the current status of either A. eggersiana or S. conocarpum or that such mechanisms are current threats to these species.
        Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Continued Existence of the Species
        It appears that A. eggersiana may be extremely rare and its survival may be dependent on captive propagation and reintroduction. A. eggersiana is only found on the island of St. Croix, and it was last observed growing in the wild in the mid-1980s. Horticulturist M. Hays of the St. Georges Botanical Garden herbarium on St. Croix has propagated the species and distributed specimens to the public in the hope of “saving the species from extinction” (B. Kojis and R. Boulon, pers. comm.1996). The status of the species in the wild is uncertain, and its apparent limited abundance and distribution are likely the result of past land use history. However, as systematic surveys of suitable habitat for this species have never been conducted to our knowledge, we do not have enough information to determine the true status of this species in wild and therefore cannot conclude that the species is threatened or endangered due to other natural or manmade factors.

          S. conocarpum is currently known from six locations on St. John. It is possible that the species may occur in St. Thomas or the BVI, or at other locations in St. John. However, no surveys have ever been conducted to our knowledge to determine if the species is present elsewhere. Using the best available scientific and commercial information, we are unable to determine that the small population size constitutes a threat or that it would render the species likely to become endangered or extinct in the near future. In the Caribbean, native plant species, particularly endemic species with limited distribution, may be vulnerable to natural or manmade events, such as hurricanes and human-induced fires. Fire is not a natural component of subtropical dry forest in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Thus, most species found in this type of forest are not fire-adapted. However, there is no information in the literature indicating that hurricanes or fires have affected the known populations of S. conocarpum. Furthermore, the VINP has a fire prevention plan which includes the protection of native species, including S. conocarpum. We do not have sufficient information to conclude that this species is threatened or endangered due to other natural or manmade factors.
        Finding

        We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial information available regarding threats faced by Agave eggersiana and Solanum conocarpum. We reviewed the petition, available published and unpublished scientific and commercial information, and consulted with recognized plant experts (including those most familiar with the species), and Territorial and other Federal resource agencies. We did not receive additional information from interested parties during the public comment period on our 90-day finding.
        For us to make a “warranted” finding, the species must, at a minimum, meet the definition of a threatened species. In accordance with section 3(19) of the Act, a threatened species is one which is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.

        Based on all the information we have gathered and reviewed, we found no evidence that either A. eggersiana or S. conocarpum are threatened or endangered by overutilization for commercial, recreational, or educational purposes, nor by inadequacies in the existing regulatory mechanisms. We also have no data to show that destruction or curtailment of the species' habitat or range, disease or predation, or other natural or manmade factors threaten A. eggersiana or S. conocarpum. After reviewing the best available scientific and commercial information, we believe that we do not have sufficient information to determine the true status of either Agave eggersiana or Solanum conocarpum in the wild and cannot determine if either species meets the definition of threatened or endangered due to one or more of the five listing factors because we do not have sufficient evidence of which threats, if any, are operating on these species.

        We will continue to monitor the status of these species and their habitats, and will accept additional information and comments at any time from all concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, and any other interested parties concerning this finding. This information will help us monitor and encourage beneficial measures for A. eggersiana and S. conocarpum.
        References Cited

        A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon request from the Field Supervisor, Boquerón Field Office (see ADDRESSES section).
        Author

        The primary author of this document is the Boquerón Field Office (see ADDRESSES section).
        Authority

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

          Dated: February 22, 2006.
          Marshall P. Jones, Jr.,
          Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

       [FR Doc. E6-3095 Filed 3-6-06; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P