17398 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 29, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE proposed rule. Please refer to our Web particular threats, and the reliability to site (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/ forecast the effects of these threats and National Oceanic and Atmospheric //.html) for access future events on the status of the species Administration to the status review report, which under consideration. Because a species details African coelacanth biology, may be susceptible to a variety of threats 50 CFR Part 223 ecology, and , the DPS for which different data are available, or determination, past, present, and future which operate across different time [Docket No. 141219999–6207–02] potential risk factors, and overall scales, the foreseeable future is not RIN 0648–XD681 extinction risk. On March 3, 2015, we necessarily reducible to a particular published a proposed rule to list the number of . Further, the existence Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Tanzanian DPS of African coelacanth (L. of a threat to a species and the species’ and Plants; Final Rule To List the chalumnae) as a threatened species (80 response to that threat are not, in Tanzanian DPS of African Coelacanth FR 11363) and solicited comments from general, equally predictable or (Latimeria chalumnae) as Threatened all interested parties including the foreseeable. Hence, in some cases, the Under the Act public, other governmental agencies, the ability to foresee a threat to a species is scientific community, industry, and greater than the ability to foresee the AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries environmental groups. species’ exact response, or the Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and timeframe of such a response, to that ESA Statutory Provisions, Regulations, Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), threat. In making a listing and Policy Considerations Commerce. determination, we must ask whether the ACTION: Final rule. As the designee of the Secretary of species’ population response to a threat Commerce, we are responsible for (i.e., abundance, productivity, spatial SUMMARY: We, NMFS, issue a final rule determining whether marine and distribution, diversity) is foreseeable, to list the Tanzanian Distinct Population anadromous species are threatened or not merely whether the emergence or Segment (DPS) of African coelacanth endangered under the ESA (16 U.S.C. continuation of a threat is foreseeable. (Latimeria chalumnae) as a threatened 1531 et seq.). To make this Because we are obligated to base our species under the Endangered Species determination, we consider first determinations on the best available Act (ESA). We will not designate critical whether a group of organisms scientific and commercial information, habitat for this species because the constitutes a ‘‘species’’ under the ESA, the foreseeable future extends only as geographical areas occupied by the then whether the status of the species far as we are able to reliably predict the species are entirely outside U.S. qualifies it for listing as either species’ population response to a jurisdiction, and we have not identified threatened or endangered. Section 3 of particular threat. any unoccupied areas within U.S. the ESA defines a ‘‘species’’ to include Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA requires us jurisdiction that are essential to the ‘‘any subspecies of fish or wildlife or to determine whether any species is conservation of the species. plants, and any distinct population endangered or threatened due to any DATES: This final rule is effective April segment of any species of fish one or a combination of the following 28, 2016. or wildlife which interbreeds when threat factors: the present or threatened ADDRESSES: Chief, Endangered Species mature.’’ 16 U.S.C. 1532(16). destruction, modification, or Division, NMFS Office of Protected Section 3 of the ESA also defines an curtailment of its habitat or range; Resources (F/PR3), 1315 East-West endangered species as ‘‘any species overutilization for commercial, Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, which is in danger of extinction recreational, scientific, or educational USA. throughout all or a significant portion of purposes; disease or predation; the its range’’ and a threatened species as inadequacy of existing regulatory FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: one ‘‘which is likely to become an mechanisms; or other natural or Chelsey Young, NMFS, Office of endangered species within the manmade factors affecting its continued Protected Resources, (301) 427–8491. foreseeable future throughout all or a existence. 16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1). We are SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: significant portion of its range.’’ 16 also required to make listing U.S.C. 1632(6); (20). We interpret an Background determinations based solely on the best ‘‘endangered species’’ to be one that is scientific and commercial data On July 15, 2013, we received a presently in danger of extinction. A available, after conducting a review of petition from WildEarth Guardians to ‘‘threatened species,’’ on the other hand, the species’ status and after taking into list 81 marine species as threatened or is not presently in danger of extinction, account efforts being made by any state endangered under the Endangered but is likely to become so in the or foreign nation (or subdivision Species Act (ESA). We found that the ‘‘foreseeable future’’ (that is, at a later thereof) to protect the species. 16 U.S.C. petitioned actions may be warranted for time). In other words, the primary 1533(b)(1)(A). 27 of the 81 species, including the statutory difference between a Pursuant to the ESA, any interested African coelacanth, and announced the threatened and endangered species is person may petition to list or delist a initiation of status reviews for each of the timing of when a species may be in species, subspecies, or DPS of a the 27 species (78 FR 63941, October 25, danger of extinction, either presently vertebrate species that interbreeds when 2013; 78 FR 66675, November 6, 2013; (endangered) or in the foreseeable future mature (5 U.S.C. 553(e), 16 U.S.C. 78 FR 69376, November 19, 2013; 79 FR (threatened). The duration of the 1533(b)(3)(A)). ESA-implementing 9880, February 21, 2014; and 79 FR ‘‘foreseeable future’’ in any regulations issued by NMFS and the 10104, February 24, 2014). Following circumstance is inherently fact-specific U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) the positive 90-day finding, we and depends on the particular kinds of also establish procedures for receiving conducted a comprehensive status threats, the life-history characteristics, and considering petitions to revise the review of the African coelacanth. A and the specific habitat requirements for lists of endangered and threatened ‘‘status review report’’ (Whittaker, 2014) the species under consideration. The species and for conducting periodic was produced and used as the basis of foreseeable future also considers the reviews of listed species (50 CFR 12-month finding determination and availability of data, the ability to predict 424.01).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:41 Mar 28, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29MRR1.SGM 29MRR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 29, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 17399

When we receive a petition to list a ecological, or behavioral factors. connectivity, and diversity. These species, we are required to the Quantitative measures of genetic or viability factors reflect concepts that are maximum extent practicable to make a morphological discontinuity may well-founded in conservation biology finding within 90 days as to whether the provide evidence of this separation. and that individually and collectively petition presents substantial scientific (2) It is delimited by international provide strong indicators of extinction or commercial information indicating governmental boundaries within which risk. Against this backdrop we evaluate that the petitioned action may be differences in control of exploitation, the influence of the Section 4(a)(1) warranted. The ESA-implementing management of habitat, conservation threat factors. regulations provide that ‘‘substantial status, or regulatory mechanisms exist As the definition of ‘‘endangered information’’ is that amount of that are significant in light of section species’’ and ‘‘threatened species’’ information that would lead a 4(a)(1)(D) of the ESA. makes clear, the determination of reasonable person to believe that listing If a population segment is considered extinction risk can be based on either may be warranted (50 CFR 424.14(b)(1)). discrete under one or more of the above assessment of the range wide status of In determining whether substantial conditions, its biological and ecological the species, or the status of the species information exists, we take into account significance is then considered in light in a ‘‘significant portion of its range.’’ several factors, in light of any of Congressional guidance (see S. Rep. NMFS and FWS recently published a information noted in the petition or No. 96–151(1979)) that the authority to final policy to clarify the interpretation otherwise readily available in our files. list DPSs be used ‘‘sparingly’’ while of the phrase ‘‘significant portion of the If a positive finding is made at that encouraging the conservation of genetic range’’ in the ESA definitions of initial stage, then we commence a status diversity. This consideration may ‘‘threatened species’’ and ‘‘endangered review in order to assemble and assess include, but is not limited to, the species’’ (79 FR 37577; July 1, 2014) the best available scientific and following: (SPR Policy). The SPR Policy reads: commercial information. 16 U.S.C. (1) Persistence of the discrete population segment in an ecological Consequences of a species being 1533(b)(3)(A). After conducting the endangered or threatened throughout a status review and within 12 months of setting unusual or unique for the taxon; significant portion of its range: The phrase receiving the petition, we must prepare (2) Evidence that loss of the discrete ‘‘significant portion of its range’’ in the Act’s a finding that the action is not population segment would result in a definitions of ‘‘endangered species’’ and warranted, warranted, or warranted but significant gap in the range of a taxon; ‘‘threatened species’’ provides an precluded by higher listing priorities. 16 (3) Evidence that the discrete independent basis for listing. Thus, there are U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(B). If we find that the population segment represents the only two situations (or factual bases) under which surviving natural occurrence of a taxon a species would qualify for listing: a species petitioned action is warranted, we may be endangered or threatened throughout promptly publish a proposed rule to list that may be more abundant elsewhere as an introduced population outside its all of its range or a species may be the species, take steps to notify affected endangered or threatened throughout only a states and foreign governments, and historic range; or significant portion of its range. solicit public input. 16 U.S.C. (4) Evidence that the discrete If a species is found to be endangered or 1533(b)(3)(B)(ii); 16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(5). population segment differs markedly threatened throughout only a significant After reviewing additional information from other populations of the species in portion of its range, the entire species is received during the comment period, we its genetic characteristics. listed as endangered or threatened, must either publish a final regulation to After determining whether a group of respectively, and the Act’s protections apply to all individuals of the species wherever implement the determination or take organisms constitutes a listable ‘‘species,’’ then using the best available found. certain other actions. 16 U.S.C. Significant: A portion of the range of a 1533(b)(6). information gathered during the status review for the species, we complete a species is ‘‘significant’’ if the species is not In making a final listing currently endangered or threatened determination, we first determine status and extinction risk assessment to throughout its range, but the portion’s whether a petitioned species meets the determine whether the species qualifies contribution to the viability of the species is ESA definition of a ‘‘species.’’ This term as an endangered species or threatened so important that, without the members in includes taxonomic species, subspecies, species. In assessing extinction risk, we that portion, the species would be in danger and ‘‘distinct population segment of any consider the demographic viability of extinction, or likely to become so in the factors developed by McElhany et al. foreseeable future, throughout all of its range. species of vertebrate fish or wildlife Range: The range of a species is considered which interbreeds when mature.’’ 16 (2000) and the risk matrix approach developed by Wainwright and Kope to be the general geographical area within U.S.C. 1532(16). On February 7, 1996, which that species can be found at the time the Services adopted a policy describing (1999) to organize and summarize FWS or NMFS makes any particular status what constitutes a DPS of a taxonomic extinction risk considerations. The determination. This range includes those species (61 FR 4722). The joint DPS approach of considering demographic areas used throughout all or part of the Policy identified two elements that must risk factors to help frame the species’ life cycle, even if they are not used be considered when identifying a DPS: consideration of extinction risk has been regularly (e.g., seasonal ). Lost (1) The discreteness of the population used in many of our status reviews, historical range is relevant to the analysis of the status of the species, but it cannot segment in relation to the remainder of including for Pacific salmonids, Pacific hake, walleye pollock, Pacific cod, constitute a significant portion of a species’ the species (or subspecies) to which it range. belongs; and (2) the significance of the Puget Sound rockfishes, Pacific herring, Reconciling SPR with DPS authority: If the population segment to the remainder of scalloped hammerhead , and species is endangered or threatened the species (or subspecies) to which it black abalone (see http:// throughout a significant portion of its range, belongs. A population segment of a www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/ for and the population in that significant portion vertebrate species may be considered links to these reviews). In this approach, is a valid DPS, we will list the DPS rather discrete if it satisfies either one of the the collective condition of individual than the entire taxonomic species or following conditions: populations is considered at the species subspecies. (1) It is markedly separated from other level according to four demographic The Final Policy explains that it is populations of the same taxon as a viability factors: abundance, growth necessary to fully evaluate a portion for consequence of physical, physiological, rate/productivity, spatial structure/ potential listing under the ‘‘significant

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:41 Mar 28, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29MRR1.SGM 29MRR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES 17400 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 29, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

portion of its range’’ authority only if commenter noted that ESA listing status best available scientific and commercial the species is not found to warrant would help raise awareness of the information on the species’ biology, listing rangewide and if substantial species’ plight and authorize the United ecology, life history, threats, and information indicates that the members States to fund and assist in conservation conservation status from information of the species in a particular area are programs. contained in the petition, our files, a likely both to meet the test for biological Response: We appreciate these comprehensive literature search, and significance and to be currently comments as they support the proposed consultation with experts. We also endangered or threatened in that area. listing rule for the Tanzanian DPS of considered information submitted by Making this preliminary determination African coelacanth as a threatened the public and peer reviewers. This triggers a need for further review, but species under the ESA. We also agree information is available in the status does not prejudge whether the portion that the species’ listing status as review report (Whittaker, 2014), which actually meets these standards such that threatened could help raise is available on our Web site (http:// the species should be listed: conservation awareness for the species. www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/ However, we emphasize that our listing coelacanth.html). The status review To identify only those portions that warrant further consideration, we will determination is based solely on report provides a thorough discussion of determine whether there is substantial consideration of the best scientific and life history, demographic risks, and information indicating that (1) the portions commercial information available threats to the particular species. We may be significant and (2) the species may be regarding the threats facing this species considered all identified threats, both in danger of extinction in those portions or as required under Section 4(b)(1)(A) and individually and cumulatively, to likely to become so within the foreseeable discussed in the proposed rule. determine whether the species responds future. We emphasize that answering these Comment 2: One commenter noted in a way that causes actual impacts at questions in the affirmative is not a that they would prefer all populations of the species level. The collective determination that the species is endangered coelacanth be listed under the ESA, but condition of individual populations was or threatened throughout a significant did not provide any additional also considered at the species level, portion of its range—rather, it is a step in information to support listing any other determining whether a more detailed according to the four demographic analysis of the issue is required. 79 FR 37586. populations. In contrast, the commenter viability factors discussed above. pointed out that great progress has been The proposed rule (80 FR 11363, After reviewing the best available made regarding educational outreach of March 3, 2015) summarizes general information as to the species status and Comoran fishermen on how to avoid background information on the species’ threats throughout its range (and, if incidental catch of , and also natural history, range, reproduction, necessary, in a significant portion of its noted that coelacanth habitat in the population structure, distribution and range), we then assess efforts being Islands is currently stable. abundance. None of this information made to protect the species, to Response: As detailed in the proposed has changed since the proposed rule, determine if these conservation efforts listing rule and explained further below and we received no new information are adequate to mitigate the existing in our Final Determination section, we through the public comment period that threats as required under Section conducted a status review of the African would cause us to reconsider our 4(b)(1)(A), and whether they are likely coelacanth and first considered whether previous finding as reflected in the 12- improving the status of the species to the species was at risk of extinction month finding and proposed rule. Thus, the point at which listing is not throughout its range and found that all of the information contained in the warranted, or contribute to forming the threats to the species across its range are status review report and proposed rule basis for listing a species as threatened generally low, with isolated threats of is reaffirmed in this final action. rather than endangered. Finally, we re- overutilization and habitat loss assess the extinction risk of the species concentrated in the Tanzanian portion Overview of Determination Regarding in light of the existing conservation of the range. Thus, we determined on the African Coelacanth at the Species efforts, as necessary and come to a final the basis of the best available scientific Level conclusion as to whether the species and commercial information that there Based on the best available scientific qualifies as an endangered or threatened was no basis to list the species overall and commercial information described species. based on an assessment of its status in the status review report and proposed throughout its range. However, applying rule, in developing our 12-month Summary of Comments Received our SPR Policy and DPS Policy, we finding we determined that the African Below we address comments received concluded that the Tanzanian DPS was coelacanth is taxonomically distinct pertaining to the proposed listing of the a listable entity and that it met the test from the , Tanzanian DPS of African coelacanth in for a threatened species. Because the Latimeria menadoensis, and is a valid the March 3, 2015, proposed rule (80 FR population is a valid DPS, our SPR species under the ESA; it meets the 11363). During the 60-day public Policy directs that the members of that definition of ‘‘species’’ pursuant to comment period from March 3, 2015, to population be listed rather than the section 3 of the ESA and is eligible for May 4, 2015, we received a total of 8 species at large. We thus proposed to listing under the ESA. Next we written comments from individuals. list only the Tanzanian DPS as a considered whether any one or a Each of the commenters generally threatened species. Because the combination of the five threat factors supported the proposed listing. commenter provided no information to specified in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA Comment 1: We received eight indicate that we should reconsider these contribute to the extinction risk of the comments in general support of the findings, we cannot adopt their African coelacanth species and went on proposed listing. Commenters agreed suggestion to list the entire species. to evaluate the species’ level of with the proposal to list the species as extinction risk. Finally we considered threatened. They cited its rarity and Status Review conservation efforts for the species current threats from fishing and habitat The status review for the African overall as required under Section impacts as reasons why the Tanzanian coelacanth addressed in this finding 4(b)(1)(A). DPS of African coelacanth warrants was conducted in 2014 (Whittaker, We received no information or protection under the ESA. One 2014). The status review represents the analysis from public comment on the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:41 Mar 28, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29MRR1.SGM 29MRR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 29, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 17401

proposed rule that would cause us to or within the foreseeable future. We population, as well as the population’s reconsider any of our analysis or considered first whether any response to those threats. We are conclusions regarding any of the section populations faced an unusual confident in our ability to make 4(a)(1) factors or their interactions for concentration of threats that might projections over the next several the species overall. Likewise, we did not suggest they were at risk of extinction. decades in assessing the threats of receive any new information or analysis After a review of the best available overutilization and habitat destruction, that would cause us to reconsider our information, we identified the and their interaction with the life analysis of extinction risk. Finally, we Tanzanian population of the African history of the coelacanth, with its did not receive any new information coelacanth as a population facing lifespan of 40 or more years. Based on regarding conservation efforts, which concentrated threats because of this information, we find that the we evaluated as required under Section increased catch rates in this region since Tanzanian population is at a moderate 4(b)(1)(A). For this final rule, we clarify 2003, and the threat of a deep-water port risk of extinction within the foreseeable that we do not apply the particularized directly impacting coelacanth habitat in future. Therefore, we consider the rubric of the Policy on the Evaluation of this region. Due to these concentrated Tanzanian population to be threatened. Conservation Efforts (PECE Policy, 68 threats, we found that the species may Because the Tanzanian population FR 15100, March 28, 2003) to be at risk of extinction in this area, so represents a significant portion of the consideration of foreign conservation next we determined whether this range of the species, and this population efforts, because that policy applies only portion of the range of the species could is threatened, we conclude that the to conservation efforts ‘‘identified in be considered significant under the SPR African coelacanth is threatened in a conservation agreements, conservation Policy (79 FR 37577; July 1, 2014). significant portion of its range. We next plans, management plans, or similar The Tanzanian population is one of applied the provision from the SPR documents developed by Federal only three confirmed populations of the Policy providing that if a species is agencies, State and local governments, African coelacanth, all considered to be determined to be threatened or Tribal governments, businesses, small and isolated. Because all three endangered across a significant portion organizations, and individuals.’’ populations are isolated, the loss of one of its range, and the population in that Nevertheless, in this case we have would not directly impact the other significant portion is a valid DPS, we substantively evaluated the likelihood remaining populations. However, loss of will list the DPS rather than the entire of implementation and efficacy of any one of the three known African taxonomic species or subspecies. In relevant efforts, including specifically coelacanth populations would evaluating whether this population the recently established Tanga significantly increase the extinction risk qualified as a DPS under the DPS Policy Coelacanth Marine Park and its of the species as a whole, as only two (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996), we associated protections, as described in small populations would remain, determined that the Tanzanian the proposed rule. We therefore reaffirm making them more vulnerable to population is discrete based on the substance of our discussion of the catastrophic events such as storms, evidence for its genetic and geographic 4(a)(1) factors, extinction risk, and disease, or temperature anomalies. isolation from the rest of the taxon. The conservation efforts from the 12-month Therefore, we determined that this population also meets the significance finding and proposed rule (80 FR 11363, portion of the range of the species (the criterion set forth by the DPS policy, as March 03, 2015) in this final action. In Tanzanian population) represents a its loss would constitute a significant summary, after considering the status, significant portion of the range of the gap in the taxon’s range. Because it is threats and extinction risk for the African coelacanth. both discrete and significant to the African coelacanth (L. chalumnae), we Having found that the members of the taxon as a whole, we identified the determined the species does not meet Tanzanian population constituted a Tanzanian population as a valid DPS. the definition of a threatened or significant portion of the species’ range, Finally, because the population in the endangered species when evaluated we next evaluated the extinction risk of significant portion of the range is a valid throughout all of its range. Thus, we did this significant portion of the range to DPS, we proposed to list the DPS rather not propose to list the species overall. determine whether it was threatened or than the entire taxonomic species or We received no information or analysis endangered. After reviewing the best subspecies. We received no information through the comment process that available scientific and commercial or analysis through the public comment would cause us to reevaluate our information, we determined that the process that would cause us to determination that the African Tanzanian population faces reconsider our determination. coelacanth does not warrant listing demographic risks, such as population Therefore, with this final rule we are rangewide. isolation and low productivity, which listing the Tanzanian DPS of the African make it likely to be influenced by coelacanth as a threatened species Final Determination stochastic or depensatory processes under the ESA. We have reviewed the best available throughout its range. Additionally, scientific and commercial information, ongoing or future threats include Effects of Listing including the petition, the information overutilization via bycatch in the Conservation measures provided for in the status review reports, public Tanzanian gillnet fishery, as well species listed as endangered or comments, and the comments of peer as habitat destruction as a result of threatened under the ESA include reviewers. Based on the information coastal development. The species’ recovery actions (16 U.S.C. 1533(f)); presented, and as described in the natural biological vulnerability to concurrent designation of critical proposed listing rule, because we found overexploitation exacerbates the habitat for species that occur within the the African coelacanth species overall to severity of these threats and places the United States, if prudent and not warrant listing on the basis of the population at an increased risk of determinable (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(A)); range wide analysis, we applied the SPR extinction within the foreseeable future. Federal agency requirements to consult Policy and considered whether any In our consideration of the foreseeable with NMFS under section 7 of the ESA portions of the range of the species future, we evaluated how far into the to ensure their actions do not jeopardize would be likely to be both significant to future we could reliably predict the the species or result in adverse the species and at risk of extinction now operation of the major threats to this modification or destruction of critical

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:41 Mar 28, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29MRR1.SGM 29MRR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES 17402 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 29, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

habitat should it be designated (16 to be essential for the conservation of listing under the Convention on U.S.C. 1536); and, for endangered the species. The best available scientific International Trade in Endangered species, certain prohibitions including and commercial information on the Species of Wild Flora and Fauna. against ‘‘take’’ of the species by persons species does not indicate that U.S. Finally, we have no evidence to suggest subject to United States jurisdiction (16 waters provide any specific essential that the species is at risk due to illegal U.S.C. 1538(a)(1)). Recognition of the biological function for the species trade. Any trade of the species is limited species’ plight through listing also proposed for listing. Based on the best to the transfer of specimens for promotes conservation actions by available information, we have not scientific purposes. Thus, we have Federal and state agencies, foreign identified unoccupied area(s) in U.S. determined that protective regulations entities, private groups, and individuals. water that are essential to the pursuant to section 4(d) are not conservation of the Tanzanian DPS of Identifying Section 7 Consultation necessary for the conservation of the Latimeria chalumnae. Therefore, based Requirements species at this time. on the available information, we will Section 7(a)(2) (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)) not designate critical habitat for this References of the ESA and NMFS/USFWS DPS. regulations require Federal agencies to Whittaker, Kerry. 2014. Endangered Species Identification of Those Activities That consult with us to ensure that activities Act draft status review report for the they authorize, fund, or carry out are not Would Constitute a Violation of Section coelacanth (Latimeria chalumnae). likely to jeopardize the continued 9 of the ESA Report to National Marine Fisheries existence of listed species or destroy or On July 1, 1994, NMFS and FWS Service, Office of Protected Resources. adversely modify critical habitat. It is published a policy (59 FR 34272) that October 2014. 47 pp. unlikely that the listing of these species requires NMFS to identify, to the under the ESA will increase the number maximum extent practicable at the time Classification of section 7 consultations, because these a species is listed, those activities that species occur outside of the United would or would not constitute a National Environmental Policy Act States and are unlikely to be affected by violation of section 9 of the ESA. The 1982 amendments to the ESA, in Federal actions. Because we are finalizing a rule to list section 4(b)(1)(A), restrict the the Tanzanian DPS of the African Critical Habitat information that may be considered and coelacanth as threatened, no the basis that must be found when Critical habitat is defined in section 3 prohibitions of Section 9(a)(1) of the of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1532(5)) as: (1) ESA will apply to this species. assessing species for listing. Based on The specific areas within the this limitation of criteria for a listing geographical area occupied by a species, Protective Regulations Under Section decision and the opinion in Pacific at the time it is listed in accordance 4(d) of the ESA Legal Foundation v. Andrus, 657 F.2d with the ESA, on which are found those We are listing the Tanzanian DPS of 829 (6th Cir.1981), NMFS has physical or biological features (a) African coelacanth as a threatened concluded that ESA listing actions are essential to the conservation of the species. In the case of threatened not subject to the environmental species and (b) that may require special species, ESA section 4(d) states the assessment requirements of the National management considerations or Secretary shall issue such regulations as Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (See protection; and (2) specific areas outside he deems necessary and advisable for NOAA Administrative Order 216–6). the geographical area occupied by a the conservation of the species and species at the time it is listed upon a authorizes the Secretary to extend the Executive Order 12866, Regulatory determination that such areas are section 9(a) prohibitions to the species. Flexibility Act, and Paperwork essential for the conservation of the We have flexibility under section 4(d) to Reduction Act tailor protective regulations, taking into species. ‘‘Conservation’’ means the use Under the 1982 amendments to the account the effectiveness of available of all methods and procedures needed ESA, economic impacts cannot be to bring the species to the point at conservation measures. The 4(d) protective regulations may prohibit, considered when assessing the status of which listing under the ESA is no a species. 16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(1)(a) (‘‘The longer necessary. Section 4(a)(3)(A) of with respect to threatened species, some Secretary shall make determinations the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(A)) or all of the acts which section 9(a) of required by subsection (a)(1) solely on requires that, to the extent prudent and the ESA prohibits with respect to the basis of the best scientific and determinable, critical habitat be endangered species. These section 9(a) commercial data available to him after designated concurrently with the listing prohibitions apply to all individuals, conducting a review of the status of the of a species. However, our regulations organizations, and agencies subject to provide that critical habitat shall not be U.S. jurisdiction. We did not receive species and after taking into account designated in foreign countries or other any information from governmental those efforts, if any, being made by any areas outside U.S. jurisdiction (50 CFR agencies, the scientific community, State or foreign nation, or any political 424.12 (h)). industry, or any other interested parties subdivision of a State or foreign nation, The best available scientific and on information in the status review and to protect such species. . . .’’). commercial data as discussed above proposed rule pertaining to potential Therefore, the economic analysis identify the geographical areas occupied ESA section 4(d) protective regulations requirements of the Regulatory by Latimeria chalumnae as being for the proposed threatened DPS, Flexibility Act are not applicable to the entirely outside U.S. jurisdiction, so we including the application, if any, of the listing process. In addition, this final cannot designate critical habitat for this ESA section 9 prohibitions on import, rule is exempt from review under species. take, possession, receipt, and sale of the Executive Order 12866. This final rule We can designate critical habitat in African coelacanth. Additionally, does not contain a collection-of- areas in the United States currently commercial trade, including import and information requirement for the unoccupied by the species only if the export, of the African coelacanth is purposes of the Paperwork Reduction area(s) are determined by the Secretary prohibited as a result of an Appendix I Act.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:41 Mar 28, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29MRR1.SGM 29MRR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 29, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 17403

Executive Order 13132, Federalism Dated: March 23, 2016. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531–1543; subpart Eileen Sobeck, B, § 223.201–202 also issued under 16 U.S.C. In accordance with E.O. 13132, we Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, 1361 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 5503(d) for determined that this final rule does not National Marine Fisheries Service. § 223.206(d)(9). have significant Federalism effects and ■ 2. In § 223.102, amend the table in that a Federalism assessment is not For the reasons set out in the paragraph (e) by adding the entry required. preamble, 50 CFR part 223 is amended ‘‘Coelacanth, African’’ in alphabetical List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 223 as follows: order under the subheading ‘‘’’ to read as follows: Administrative practice and PART 223—THREATENED MARINE procedure, Endangered and threatened AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES § 223.102 Enumeration of threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and marine and anadromous species. recordkeeping requirements, ■ 1. The authority citation for part 223 * * * * * Transportation. continues to read as follows: (e) * * *

Species 1 Citation(s) for listing Critical habitat ESA Rules Common name Scientific name Description of listed entity determination(s)

******* FISHES

******* Coelacanth, African (Tan- Latimeria chalumnae ...... African coelacanth popu- 81 FR [Insert FR page NA NA zanian DPS). lation inhabiting deep number where the doc- waters off the coast of ument begins], March . 29, 2016.

******* 1 Species includes taxonomic species, subspecies, distinct population segments (DPSs) (for a policy statement, see 61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996), and evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) (for a policy statement, see 56 FR 58612, November 20, 1991).

* * * * * coverage requirements for certain small Regulatory Impact Review/Initial [FR Doc. 2016–07001 Filed 3–28–16; 8:45 am] catcher/processors in the Gulf of Alaska Regulatory Flexibility Analysis BILLING CODE 3510–22–P (GOA) and Bering Sea and Aleutian (Analysis), and the Categorical Islands Management Area (BSAI). This Exclusion prepared for this action are final rule modifies the criteria for NMFS available from http:// DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE to place small catcher/processors in the www.regulations.gov or from the NMFS partial observer coverage category under Alaska Region Web site at http:// National Oceanic and Atmospheric the North Pacific Groundfish and alaskafisheries.noaa.gov. Administration Halibut Observer Program (Observer Written comments regarding the Program). Under this final rule, the burden-hour estimates or other aspects 50 CFR Part 679 owner of a non-trawl catcher/processor of the collection of information [Docket No. 150904827–6233–02] can choose to be in the partial observer requirements contained in this final rule coverage category, on an annual basis, if may be submitted by mail to NMFS RIN 0648–BF36 the vessel processed less than 79,000 lb Alaska Region, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, (35.8 mt) of groundfish on an average AK 99802–1668, Attn: Ellen Sebastian, Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic weekly basis in a particular prior , Records Officer; in person at NMFS Zone Off of Alaska; Observer Coverage as specified in this final rule. This final Alaska Region, 709 West 9th Street, Requirements for Small Catcher/ rule provides a relatively limited Room 420A, Juneau, AK; by email to Processors in the Gulf of Alaska and exception to the general requirement [email protected]; or by Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands that all catcher/processors are in the full fax to (202) 395–5806. Groundfish Fisheries observer coverage category, and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries maintains the full observer coverage Anne Marie Eich, 907–586–7228. Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and requirement for all trawl catcher/ SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), processors and catcher/processors Background Commerce. participating in a catch share program that requires full observer coverage. ACTION: Final rule. This final rule implements This final rule promotes the goals of the Amendment 112 to the BSAI FMP and SUMMARY: NMFS issues this final rule to BSAI and GOA FMPs, and the goals and Amendment 102 to the GOA FMP implement Amendment 112 to the objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens (collectively referred to as Amendment Fishery Management Plan for Fishery Conservation and Management 112/102). NMFS published a notice of Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) and other availability (NOA) for Amendment 112/ Aleutian Islands Management Area applicable laws. 102 on December 17, 2015 (80 FR (BSAI FMP) and Amendment 102 to the DATES: Effective March 29, 2016. 78705). The comment period on the Fishery Management Plan for ADDRESSES: Electronic copies of NOA for Amendment 112/102 ended on Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA Amendment 112 to the BSAI FMP and February 16, 2016. The Secretary of FMP) and revise regulations for observer Amendment 102 to the GOA FMP, the Commerce approved Amendment

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:41 Mar 28, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29MRR1.SGM 29MRR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES