1858 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 11, 2005 / Proposed Rules

incident, factors contributing to the consequences of noncompliance with (b) Animal Welfare Regulations, 9 incident, outcome, and measures taken the standards? The federally supported CFR, subchapter A, parts 1 and 2. to prevent future incidents. A record of chimpanzee Sanctuary must comply with the standards of care set forth in § 9.14 Authority of the Secretary of Health such incident and action taken shall be and Human Services to amend or issue available for review by representatives this part and include a statement in the additional standards of care regulations. of the USDA and NIH. All records Annual Progress Report certifying The Secretary of the Department of associated with the transportation of compliance with these standards of care Health and Human Services (or chimpanzees to or from the Sanctuary in accordance with the terms of the designated Federal agency) may amend, current contract between NCRR and the must be maintained for at least one year rescind, or promulgate new regulations Sanctuary contractor. A designated after the movement is completed in if deemed necessary and appropriate to representative of the Secretary will accordance with the current assure compliance with the CHIMP Act. monitor compliance. The responsibility requirements set forth in the Animal Any such proposed changes must be to monitor compliance with the Welfare Regulations (9 CFR 2.80). published in the Federal Register for standards is delegated to the NCRR/ (b) What other transport regulations public comment for a minimum of 60 NIH/DHHS. The NIH/NCRR Project apply to the federally supported days. chimpanzee Sanctuary system? (1) Officer for this contract will conduct General requirements and regulations scheduled site visits at least one time [FR Doc. 05–394 Filed 1–10–05; 8:45 am] applicable to animal transport into and quarterly (or more often if necessary), BILLING CODE 4140–01–P among Sanctuary sites include: review monthly and quarterly reports (i) The contractor will maintain submitted to the Project and Contracts contact with carrier personnel in order Officer, Subcontractors are subjected to DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR to ensure their compliance with proper the same provisions. Failure to comply care of chimpanzees during transit; and with the standards set forth in this part Fish and Wildlife Service (ii) The contractor must submit to the or to correct deficiencies noted within Project Officer by telephone, fax, or e- the allowable time period could result 50 CFR Part 17 mail, the actual shipment schedule and in termination of the contract by the RIN 1018—AI79 proposed method of transport no less Federal Government (DHHS/NIH), than 10 days prior to shipment. The allowing the Secretary to correct the Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Project Officer must be immediately deficiencies according to the terms and and Plants; Proposed Removal of the informed of any changes or delays in conditions outlined in the contract. The Plant Agave arizonica (Arizona agave) this schedule in accordance with the Secretary may impose additional From the Federal List of Endangered terms of the current contract between sanctions on the contractor up to, and and Threatened Plants NCRR and the Sanctuary contractor. including, authorizing assumption or AGENCY: (2) Additional requirements and reassignment of the management of the Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. regulations applicable to ground Sanctuary contract. transportation include: (b) To what type of outside review or ACTION: Proposed rule. inspection will the federally supported (i) Transport must be provided by a SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and USDA licensed intermediate handler; Sanctuary be subjected? As noted in Wildlife Service (Service), under the and paragraph (a) of this section, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as (ii) Transport must adhere to contractor for the Sanctuary will be amended (Act), propose to remove the provisions of the Interstate Commerce monitored on a regularly scheduled plant Agave arizonica (Arizona agave) Commission Authority Animal basis by representatives of the NCRR/ from the Federal List of Endangered and Transportation Regulations. NIH/DHHS. The NCRR representative Threatened Plants. Agave arizonica was (3) Additional requirements and will use facility site visits, reports, listed as endangered on June 18, 1984, regulations applicable to air personal contact, and any other means due to threats of habitat modification transportation include: as appropriate to assure compliance and collection. Evidence collected (i) The International Air Transport with these standards. The contractor subsequent to the listing indicates that Association (IATA) Live Animal and subcontractors are required to plants attributed to Agave arizonica do Regulations if air transportation is obtain and maintain an Animal Welfare not constitute a distinct species but utilized, and Assurance from NIH’s Office of rather are individuals that have resulted (ii) Delivery to and from the airports Laboratory Animal Welfare (OLAW) from recent and sporadic instances of must be provided in an environmentally when chimpanzees are used for non- hybridization between two species. controlled truck per USDA Animal invasive studies as authorized in the Current taxonomic practice is not to Welfare Regulations, (9 CFR part 3, CHIMP Act. involving chimpanzees. In recognize such groups of individuals as subpart F). addition, the Sanctuary must achieve a species. The term ‘‘species,’’ as (4) Requirements and regulations accreditation by a nationally recognized defined by the Act, only includes applicable to shipping units mandate animal program accrediting body (such species, subspecies, and distinct that chimpanzees must be delivered in as the AAALAC, or the AZA) within a population segments. Since Agave properly ventilated, escape-proof units, time frame to be determined by NCRR/ arizonica is not recognized as a species, and each compartmentalized unit must NIH. The federally supported Sanctuary it no longer qualifies for protection have separate water and feed containers must comply with the requirements set under the Act. (9 CFR part 3, subpart F). forth in the Animal Welfare Regulations DATES: Comments on the proposed rule (9 CFR parts 1 through 3). § 9.12 Compliance with the Standards of must be received on or before March 14, Care, USDA and PHS policies and § 9.13 Other Federal laws, regulations, 2005 to ensure our consideration. Public regulations. policies, and statues that apply to the hearing requests must be received by (a) How will compliance with the Sanctuary. February 25, 2005. standards set forth in this part be (a) Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. ADDRESSES: Comments and materials monitored and what are the 2131–2159). concerning this proposal should be sent

VerDate jul<14>2003 09:37 Jan 10, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11JAP1.SGM 11JAP1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 11, 2005 / Proposed Rules 1859

to the Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and We will take into consideration the Field studies on Agave arizonica Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological comments and any additional began in 1983. A natural distribution Services Field Office, 2321 West Royal information received, and such study was not finalized until August Palm Road, Suite 103, Phoenix, Arizona communications may lead to a final 1984 (DeLamater 1984), after the final 85021–4951. The proposal, supporting regulation that differs from this listing rule (49 FR 21055, May 18, 1984) data, and comments are available for proposal. was published. Surveys for this study public inspection, by appointment, were conducted in the New River Public Hearing during normal business hours at the Mountains, and by 1984, ten new clones above address. The Act provides for one or more (vegetative offsets, or buds, from an FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: public hearings on this proposal, if individual plant) were found in these Mima Falk, U.S. Fish and Wildlife requested. Requests must be received mountains. These were individual Service, located in the Tucson suboffice, within 45 days of the date of publication clones of 2–5 rosettes. All of the clones 110 South Church Ave, Suite 3450, of the proposal in the Federal Register. occurred together with two other agaves, Tucson, Arizona 85701 (telephone (520) Such requests must be made in writing Agave toumeyana ssp. bella and A. 670–6150 ext. 225; facsimile (520) 670– and addressed to Field Supervisor (see chrysantha. A. chrysantha is found in 6154). ADDRESSES section). southern and eastern Yavapai Counties, through much of Gila and Maricopa SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Counties, northern and eastern Pinal Public Comments Solicited Agave arizonica, a member of the County, and northeastern Pima County. We intend that any final action agave family, was first discovered by J. Agave toumeyana ssp. bella is restricted resulting from this proposal be as H. Houzenga, M. J. Hazelett, and J. H. to the eastern slope of the Bradshaw accurate and as effective as possible. Weber in the New River Mountains of Mountains, eastern Yavapai to Therefore, comments or suggestions Arizona. Drs. H. S. Gentry and J. H. northwestern and central to southern from the public, other concerned Weber described this species in the Gila County, northeastern Maricopa to governmental agencies, the scientific ‘‘Cactus and Succulent Journal’’ in 1970 northern Pinal County. Neither species community, industry, or any other (Gentry and Weber 1970). This is considered rare. A comparison of interested party concerning this perennial succulent has leaves growing plant characters showed Agave proposed rule are hereby solicited. from the base in a small basal rosette arizonica to be intermediate to the other Comments particularly are sought (i.e., an arrangement of leaves radiating two agave species with which it is concerning: from a crown or center), and is always found in association (DeLamater (1) Biological, commercial trade, or approximately 20–35 centimeters (cm) and Hodgson 1986). Pinkava and Baker other relevant data concerning the (8–14 inches (in)) high and 30–40 cm (1985) suggested that plants recognized taxonomic status or threats (or lack (12–16 in) wide. The leaves are dark as Agave arizonica may be the result of thereof) to this hybrid; green with a reddish-brown to light gray continuing production of hybrid (2) The location and characteristics of border extending nearly to the base, individuals rather than a species of any additional populations not approximately 13–31 cm (5–12 in) long hybrid origin based on their occurrence considered in previous work that might and 2–3 cm (1 in) wide. The slender, only where the ranges of the putative have bearing on the current taxonomic branched flowering stalk is 2.5–4 meters parents overlap; they are found only in interpretation; and (m) (8.2–13 feet (ft)) tall with urn- random, widely scattered locations of (3) Additional information concerning shaped flowers 25–32 millimeters (mm) individual plants and clones; their range, distribution, and population (1 in) long (Hodgson 1999). putative parents have overlapping sizes, particularly if it would assist in Agave arizonica is found on open flowering periods; Agave arizonica’s the evaluation of the accuracy of the slopes in chaparral or juniper grassland morphological characters are current taxonomic interpretation. in Gila, Maricopa, and Yavapai Counties intermediate between the putative Our practice is to make comments between 1,100–1,750 m (3,600–5,800 ft) parents; and they appeared to be that we receive on this rulemaking, in elevation. The plants are often found subfertile (reduced fertilization), including names and home addresses of associated with Juniperus spp., producing pollen with a low percent of respondents, available for public review mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus stainability, or viability. Agave during regular business hours. montanus), Opuntia spp., sotol (Nolina arizonica has a chromosome count (2n) Individual respondents may request that microcarpa), and banana yucca (Yucca of 60, as does both its parents, we withhold their home address from baccata), among other species common indicating that gross chromosomal the rulemaking record, which we will to the chaparral/juniper-oak transition barriers to backcrossing with the honor to the extent allowable by Federal (Hodgson and DeLamater 1988). There putative parents are lacking. Polyploidy law. In some circumstances, we may are estimated to be fewer than 100 (having more than two complete sets of withhold from the rulemaking record a plants in the wild, occurring mainly on homologous chromosomes) is one factor respondent’s identity, as allowable by the Tonto National Forest and a few in determining if a hybrid between two Federal law. If you wish for us to locations on private property. Agave species can become genetically stable. withhold your name and/or address, arizonica plants are associated with That condition is not present in the you must state this prominently at the soils that are shallow, cobbled, and genetic constitution of Agave arizonica. beginning of your comment. However, gravelly, on strongly sloping to very Additional surveys were conducted in we will not consider anonymous steep slopes and rock outcrops on mid- areas that supported sympatric comments. We will make all elevation hills and mountains. The soils populations (occurring together) of the submissions from organizations or are well-drained and derived from a putative parents. This resulted in the businesses, including individuals variety of rocks, including granite, discovery of two clones in the Sierra identifying themselves as gneiss, rhyolite, andesite, ruffs, Ancha Mountains, 100 miles disjunct representatives or officials of limestone, sandstone, and basalt from the New River Mountain locations. organizations or businesses, available (Hodgson and DeLamater 1988). Plants To date, plants and clones are known for public inspection in their entirety. typically flower in May–July. from three areas on the Tonto National

VerDate jul<14>2003 09:37 Jan 10, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11JAP1.SGM 11JAP1 1860 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 11, 2005 / Proposed Rules

Forest (New River Mountains, Sierra the field were destroyed, it is unlikely Agave arizonica was not recognized as Ancha Mountains, and the Humboldt that any unique genetic material would a species in that treatment, which Mountains). These three areas are be lost (M. Baker, Southwest Botanical indicated that it should be referred to as widely separated from each other. The Research, pers. comm. 2004). These Agave X arizonica, a hybrid of recent New River population is the most results support the hypothesis that origin involving A. chrysantha X A. numerous, located 17.94 kilometers Agave arizonica is composed of toumeyana var. bella. (km) (10.7 miles (mi)) west-northwest of individuals that resulted from recent Jolly (in Riesberg 1991) has suggested the Sierra Ancha population. The Sierra and spontaneous instances of protection for a hybrid taxon if (1) Its Ancha population is comprised of one hybridization between two species, and evolution has gone past the point where individual (Trabold 2001). There is is not, at this time, a species of hybrid it can be reproduced through crossing of another hybrid from the Payson area in origin. its putative parents, (2) it is the Humboldt Mountains. This agave is Agave arizonica is most likely a first- taxonomically distinct from its parents, produced from a cross between A. generation (F1) hybrid between two and (3) it is sufficiently rare or toumeyana ssp. toumeyana X A. other species. It is not known if any imperiled. Under these criteria, F1 chrysantha that is sometimes incorrectly individuals of the F1 generation, in situ, hybrids such as Agave arizonica should referred to as Arizona agave (Pinkava have backcrossed with either one of the receive no protection. and Baker 1985). That individual is a parents or with another Agave arizonica In summary, the plant species triploid (3n=90), and therefore has a individual. The latter seems unlikely formerly referred to as Agave arizonica different chromosome count than Agave because of the distance pollen would is now recognized as an interspecific arizonica. have to travel given the low numbers of hybrid produced sporadically and individuals and the great distance spontaneously by the cross of Agave The Desert Botanical Garden (DBG), separating them. Seeds have been chrysantha X Agave toumeyana var. in Phoenix, initiated ecological studies produced in the wild, but it is not bella. Individuals have been determined of Agave arizonica in the mid-1980s known if those seeds were produced to be a hybrid for the following reasons: through 1994. They conducted from Agave arizonica X either parent or (1) They share the same chromosome numerous surveys on the Tonto Agave arizonica X Agave arizonica. number (2n=60) with the putative National Forest, collected seeds in situ Seeds grown out in greenhouse parents, indicating that there are no (outside of confinement), conducted conditions produced plants with wide genetic barriers in place to facilitate experimental crosses in situ and ex situ phenotypic (visible) variations; not all genetic stability, (2) flowering periods of (in an artificial environment), and seedlings represented ‘‘pure’’ Agave the putative parents overlap, (3) started an ex situ collection. DBG’s work arizonica traits. The fact that Agave morphological characters of Agave has shown that Agave arizonica can arizonica can be reliably produced by arizonica are intermediate with those of produce viable seed. In 1985, three crossing the putative parents ex situ the putative parents, (4) Agave arizonica different crosses were performed on lends support to the hypothesis that only occurs where there is overlap with clone #52, in situ, using flowers from Agave arizonica is a recurring F1 the putative parents, (5) it appears to be different panicles (flower stalks). One hybrid. All evidence supports that subfertile, producing pollen with low cross used frozen pollen collected from Agave arizonica individuals are derived percent stainability (pollen viability is Agave arizonica at the DBG, the second from crosses between different species. correlated with the ability of pollen to cross was self-fertilization of clone #52, In other words, each individual Agave absorb certain chemical stains; low and the third cross was uncontrolled arizonica was created spontaneously percent stainability is correlated with outcrossing of clone #52 (flowers were and independently from separate reduced pollen viability), (6) Agave left open to be pollinated by various crossings of the putative parental arizonica can be created, ex situ, by donors). Seed was collected from all species (M. Baker, pers. comm. 2004). crossing the putative parents, indicating three crosses. Cross #1 produced 250 Agave arizonica plants are rare in the that there may be no unique genetic seeds, cross #2 produced 20 seeds, and wild. The likelihood is low that two of characters associated with these plants, cross #3 produced a large quantity of these plants would breed with one and (7) it has not, to anyone’s seeds (Hodgson and DeLamater 1988). another because it is not likely that two knowledge, reproduced itself sexually Cross #2 produced poor seed set from such plants would be close enough to in the field. self-fertilization, while outcrossing with one another and bloom in the same year. Previous Federal Action Agave arizonica pollen produced a high Plants of a clone may produce flowers proportion of viable seed, as did in synchrony, but spatially separated Federal Government action uncontrolled outcrossing. The majority clones may not all bloom at the same concerning Agave arizonica began with of the seeds were planted. Ten months time. The flowering period of Agave section 12 of the Act, which directed the after planting, 10 of the 105 seeds arizonica overlaps with that of its Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution produced from cross #1 germinated. putative parents, and the same insects to prepare a report on those plants Some of those resembled Agave (bumblebees, mining bees of the family considered to be endangered, arizonica, while others did not (W. Halictidae, and solitary bees) visit all threatened, or extinct. This report Hodgson, Desert Botanical Garden, pers. three agave species. This condition can (House Document No. 94–51), which comm. 2003). DBG also conducted lead to back-crosses with one of the included Agave arizonica, was controlled crosses of A. chrysantha and putative parents. Whether Agave presented to Congress on January 9, A. toumeyana ssp. bella. The seeds arizonica can maintain a separate 1975, and accepted by the Service under produced from this cross resulted in genetic identity is not likely, due to low section 4(c)(2), now section 4(b)(3)(A), Agave arizonica plants. Individual numbers, overlap of flowering period of the Act as a petition to list these Agave arizonica plants can therefore be with the putative parents, and lack of an species. The report, along with a created by crosses of the parental effective reproductive isolating statement of our intention to review the species. This condition indicates that mechanism to promote genetic stability. status of the plant taxa, was published there is nothing genetically unique In 1999, Hodgson published a in the Federal Register on July 1, 1975 about Agave arizonica. If all of the treatment for the Agave family for the (40 FR 27823). On June 16, 1976, we Agave arizonica individuals that exist in ‘‘Flora of Arizona’’ (Hodgson 1999). published a proposed rule in the

VerDate jul<14>2003 09:37 Jan 10, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11JAP1.SGM 11JAP1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 11, 2005 / Proposed Rules 1861

Federal Register (41 FR 24523) to classification data were in error. Since subject to the jurisdiction of the United determine approximately 1,700 vascular the time of listing, additional study has States to import or export, transport in plants to be endangered pursuant to shown that Agave arizonica is not a interstate or foreign commerce in the section 4 of the Act. Agave arizonica distinct species, but consists of course of a commercial activity, sell or was included in this proposal. On individuals that are the result of offer for sale in interstate or foreign December 10, 1979, we withdrew all spontaneous, occasional, and commerce, or remove and reduce Agave outstanding proposals not finalized continuing hybridization between two arizonica to possession from areas within two years of their first distinct species. In modern taxonomic under Federal jurisdiction. For plants publication, as required by the 1978 practice, such groups of individuals are listed as endangered, the Act prohibits amendments to the Act. On August 26, not recognized as species. We have the malicious damage or destruction on 1980, the Service received a status concluded that the original taxonomic areas under Federal jurisdiction and the report prepared by four researchers interpretation upon which the listing removal, cutting, digging up, or employed by the Museum of Northern decision was based has not been damaging or destroying of such plants Arizona. This report documented the substantiated by subsequent studies, in knowing violation of any State law or status of, and threats to, the species. On and Agave arizonica does not qualify for regulation, including State criminal December 5, 1980, we published a protection because it does not fit the trespass law. If Agave arizonica is revised notice for plants (45 FR 82479) definition of a species in the Act. removed from the List of Endangered and included Agave arizonica in Our determination that Agave and Threatened Plants, these category 1. Category 1 comprised taxa arizonica should be proposed for prohibitions would no longer apply. for which we had sufficient biological delisting is based on evidence that it is If Agave arizonica is delisted, the information to support their being listed not a species and, therefore, does not requirements under section 7 of the Act as endangered or threatened species. We qualify for protection under the Act, would no longer apply. Federal agencies published a proposed rule to list Agave rather than on the control of threats. The would not be required to consult with arizonica as an endangered species on term ‘‘species,’’ as defined in the Act, us on their actions that may affect Agave May 20, 1983 (48 FR 22757). No critical includes any subspecies of fish or arizonica. habitat was proposed. We received a wildlife or plants, and any distinct If delisted, Agave arizonica would total of 13 written comments on the population segment of any species or continue to receive limited protection proposal. No public hearing was vertebrate fish or wildlife which under Arizona’s Native Plant Law, requested or held. The final rule listing interbreeds when mature. Agave A.R.S., Chapter 7, Section 3–901, which Agave arizonica as endangered was arizonica does not meet this definition specifically prohibits collection except published on May 18, 1984 (49 FR because it is not known to interbreed in for scientific or educational purposes 21055), and concurrent with the situ or otherwise reproduce itself. under permit. proposal, no critical habitat was Hybrid origin of species is considered The 1988 amendments to the Act designated. common within the flowering plants require that all species delisted due to In 1985, a year after Agave arizonica (Grant 1963). Species of hybrid origin recovery be monitored for at least five was listed, the USDA Forest Service are capable of reproducing themselves years following delisting. Agave (FS) petitioned us to delist Agave and maintaining a degree of genetic arizonica is being proposed for delisting arizonica because of its hybrid status. stability. Scientific evidence at this because the taxonomic interpretation We sent out the work on Agave point supports the determination that that it is a species is no longer believed arizonica that had been published for Agave arizonica does not have these to be correct; Agave arizonica is a peer review and solicited comments. characteristics of a species. The plants sporadically occurring hybrid, rather Many of the comments supported are not known to have sexually than a distinct taxon. Therefore, no delisting based on the available reproduced in situ. Agave arizonica monitoring period following delisting evidence; however, the Service plants have sporadically developed in would be required. disagreed that the available data situ from the putative parents, but they Peer Review conclusively proved that Agave have not been reproductively self- arizonica was a hybrid. The Service sustaining. Agave arizonica has never In accordance with our joint policy believed that the results of the been found in well-developed published in the Federal Register on controlled crosses were important for populations or outside patches of its July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek the analysis, and those had not been putative parents. the expert opinions of at least three completed at the time of the review. We have carefully assessed the best appropriate and independent specialists Therefore, on January 21, 1987 (52 FR scientific and commercial information regarding this proposed rule. The 2239), we announced that delisting was available regarding the conclusion that purpose of such review is to ensure that not warranted. Agave arizonica is a hybrid that does our delisting decision is based on not qualify for protection under the Act. scientifically sound data, assumptions, Delisting Analysis Based on this evaluation, the preferred and analyses. We will send copies of After a review of all information action is to remove Agave arizonica this proposed rule to these peer available, we are proposing to remove from the List of Endangered and reviewers immediately following Agave arizonica from the List of Threatened Plants, 50 CFR 17.12. publication in the Federal Register. We Endangered and Threatened Plants, 50 will invite these peer reviewers to CFR 17.12. Section 4(a)(1) of the Act Effects of the Proposed Rule comment, during the public comment and regulations (50 CFR part 424) issued The Act and its implementing period, on the specific assumptions and to implement the listing provisions of regulations set forth a series of general conclusions regarding the proposed the Act set forth the procedures for prohibitions and exceptions that apply delisting. adding species to or removing them to all endangered plants. All We will consider all comments and from Federal lists. The regulations at 50 prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act, information received during the CFR 424.11(d) state that a species may implemented by 50 CFR 17.61, apply to comment period on this proposed rule be delisted if (1) it becomes extinct, (2) Agave arizonica. These prohibitions, in during preparation of a final it recovers, or (3) the original part, make it illegal for any person rulemaking. Accordingly, the final

VerDate jul<14>2003 09:37 Jan 10, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11JAP1.SGM 11JAP1 1862 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 11, 2005 / Proposed Rules

decision may differ from this proposed by the agency within any 12-month Grant, V. 1963. The Origin of Adaptations. rule. period. For purposes of this definition, Columbia University Press, New York. employees of the Federal Government 606 pp. Clarity of the Rule are not included. The Service may not Hodgson, W. and R. DeLamater. 1988. Agave Executive Order 12866 requires each arizonica Gentry and Weber; Summary conduct or sponsor, and you are not of status and report on recent studies. agency to write regulations and notices required to respond to, a collection of Desert Botanical Gardens, Phoenix, AZ. that are easy to understand. We invite information unless it displays a U.S.D.I., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, your comments on how to make this currently valid OMB control number. Albuquerque, NM. 11 pp. proposed rule easier to understand This rule does not include any Hodgson, W. 1999. Vascular plants of including answers to questions such as collections of information that require Arizona: Agavaceae. Journal of Arizona- Nevada Academy of Science 32(1): 1–21. the following: (1) Are the requirements approval by OMB under the Paperwork in the document clearly stated? (2) Does Pinkava, D. J. and M. A. Baker. 1985. Reduction Act. The Agave arizonica is Chromosome and hybridization studies the proposed rule contain technical being proposed for delisting because the language or jargon that interferes with of agaves. Desert Plants. 7(2): 93–100. taxonomic interpretation that it is a Riesberg, L. H. 1991. Hybridization in rare the clarity? (3) Does the format of the species is no longer believed to be plants: insights from case studies in proposed rule (grouping and order of correct; Agave arizonica is a Cercocarpus and Helianthus. In Genetics sections, use of headings, paragraphing, sporadically occurring hybrid, rather and conservation of rare plants. Donald etc.) aid or reduce its clarity? (4) Is the than a distinct taxon. Therefore, no A. Falk and K. E. Holsinger (Eds). Oxford description of the proposed rule in the monitoring period following delisting University Press, New York. 283 pp. Tra¨bold, P. A. 2001. Re-establishment— SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION; section of would be required and so we do not the preamble helpful in understanding Agave arizonica. M.S. thesis. California anticipate a need to request data or State University, Fullerton, CA. 65 pp. the document? (5) What else could we other information from 10 or more do to make the proposed rule easier to persons during any 12-month period to Authors understand? Send a copy of any written satisfy monitoring information needs. If comments about how we could make it becomes necessary to collect The primary authors of this document this rule easier to understand to: Office information from 10 or more non- are staff located at the Ecological of Regulatory Affairs, Department of the Federal individuals, groups, or Services Tucson Sub-office (see Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street NW., organizations per year, we will first ADDRESSES section). Washington, DC 20240. obtain information collection approval List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 National Environmental Policy Act from OMB. Endangered and threatened species, We have determined that an Executive Order 13211 Exports, Imports, Reporting and Environmental Assessment or an recordkeeping requirements, Environmental Impact Statement, as On May 18, 2001, the President issued Transportation. defined under the authority of the Executive Order 13211 on regulations National Environmental Policy Act of that significantly affect energy supply, Proposed Regulation Promulgation 1969, need not be prepared in distribution, and use. Executive Order Accordingly, we hereby propose to connection with regulations adopted 13211 requires agencies to prepare amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. We Statements of Energy Effects when I, title 50 of the Code of Federal published a notice outlining our reasons undertaking certain actions. As this Regulations, as set forth below: for this determination in the Federal proposed rule is not expected to Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR significantly affect energy supplies, PART 17—[AMENDED] 49244). distribution, or use, this action is not a significant energy action and no 1. The authority citation for part 17 Paperwork Reduction Act Statement of Energy Effects is required. continues to read as follows: Office of Management and Budget Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C. References Cited (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR 1320 1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99– implement provisions of the Paperwork DeLamater, R. 1984. Natural distribution and 625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted. Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). status of Agave arizonica Gentry and § 17.12 [Amended] Weber in Arizona with accompanying The OMB regulations at 5 CFR 1320.3(c) 2. Amend § 17.12(h) by removing the define a collection of information as the maps. Prepared for USDA Forest Service Range Management, Albuquerque, NM. entry ‘‘Agave arizonica’’ under obtaining of information by or for an ‘‘FLOWERING PLANTS’’ from the List agency by means of identical questions 11 pp. DeLamater, R. and W. Hodgson. 1986. Agave of Endangered and Threatened Plants. posed to, or identical reporting, arizonica: An endangered species, a Dated: December 7, 2004. recordkeeping, or disclosure hybrid, or does it matter? Proceedings of Marshall Jones, requirements imposed on, 10 or more a California Native Plant Society persons. Furthermore, 5 CFR Conference. Sacramento, CA. Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 1320.3(c)(4) specifies that ‘‘ten or more Gentry, H. S. and J. H. Weber. 1970. Two Service. persons’’ refers to the persons to whom New Agaves in Arizona. Cactus and [FR Doc. 05–442 Filed 1–10–05; 8:45 am] a collection of information is addressed Succulent Journal. 42(5): 223–228. BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

VerDate jul<14>2003 09:37 Jan 10, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11JAP1.SGM 11JAP1