Federal Register Vol. 83, No.202,

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC-8-102, -103, and -106 airplanes, Model DHC-8-200 series airplanes, and Model DHC-8-300 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on July 6, 2018 (83 FR 31493). The NPRM was prompted by reports of arcing and smoke emanating from the windshield, caused by loose or damaged windshield heater terminal lugs. The NPRM proposed to require revising the maintenance or inspection program to incorporate MRB tasks for general visual inspections of the windshield moisture seal. The NPRM also proposed to require re-torqueing the windshield heater terminal lugs, applying a coating to the windshield heater screw heads, doing a chemical cleaning of the wiring and components, doing a visual inspection of the wiring and components, doing an operational test of the pilot's and co-pilot's windshield heating system, and repair if necessary.

We are issuing this AD to address loose terminal lugs and terminal lugs damaged due to fluid ingress between the windshields and side window posts, which could lead to burning of the lugs and cracking of the windshields, and could ultimately cause a loss of cabin pressure, resulting in an emergency descent.

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian AD CF-2017-25, dated July 31, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC-8-102, -103, and -106 airplanes, Model DHC-8-200 series airplanes, and Model DHC-8-300 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. We have considered the comment received. The Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) indicated its support for the NPRM.

We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed, except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.

Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin 8-30-41, Revision A, dated March 24, 2017. This service information describes procedures for re-torqueing the windshield heater terminal lugs and applying Humiseal coating to the screw heads of the windshield heater, doing a chemical cleaning and general visual inspection of the wiring and components, and doing an operational test of the windshield heating system.

Bombardier has also issued the following service information, which describes airworthiness limitation tasks for a general visual inspection of the windshield moisture seal. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models.

• de Havilland Inc. Dash 8 Series 100 Maintenance Task Card Task Number 5610/01, “General Visual Inspection of the Windshield Moisture Seal,” dated August 5, 2017.

• de Havilland Inc. Dash 8 Series 200 Maintenance Task Card Task Number 5610/01, “General Visual Inspection of the Windshield Moisture Seal,” dated August 5, 2017.

• de Havilland Inc. Dash 8 Series 300 Maintenance Task Card Task Number 5610/01, “General Visual Inspection of the Windshield Moisture Seal,” dated March 15, 2017.

This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

We estimate that this AD affects 63 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

We have determined that revising the maintenance or inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although we recognize that this number may vary from operator to operator. In the past, we have estimated that this action takes 1 work-hour per airplane. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program changes for their affected fleet(s), we have determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate. Therefore, we estimate the total cost per operator to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).

We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC-8-300 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on July 6, 2018 (83 FR 31496). The NPRM was prompted by reports indicating that a certain emergency exit door could not be opened during maintenance. The NPRM proposed to require a detailed inspection of the ball bearings of an emergency exit, replacement of bearings if necessary, application of CIC, and revision of the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable.

We are issuing this AD to address corrosion of the emergency exit door ball bearings, which could result in the inability to open the emergency exit door during an emergency evacuation and consequently impede airplane egress.

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2017-30, dated August 30, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC-8-300 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0586.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. We have considered the comment received. The Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) indicated its support for the NPRM.

We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed, except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.

Bombardier has issued the following service information:

• Service Bulletin 8-52-65, dated July 26, 2017, which describes procedures for a detailed inspection of the forward right-hand type I emergency exit door ball bearings for corrosion, seal damage, and loss of lubricant; applying CIC; and replacing emergency exit door ball bearings if necessary.

• de Havilland Inc. Dash 8 Series 300 MaintenanceTask Card Task Number 5220/12 (“Servicing of Forward RH Emergency Exit Mechanisms”), dated March 15, 2017, which describes procedures for servicing the forward right-hand emergency exit door mechanisms.

• Temporary Revision (TR) 54-042, dated April 10, 2018, to the DHC-8-300 Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM), which describes procedures for servicing the type I emergency exit door mechanisms.

This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

We estimate that this AD affects 16 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

We have determined that revising the maintenance or inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although we recognize that this number may vary from operator to operator. In the past, we have estimated that this action takes 1 work-hour per airplane. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program changes for their affected fleet(s), we have determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate. Therefore, we estimate the total cost per operator to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).

We estimate the following costs to do any necessary on-condition actions that would be required based on the results of any required actions. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these on-condition actions:

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2013-11-12, Amendment 39-17472 (78 FR 33206, June 4, 2013) (“AD 2013-11-12”). AD 2013-11-12 applied to certain Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-100-1A10 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2018 (83 FR 10415). The NPRM was prompted by a determination that certain other hydraulic system accumulators must be modified or replaced and life limits must be added. The NPRM proposed to continue to require inspecting for the correct serial number of a certain hydraulic system accumulator, and replacing affected hydraulic system accumulators with new or serviceable accumulators. The NPRM also proposed to expand the applicability and require modifying or replacing certain hydraulic brake system accumulators. The NPRM also proposed to require revising the maintenance or inspection program to add life limits for the accumulators. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of a screw cap or end cap and loss of the related hydraulic system, which could result in damage to airplane structure and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2011-41R1, dated March 27, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model BD-100-1A10 airplanes. The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0161.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. The following presents the comment received on the NPRM and the FAA's response.

NetJets Aviation stated that paragraph (n) of the proposed AD, which requires revising the maintenance or inspection program to incorporate certain life limit tasks, does not reference the Bombardier Challenger 350 Time Limits/Maintenance Check (TLMC) Manual. NetJets Aviation noted that only the Bombardier Challenger 300 TLMC Manual is referenced.

We infer that the commenter is asking that the Bombardier Challenger 350 TLMC Manual be added as another source of service information for accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (n) of this AD. We agree with the commenter's request and have changed paragraph (n) accordingly. Although the tasks identified in the Bombardier Challenger 300 TLMC Manual also apply to Bombardier Challenger 350 airplanes, we have included the Bombardier Challenger 350 TLMC in this AD for clarity.

We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule with the change described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.

We also determined that this change will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final rule.

Bombardier has issued the following service information:

• Service Bulletin 100-32-20, Revision 02, dated April 14, 2015, which describes procedures for modifying (e.g., re-orienting) the installation of the hydraulic brake accumulators.

• Service Bulletin 100-32-21, dated May 24, 2012, which describes procedures for replacing the hydraulic brake system accumulators.

• Task 29-21-13-101 Discard the Auxiliary Hydraulic System Accumulator, Part No. 900095-1, of Section 5-10-11 of Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of Bombardier Challenger 300 BD-100 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks Manual, Revision 17, dated December 15, 2016; and Bombardier Challenger 350, BD-100 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks Manual, Revision 9, dated December 18, 2017, which describes procedures for removal and installation of the hydraulic brake system accumulators. These tasks are distinct since they apply to different airplane models.

• Task 32-43-37-101 Discard the Brake Accumulator, Part No. 33-147500, of Section 5-10-11 of Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of Bombardier Challenger 300 BD-100 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks Manual, Revision 17, dated December 15, 2016; and Bombardier Challenger 350, BD-100 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks Manual, Revision 9, dated December 18, 2017, which describes procedures for removal and installation of the brake accumulators. These tasks are distinct since they apply to different airplane models.

• Task 32-44-05-101 Discard the Emergency/Parking Brake Accumulator, Part No. 33-155500, of Section 5-10-11 of Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of Bombardier Challenger 300 BD-100 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks Manual, Revision 17, dated December 15, 2016; and Bombardier Challenger 350, BD-100 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks Manual, Revision 9, dated December 18, 2017, which describes procedures for removal and installation of the emergency parking brake accumulators. These tasks are distinct since they apply to different airplane models.

This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

We estimate that this AD affects 187 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

We have determined that revising the maintenance or inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although we recognize that this number may vary from operator to operator. In the past, we have estimated that this action takes 1 work-hour per airplane. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program changes for their affected fleet(s), we have determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate. Therefore, we estimate the total cost per operator to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).

We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements that will be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these replacements.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

The International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) and NMFS manage fishing for Pacific halibut through regulations established under the authority of the Halibut Act. The IPHC promulgates regulations governing the halibut fishery under the Convention between the United States and Canada for the Preservation of the Halibut Fishery of the Northern Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea (Convention). The IPHC's regulations are subject to approval by the Secretary of State with the concurrence of the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary). NMFS publishes the IPHC's regulations as annual management measures pursuant to 50 CFR 300.62.

The Halibut Act, at sections 773c(a) and (b), provides the Secretary with general responsibility to carry out the Convention and the Halibut Act. The Halibut Act, at section 773c(c), also provides the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) with authority to develop regulations, including limited access regulations, that are in addition to, and not in conflict with, approved IPHC regulations. Regulations developed by the Council may be implemented by NMFS only after approval by the Secretary.

The Council developed the IFQ Program for the commercial halibut and sablefish fisheries. The IFQ Program for the halibut fishery is implemented by Federal regulations at 50 CFR part 679 under the authority of section 773 of the Halibut Act. The IFQ Program for the sablefish fishery is implemented by the BSAI FMP and Federal regulations at 50 CFR part 679 under the authority of section 303(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

On February 23, 2018, NMFS published a proposed rule (83 FR 8028) and invited public comment. The following summarizes the IFQ Program, the CDQ Program, the need for this final rule, and the anticipated effects of the final rule. Additional detail about the action is provided in the preamble of the proposed rule and in the Analysis.

The IFQ Program for the management of the fixed gear (hook-and-line and pot gear) halibut and sablefish fisheries off Alaska was implemented by NMFS in 1995 (58 FR 59375, November 9, 1993). A central objective of the IFQ Program is to support the social and economic character of the fisheries and the coastal fishing communities where many of these fisheries are based. A detailed description of the IFQ Program can be found in the proposed rule for this action (83 FR 8028, February 23, 2018) and the Analysis.

Under the IFQ Program, access to the fixed gear sablefish and halibut fisheries is limited to those persons holding quota share (QS). QS is an exclusive, revocable privilege that allows the holder to harvest a specific percentage of either the total allowable catch (TAC) in the sablefish fishery or the annual commercial catch limit in the halibut fishery. QS is designated for specific geographic areas of harvest, a specific vessel operation type (catcher vessel or catcher/processor), and for a specific range of vessel sizes that may be used to harvest the sablefish or halibut (vessel category).

This final rule uses the term “Area” to refer to a specific IFQ regulatory area. The IFQ Program designates four vessel categories of halibut QS: Category A shares designated for catcher/processors, vessels that process their catch at sea, and do not have a vessel length restriction; Category B shares designated for catcher vessels greater than 60 feet length overall (LOA); Category C shares designated for catcher vessels greater than 35 feet but less than or equal to 60 feet LOA; and Category D shares designated for catcher vessels less than or equal to 35 feet LOA.

NMFS annually issues IFQ permits to each QS holder. An annual IFQ permit authorizes the permit holder to harvest a specified amount of the IFQ species in a regulatory area from a specific operation type and vessel category. The Council and the public frequently use the terms “IFQ lease” or “lease” to refer to the transfer of IFQ without a transfer of the underlying quota shares (QS). However, NMFS does not generally use the term “lease” in its IFQ Program regulations governing the transfer of IFQ. Therefore, for consistency with the terminology used in the existing regulations and for clarity, this rule uses the term “transfer of IFQ.”

NMFS issues halibut IFQ consistent with the IPHC's regulatory areas. NMFS' IFQ regulatory areas (Areas) are defined in 50 CFR part 679 and described in Figure 15 to part 679 and Section 1.3 of the Analysis. The first action in this rule pertains to Areas 4B, 4C, 4D, and 4E. Area 4B includes waters in the Central and Western Aleutian Islands. Areas 4C, 4D, and 4E include waters north of the Aleutian Islands, in the Bering Sea, and around the Pribilof Islands. The IPHC considers Areas 4C, 4D, and 4E a single stock unit for assessment and management purposes, and the combined Areas are referred to as Area 4CDE in this final rule.

The commercial catch limits for Areas 4B and 4CDE are allocated between two distinct management programs, the CDQ Program and the IFQ Program. Throughout the duration of the IFQ Program, the Area 4E commercial catch limit has been exclusively allocated to the CDQ Program; therefore, no Area 4E QS or IFQ is allocated.

Overall, the halibut IFQ commercial catch limits in Areas 4B and 4CDE have trended downward over the past 15 years (see Section 3.6.1 of the Analysis). The Area 4B commercial catch limit has dropped substantially from 2001 to 2015. In 2015, the Area 4B commercial catch limit for IFQ was less than a quarter of what it was in 2001. The combined commercial catch limit for IFQ in Areas 4C and 4D has seen more fluctuation during this period, but has still experienced an overall downward trend since 2007. In 2007, the combined commercial catch limit for IFQ in Areas 4C and 4D was about 2.2 million pounds; in 2015, it was about 0.7 million pounds.

The CDQ Program was implemented in 1992, and in 1996, the Magnuson-Stevens Act was amended to include provisions specific to the CDQ Program. The purposes of the CDQ Program are (1) to provide eligible western Alaska villages with the opportunity to participate and invest in fisheries in the BSAI management area; (2) to support economic development in western Alaska; (3) to alleviate poverty and provide economic and social benefits for residents of western Alaska; and (4) to achieve sustainable and diversified local economies in western Alaska (16 U.S.C. 1855(i)(1)(A)).

The CDQ Program consists of six different non-profit managing organizations (CDQ groups) representing different geographical regions in Alaska. The CDQ Program receives annual allocations of TAC for a variety of commercially valuable species in the BSAI groundfish, crab, and halibut fisheries, which are in turn allocated among the CDQ groups. Among the species CDQ groups are allocated for commercial fishing, Pacific halibut is an important species for community resident employment and income. NMFS allocates halibut to CDQ groups for commercial fisheries in four Areas: 4B, 4C, 4D, and 4E (see Section 3.5.1 of the Analysis). See Section 3.5.2 of the Analysis for additional detail on the history of the halibut CDQ fishery.

The resident halibut CDQ fleets and criteria for participation in CDQ fisheries vary among the CDQ groups. The resident halibut CDQ fleets are impacted by internal economic decisions made by the CDQ groups and in the ways the CDQ groups choose to promote economic development in their communities. Many of the small boat fishermen in CDQ communities are dependent on the halibut fishery (Section 3.5.3 of the Analysis).

The downward trend of halibut commercial catch limits in Areas 4B and 4CDE over the past 15 years has been dramatic, with current limits significantly lower than those of the recent past years. The recent years of low halibut abundance and the resulting low commercial catch limits in Areas 4B and 4CDE have made it increasingly difficult for most CDQ groups to create a viable commercial halibut fishing opportunity for their community residents.

Under current regulations, CDQ groups cannot receive by transfer any IFQ derived from catcher vessel QS. Current regulations also prohibit halibut QS holders from transferring their IFQ separately from the underlying QS except in very narrow, specific situations (see Section 3.7 of the Analysis for more information).

To address these problems, this final rule creates a voluntary option for IFQ holders in Areas 4B, 4C, or 4D to temporarily transfer their halibut IFQ to a CDQ group in years of extremely low halibut abundance. This flexibility allows CDQ groups to expand the fishing opportunities for the small boat fleets operating out of the CDQ group's communities and provides IFQ holders with the opportunity to receive value for their IFQ when extremely low halibut commercial catch limits may not be large enough to provide for an economically viable fishery for IFQ holders.

This final rule includes three actions. The primary action, Action 1, creates a voluntary option for an IFQ holder to temporarily transfer his or her halibut IFQ to a CDQ group in years of extremely low halibut abundance. Actions 2 and 3 make minor regulatory adjustments to remove an obsolete reference in the IFQ Program regulations and to clarify IFQ vessel use cap regulations, respectively. The following paragraphs provide additional detail on the actions.

This final rule (1) defines the halibut commercial catch limits under which CDQ groups may receive IFQ by transfer, (2) establishes limits on the types and amounts of IFQ that can be transferred, and (3) establishes reporting requirements for CDQ groups receiving IFQ by transfer. This final rule does not convert transferred IFQ to CDQ. Allocations of halibut CDQ will not change under this final rule.

Under this final rule, CDQ groups may receive transfers of halibut catcher vessel IFQ (Categories B, C, and D IFQ) in Areas 4C and 4D when the halibut annual commercial catch limit is less than 1.5 million pounds in Area 4CDE. CDQ groups may receive transfers of halibut catcher vessel IFQ (Categories B, C, and D IFQ) in Area 4B when the annual halibut commercial catch limit is less than 1 million pounds in Area 4B. IFQ holders may transfer both blocked and unblocked IFQ to CDQ groups. This final rule does not revise current regulations that authorize an IFQ holder in Areas 4B, 4C and 4D to transfer his or her Category A halibut IFQ to any qualified person, including a CDQ group. However, as explained later, this rule provides additional harvesting flexibility for Category A halibut IFQ transferred to a CDQ group in years of extremely low halibut abundance.

The Council recommended and NMFS is implementing these thresholds based on an analysis of commercial catch limits between 2008 and 2017, a period of time representing a range of different halibut commercial catch limits and decreasing opportunities for CDQ community fishermen. The Council considered a range of different commercial catch limit thresholds for both Areas 4B and 4CDE before selecting these thresholds. The preamble to the proposed rule provides additional information on the factors considered by the Council and NMFS (83 FR 8028, March 26, 2018).

These thresholds are intended to balance the goal of providing additional halibut fishing opportunities for CDQ residents when the halibut CDQ allocation alone may not be large enough to sustain small vessel resident fisheries, with the need to avoid potential adverse distributional impacts on other halibut IFQ users that could result if IFQ transfers were permitted without restrictions. These thresholds provide the flexibility to transfer halibut IFQ in Areas 4B, 4C, and 4D only during worst case scenarios for halibut commercial catch limits in these areas (Section 2.3 of the Analysis). For Area 4CDE, the Council determined and NMFS agrees that a halibut commercial catch limit below 1.5 million pounds reflects a worst case scenario for Area 4CDE as it represents an extremely low commercial catch limit for these areas. For Area 4B, the Council determined and NMFS agrees that a halibut commercial catch limit below 1 million pounds, which has not been experienced during the last 10 years, reflects a worst case scenario for Area 4B as it represents an extremely low commercial catch limit for this area.

This final rule establishes several limits on the catcher vessel IFQ that can be transferred while providing some flexibility with transferred catcher vessel and catcher/processor IFQ. The rationale for the limits can be found in Section 2.2 of the Analysis and in the preamble to the proposed rule (83 FR 8028, March 26, 2018). The limits are: (1) A CDQ group will be able to receive catcher vessel IFQ by transfer only for an area in which it also holds halibut CDQ; (2) no vessel greater than 51 feet length overall (LOA) may be used to harvest catcher vessel IFQ transferred to a CDQ group; (3) catcher vessel IFQ resulting from QS acquired after December 14, 2015, may not be transferred to a CDQ group until 3 years after the QS was acquired (i.e., a cooling off period); (4) an IFQ holder will not be allowed to transfer catcher vessel halibut IFQ to a CDQ group for more than 2 consecutive years; and (5) in Area 4B, only those QS holders who hold fewer than 76,355 QS units specified for Area 4B will be allowed to transfer their catcher vessel IFQ to CDQ groups.

The first limit prevents a CDQ group from receiving catcher vessel halibut IFQ by transfer for an area in which that CDQ group does not hold halibut CDQ. The Council recommended and NMFS is implementing this limit so that any catcher vessel IFQ transferred to a CDQ group is available for use in conjunction with halibut CDQ that is issued to a CDQ group.

Additionally, under this final rule at § 679.42(a)(1)(iii), a CDQ group that is eligible to receive a transfer of Area 4D catcher vessel IFQ will be able to harvest that IFQ, and any Category A IFQ it holds, in Area 4E (Section 3.5.2 of the Analysis). This flexibility is consistent with section 12(8) of the IPHC annual management measures (83 FR 10390, March 9, 2018), which allows Area 4D halibut CDQ to be harvested in Area 4E.

The second limit prohibits the use of vessels greater than 51 feet LOA to harvest catcher vessel IFQ that is transferred to a CDQ group. The Council recommended and NMFS is implementing this vessel size limit because this is the largest size vessel owned by CDQ community residents that has landed halibut CDQ during the past 10 years, 2008 through 2017 (Section 3.5.3 of the Analysis). Current regulations provide sufficient flexibility to allow IFQ that could be transferred to a CDQ group under this final rule to be fished on a vessel of any length up to 51 feet LOA (see Section 2.4 of the Analysis).

This final rule clarifies that any Area 4D Category A IFQ that is held by a CDQ group or transferred to a CDQ group may be fished in Area 4E by vessels less than or equal to 51 feet LOA when the commercial catch limit threshold in Area 4CDE is triggered. This final rule does not revise current regulations that authorize Category A IFQ for Areas 4B, 4C, or 4D to be fished in the corresponding area on a vessel of any length.

Under the third limit, IFQ resulting from QS acquired after December 14, 2015, may not be transferred to a CDQ group until 3 years after the QS was acquired (i.e., the date NMFS approved the transfer). This provision effectively creates a “cooling off” period. The Council recommended and NMFS is implementing this cooling off period to reduce the incentive for individuals to acquire QS with the intention of transferring the resulting IFQ to CDQ groups rather than fishing the IFQ.

The fourth limit prohibits an IFQ holder from transferring catcher vessel halibut IFQ for a specific IFQ regulatory area to a CDQ group for more than two consecutive years. This two-year limit applies to calendar years and only to years in which the commercial catch limit is below the threshold. Additionally, this limit applies to the transfer of any halibut IFQ for a specific area. If an IFQ holder chooses to transfer some but not all of his or her IFQ for a particular area during a year when the annual commercial catch limit for that area is set below the threshold, that transfer will count towards the two-year limit. Transfers of IFQ for one area will not affect the ability to transfer IFQ for another area. This final rule limits the potential for an IFQ holder to continuously transfer IFQ to CDQ groups rather than fishing that IFQ or transferring the underlying QS to other new entrants in the fishery.

Under the fifth limit, only catcher vessel QS holders that hold fewer than 76,355 QS units specified for Area 4B may transfer their catcher vessel IFQ to CDQ groups. NMFS will consider all categories of Area 4B QS holdings regardless of blocked or unblocked status. This limit ensures that persons holding larger amounts of QS units continue to be active fishermen in the Area 4B halibut fishery while providing an opportunity for persons holding smaller amounts of QS units to transfer catcher vessel IFQ to CDQ groups if the 1 million pound commercial catch limit threshold to allow IFQ transfers is met. As described in the proposed rule (83 FR 8028, March 26, 2018), this limitation applies only for Area 4B to accommodate the specific nature of IFQ operations in the remote Aleutian Island communities in Area 4B.

This final rule establishes a reporting requirement for CDQ groups that receive IFQ by transfer. The report is required only for those years in which CDQ groups received IFQ by transfer. CDQ groups that receive IFQ by transfer will be required to report the annual amount and vessel category of Area 4 halibut IFQ transferred to the CDQ group, the criteria used to select IFQ holders to transfer Area 4 halibut IFQ to the CDQ group, and the criteria used to determine the person(s) eligible to fish Area 4 halibut IFQ received by transfer. This report will allow the Council, NMFS, and the public to monitor the use of IFQ transferred to CDQ groups and provide the Council with information to determine whether the use of transferred IFQ is consistent with its intent for the action. This final rule requires the report to be submitted to NMFS and the Council no later than January 31 of the year after the IFQ was transferred to the CDQ group. This deadline is consistent with other reports required under the IFQ Program and ensures that NMFS and the Council have received the report prior to the issuance of IFQ, which typically occurs in mid-February. If a CDQ group is required to submit a report and does not do so by the deadline, the CDQ group will be ineligible to receive transfers of catcher vessel IFQ until the report is submitted.

Under this final rule, a CDQ group that wants to receive halibut IFQ by transfer will make an arrangement with an IFQ holder to transfer his or her IFQ. The CDQ group must complete an Application for Temporary Transfer of Halibut and Sablefish IFQ and submit the application to NMFS for approval. Once approved, NMFS will issue the CDQ group an IFQ permit with the pounds of halibut IFQ that will be available to be fished. After determining who will fish the halibut IFQ, the CDQ group with the IFQ permit must apply to NMFS for a hired master permit for the vessel operator designated to fish the halibut IFQ. Current regulations authorize a vessel operator to harvest halibut IFQ and CDQ on the same fishing trip. A vessel operator harvesting both halibut CDQ and IFQ transferred to a CDQ group is required to carry (1) a halibut CDQ permit, (2) a CDQ hired master permit, (3) a copy of the IFQ permit of the CDQ group, and (4) an IFQ hired master permit. Additionally, any vessels fishing halibut IFQ transferred to a CDQ group will be subject to the current IFQ vessel use caps under § 679.42(h)(1). If a vessel harvests both halibut IFQ and CDQ, only the halibut IFQ accrues towards, and is subject to, the vessel use cap.

Halibut that is landed by a vessel operator harvesting CDQ and IFQ will be debited off two separate catch limits. Therefore, for purposes of catch accounting, participants are required to track what amount of halibut harvest is associated with the group's CDQ and what amount is associated with the IFQ permit held by the CDQ group. This distinction must be recorded on the fish ticket (Section 3.8.11.3 of the Analysis). NMFS updated the database that monitors transfers of IFQ between permit holders and that is used to issue hired master permits to allow for this new type of transfer (see Section 3.8.11.4 of the Analysis).

Under this final rule, CDQ groups are responsible for cost recovery fees based on the amount of IFQ pounds held on the IFQ permit. Section 304(d)(2)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act obligates NMFS to recover the actual costs of management, data collection, and enforcement (direct program cost) of the IFQ fisheries. Therefore, NMFS implemented a cost recovery fee program for the IFQ fisheries in 2000 (65 FR 14919, March 20, 2000). While costs specific to the CDQ Program for halibut are recoverable through a separate cost recovery program (81 FR 150, January 5, 2016), this final rule requires regulatory changes to the IFQ transfer and hired master use provisions and therefore constitutes a change in management of the IFQ Program. CDQ group participants receiving IFQ transfers will be required to pay an IFQ cost recovery fee as a portion of the ex-vessel value of their landed halibut.

Section 8(2) of the IPHC annual management measures (83 FR 10390, March 9, 2018) authorizes a vessel operator harvesting halibut CDQ in Areas 4D or 4E to retain halibut that are less than the size limit established by the IPHC for personal use. Under the status quo, a vessel operator harvesting halibut IFQ held by a CDQ group along with halibut CDQ may retain halibut less than legal size for personal use. Vessel operators harvesting both halibut CDQ and halibut IFQ transferred to a CDQ group in Areas 4D or 4E may retain halibut smaller in length than the size limit established by the IPHC for personal use as specified in section 8 of the IPHC annual management measures. The personal use allotment applies to all halibut IFQ transferred to a CDQ group under this exemption. Section 8(3) of the IPHC annual management measures requires a CDQ group to report on all retained halibut for personal use that are smaller than legal size and harvested on behalf of a CDQ group.

This final rule modifies the definition of “annual commercial catch limit” at 50 CFR 300.61 to include definitions for Areas 3B and 4A, and for Areas 4B, 4C, 4D, and 4E.

This final rule modifies § 679.41 to allow transfer of halibut IFQ in Areas 4B, 4C, and 4D in years of low halibut commercial catch limits in Areas 4B and 4CDE to CDQ groups along with the specific conditions under which this transfer activity may occur.

This final rule adds a reporting requirement under § 679.5(l)(10) to require a CDQ group to submit a report to NMFS and the Council on the criteria it used to select IFQ holders from whom IFQ transfers were received, the criteria it used to determine the persons who could harvest transferred IFQ, and the amount and type of IFQ transferred.

This final rule adds a provision under § 679.42 to allow Area 4D IFQ that is transferred to a CDQ group to be harvested in Area 4E.

The preamble to the proposed rule describes the anticipated effects of Action 1 on CDQ groups, CDQ residents, IFQ holders, and halibut QS holders (83 FR 8028, March 26, 2018).

Overall, this final rule provides IFQ holders and CDQ groups with an opportunity to alleviate the adverse economic, social, and cultural impacts of extremely low levels of commercial halibut catch limits on Western Alaskan communities. This final rule could also provide distributional benefits to some processing plants, secondary service providers, and communities as a whole. This final rule could benefit halibut QS holders in Areas 4B, 4C, and 4D by permitting them to transfer their Area 4B, 4C, and 4D halibut IFQ in years of extremely low commercial catch limits. This final rule could also result in some consolidation of the number of IFQ trips, and could affect the decisions of QS holders to transfer their QS if they have the ability to transfer their IFQ to CDQ groups. The preamble of the proposed rule (83 FR 8028, March 26, 2018) and Section 3.8 of the Analysis have additional details on the anticipated effects of Action 1.

This final rule removes an obsolete reference in § 679.42(a)(2)(i). Currently, this regulation provides an exception to a prohibition at § 679.42(a)(2). However, the exception refers to § 679.42(k), which was modified in 2008 by the final rule to revise regulations governing the use of commercial halibut QS and the processing of non-IFQ species when processed halibut is on board a vessel (73 FR 8822; February 15, 2008). That final rule removed paragraph (k) and re-designated § 679.42(l) as paragraph (k). NMFS inadvertently neglected to remove the cross-reference to paragraph (k) in § 679.42(a)(2)(i). Therefore, with this final rule, NMFS removes the cross-reference to paragraph (k) to clarify that persons possessing unused Category B, C, or D halibut QS may be on board a catcher/processor vessel when that vessel is harvesting and processing Category A halibut or sablefish IFQ, or is harvesting and processing non-IFQ species. The effects of this action are expected to be minor and beneficial by improving the clarity of the regulations.

This final rule clarifies existing regulations pertaining to the IFQ vessel limitations, also referred to as the vessel use caps. NMFS adds language to § 679.42(h)(1) and (h)(2) to clarify that the vessel use caps apply to halibut and sablefish IFQ and not to halibut and sablefish CDQ. This action improves the clarity of the regulations and helps IFQ and CDQ participants understand the regulations to which they are subject. The effects of this action are expected to be minor and beneficial by improving the clarity of the regulations.

NMFS received 4 comment letters on the proposed rule. One of the comment letters was outside the scope of this action. NMFS has summarized and responded to the six unique comments in the remaining three comment letters.

Comment 1: There should not be a transfer of halibut IFQ during years of low abundance unless they give back to others during years of high abundance. They harvest so much that they caused the low abundance.

Response: NMFS disagrees. Based on the best available scientific information from the IPHC, halibut is not considered to be subject to overfishing as that term is defined by the IPHC (Section 3.6.1 of Analysis). As described in Section 3.6.1 of the Analysis, annual catch limits are set in a precautionary manner to achieve optimum yield on a continuing basis. As described in the proposed rule and Section 3.6.1 of the Analysis, this final rule does not increase the overall amount of halibut in Areas 4B or 4CDE that is authorized to be harvested on an annual basis. The final rule establishes a voluntary program that provides participants with an opportunity to utilize available catch to mutual benefit during times of low abundance and does not require QS holders to transfer IFQ to CDQ groups during times of low abundance or require CDQ groups to transfer IFQ back to QS holders during times of high abundance.

Comment 2: This rule allows leasing quota when the fish populations are low and it would increase the chance of overfishing the halibut stock.

Response: Annual halibut commercial catch limits are adjusted downward with decreasing abundance to protect the stock and prevent overfishing. This final rule does not change the process of allocating halibut among Areas or the process of establishing halibut commercial catch limits, nor will this final rule change specific management measures that govern the harvest of halibut in Areas 4B and 4CDE, such as fishing location, timing, effort, or authorized gear types. Section 3.6.1 of the Analysis describes the current status of the halibut stock which is not overfished or subject to overfishing. This final rule creates an exception to allow CDQ groups to receive IFQ by transfer, within the established annual catch limits, in years of low abundance. Therefore, this final rule will not increase the chance of overfishing of the halibut stock.

Comment 3: It is worth pausing to remember how bad the old days were, prior to implementation of the IFQ program. In order to catch as much of the TAC as possible, the industry did not pay attention to the environmental impact of its operations, worker safety, and excessive bycatch. NOAA is right to continue to refine this outstanding program. The proposed rule to allow transfers of IFQ to CDQ groups is well-written and prevents abuse of the program by “mailbox-fishermen” and favors the coastal communities.

Response: NMFS acknowledges this comment.

Comment 4: If the halibut stock is low enough to trigger this flexibility, expanding flexibility will further aggravate the problem of an overfished stock. When the stock is low, then everyone should suffer, both CDQ fishermen and IFQ fishermen, in order for the stock to regenerate.

Response: NMFS disagrees. Annual halibut commercial catch limits are set with precaution and adjusted downward in times of low abundance to avoid overfishing. The flexibility provided by this final rule will not create an overfished condition or contribute to overfishing. This final rule does not modify the methods for apportioning halibut catch limits between the CDQ and IFQ Programs. As halibut catch limits increase or decrease based on halibut abundance, participants in the CDQ and IFQ Programs are not affected any differently under this final rule than under current regulations. If the catch limit threshold is low enough to trigger the ability for QS holders to transfer their IFQ to CDQ groups, then QS holders and CDQ groups benefit from a voluntary market transaction. Disapproving this rule would not increase halibut abundance. Section 3.8 of the Analysis provides additional detail on the anticipated effects of this final rule.

Comment 5: NMFS should consider setting lease terms for this exception because if the cost of the lease is too high, the benefits of the proposed rule would be blunted.

Response: The Council and NMFS did not want to be involved in setting lease terms, similar to other transfer exceptions in the IFQ Program. The IFQ Program relies on market-based values and NMFS anticipates that IFQ and CDQ participants would come to a private agreement in this voluntary exception. In Section 3.8.7 of the Analysis, NMFS describes the impact that the transfer of IFQ (i.e., leasing) could have on QS markets. As described in the preamble of this final rule, there are several limitations on the transfer of IFQ. These limitations are intended, in part, to maintain current fishing business practices and to limit potential adverse impacts on a range of participants in the CDQ and IFQ Programs. This final rule does not establish additional requirements on the specific agreements between QS holders and CDQ groups when transferring IFQ because the limitations established by this final rule sufficiently constrain the amount of IFQ, the vessel category of IFQ, and the specific halibut catch limits conditions in Areas 4B and 4CDE IFQ that may be transferred.

Comment 6: NMFS should terminate the policy to allow unused quota to carry over to the next season and instead allow unused quota to carry over to the next season only for the purposes of leasing it to CDQ groups.

Response: This final rule does not modify existing regulations that allow a QS holder's annual IFQ allocation to be adjusted to cover under- or over-harvest from the previous year (see regulations at § 679.40(d) and (e)). The Council focused on alternatives that would allow transfer of IFQ to CDQ groups within the year of low halibut commercial catch limits, rather than adjusting over/under harvest rules that would apply to the following year when the halibut commercial catch limits may not be under the thresholds, as a more direct method of addressing the issue.

Section 3507(c)(B)(i) of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) requires that agencies inventory and display a current control number assigned by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), for each agency's information collection. Section 902.1(b) identifies the location of NOAA regulations for which OMB approval numbers have been issued. Because this final rule adds a new collection-of-information for recordkeeping and reporting requirements, 15 CFR 902.1(b) is revised to reference correctly the section resulting from this final rule.

NMFS makes two minor changes to the proposed regulatory text in this final rule. First, § 679.5(l)(10) is changed to include the words “and the Council.” New regulations at § 679.5(w) require a CDQ group to submit a report to both NMFS and the Council. Adding this language to § 679.5(l)(10) creates consistency between these sections. Second, NMFS changes “halibut IFQ” to “IFQ halibut” in § 679.42(h)(1) and “sablefish IFQ” to “IFQ sablefish” in § 679.42(h)(2). The proposed changes were intended to refer to the type of fish (IFQ halibut and IFQ sablefish defined at § 679.2) that will count towards the vessel limits prescribed by these paragraphs rather than the type of fishing rights (halibut IFQ and sablefish IFQ).

The NMFS Alaska Region Administrator determined that this final rule is necessary for the conservation and management of the IFQ halibut fishery off Alaska and that it is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Halibut Act, and other applicable laws.

Regulations governing the U.S. fisheries for Pacific halibut are developed by the IPHC, the Pacific Fishery Management Council, the Council, and the Secretary of Commerce. Section 5 of the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 (Halibut Act, 16 U.S.C. 773c) allows the Regional Council having authority for a particular geographical area to develop regulations governing the allocation and catch of halibut in U.S. Convention waters as long as those regulations are in addition to, and not in conflict with, IPHC regulations. This final rule is consistent with the Council's authority to allocate halibut catches among fishery participants in the waters in and off Alaska.

This final rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866.

The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration during the proposed rule stage that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for the certification was published in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. No comments were received regarding this certification or on the economic impacts of the rule more generally. As a result, a regulatory flexibility analysis was not required, and none was prepared, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605.

This final rule contains collection-of-information requirements subject to the PRA, which have been approved by OMB under OMB control number 0648-0764. After this final rule's effective date, OMB Control Number 0648-0764 will be merged with OMB Control Numbers 0648-0272 and 0648-0711.

Public reporting burden is estimated to average per response: 2 hours for Application for Temporary Transfer of Halibut and Sablefish IFQ, 40 hours for the annual report, and 1 minute for electronic submission of cost recovery fees or 30 minutes for non-electronic fee submission. These estimates include the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.

Send comments regarding these burden estimates or any other aspect of this data collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to NMFS (see ADDRESSES), and by email to [email protected], or fax to (202) 395-5806.

Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirement of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number. All currently approved NOAA collections of information may be viewed at: http://www.cio.noaa.gov/services_programs/prasubs.html.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS amends 15 CFR part 902 and 50 CFR parts 300 and 679 as follows:

I. Background A. Treasury's Large Position Reporting Rules

The LPR Rules 1 are issued under the Government Securities Act (GSA),2 as amended, for the purposes of monitoring the impact of large positions in Treasury securities in the Treasury securities market and otherwise assisting the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in enforcing the GSA.3 The LPR Rules provide an on-demand reporting system 4 that requires reports to be filed by entities that control 10 percent or more in a particular Treasury security (or securities) as of a particular date. The reports provide information on large positions in Treasury securities held by market participants and additional insight into the supply and demand dynamics in certain Treasury securities.5 This information allows Treasury to monitor the impact of concentrations of positions.6 Since the rules became effective in 1997, Treasury has conducted 16 large position report calls.

Treasury's LPR Rules apply to all foreign and domestic persons and entities that control a reportable position in a Treasury security, including but not limited to: Government securities brokers and dealers; registered investment companies; registered investment advisers; custodians, including depository institutions that exercise investment discretion; hedge funds; pension funds; insurance companies; and foreign affiliates of U.S. entities. Central banks (including U.S. Federal Reserve Banks for their own account), foreign governments, and international monetary authorities may voluntarily submit large position reports when they meet or exceed a reporting threshold.

Under the current LPR Rules, reports are required to be filed by facsimile (fax) or delivered by hardcopy to FRBNY. A report is considered filed when received by FRBNY. Reporting entities typically have three and one-half business days to submit reports, and most reports are filed by fax with FRBNY. Following previous calls for large position reports, many reporting entities have commented that it is difficult to find functional fax machines and would prefer an alternate means of submission. In response to this feedback, Treasury is currently exploring alternate options for the submission of reports.

These technical amendments make no substantive changes to the LPR Rules. They are designed to provide Treasury with the flexibility to specify in its notice requesting large position reports where and how reports are to be filed. These amendments will also provide Treasury with the added flexibility to consider alternate means of submission, which may further reduce the burden on reporting entities. Treasury will provide notice of a request for reports, and how the reports are to be delivered, by issuing a public announcement and subsequently publishing the notice in the Federal Register.

Specifically, the technical amendments replace references to “press release” with “public announcement;” provide the option for Treasury to specify in its public announcement that reports can be submitted to Treasury directly; and provide the option for Treasury to specify in its public announcement how reports are to be submitted by removing references to “facsimile” and “delivered hard copy.”

Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule is not a significant regulatory action for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

This final rule is procedural in nature under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A) and therefore prior notice and comment procedures are not required. In addition, because the final rule makes no substantive change to the existing rules and imposes no additional requirements, we find under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) that there is good cause that notice and public procedures are unnecessary, and that the rule can be issued in final form.

Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexiblity Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) do not apply. These amendments reflect Treasury's continuing interest in meeting its informational needs while minimizing the cost and burden on those entities affected by the regulations.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, 17 CFR part 420 is amended as follows:

Pursuant to the authority granted in 33 U.S.C. 1605, the DoN amends 32 CFR part 706.

This amendment provides notice that the DAJAG (Admiralty and Maritime Law), under authority delegated by the Secretary of the Navy, has certified that USS BILLINGS (LCS 15) is a vessel of the Navy which, due to its special construction and purpose, cannot fully comply with the following specific provisions of 72 COLREGS without interfering with its special function as a naval ship: Annex I paragraph 2 (a)(i), pertaining to the height of the forward masthead light above the hull: And Annex I paragraph 3(a), pertaining to the location of the forward masthead light in the forward quarter of the ship, and the horizontal distance between the forward and after masthead light. The DAJAG (Admiralty and Maritime Law) has also certified that the lights involved are located in closest possible compliance with the applicable 72 COLREGS requirements.

Moreover, it has been determined, in accordance with 32 CFR parts 296 and 701, that publication of this amendment for public comment prior to adoption is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to public interest since it is based on technical findings that the placement of lights on this vessel in a manner differently from that prescribed herein will adversely affect the vessel's ability to perform its military functions.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the DoN amends part 706 of title 32 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable. Due to the timing of the event, we are unable to issue a NPRM before the event is scheduled.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. This rule is necessary for the safety of life during the event on these navigable waters. For the reasons above, including the timing of the event, it would be impracticable to delay this rule to provide a full 30 days' notice.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1233, which authorizes the Coast Guard to establish and define special local regulations. The COTP San Diego is establishing a special local regulation for the waters of the San Diego Bay bound landward of a line by coordinates starting west at 32°43.033′ N and 117°12.792′ W and proceeding east to 32°43.166′ N and 117°12.266′ W, proceeding east to 32°43.166′ N and 117°11.633′ W, and ending at 32°43.100′ N and 117°11.300′ W. The purpose of this rule is to ensure safety of participants, vessels and the navigable waters in the regulated area before, during, and after the scheduled event.

This rule establishes a special local regulation from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on October 17, 2018 through October 21, 2018. The special local regulation will cover all navigable waters of the San Diego Bay bound landward of a line by coordinates starting west at 32°43.033′ N and 117°12.792′ W and proceeding east to 32°43.166′ N and 117°12.266′ W, proceeding east to 32°43.166′ N and 117°11.633′ W, and ending at 32°43.100′ N and 117°11.300′ W. The purpose of this rule is to ensure safety of participants, vessels and the navigable waters in the regulated area before, during, and after the scheduled event. Persons and vessels will be prohibited from anchoring, blocking, loitering, or impeding within this regulated waterway unless authorized by the COTP, or his designated representative, during the specified dates and times. Additionally, movement of all vessels within the regulated area and entry of all vessels into the regulated area will be restricted. The Coast Guard will publish information on the event in the weekly LNM.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance, it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.

This regulatory action determination is based on size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the special local regulation. The Coast Guard will publish a LNM that details the vessel restrictions of the regulated area.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in the impacted portion of the San Diego Bay bound landward of a line by coordinates starting west at 32°43.033′ N and 117°12.792′ W and proceeding east to 32°43.166′ N and 117°12.266′ W, proceeding east to 32°43.166′ N and 117°11.633′ W, and ending at 32°43.100′ N and 117°11.300′ W from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on October 17, 2018 through October 21, 2018.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves establishment of marine event special local regulations on a portion of the navigable waters of the San Diego Bay. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L61 and L63(b) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places or vessels.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

I. Background

Each state has a SIP containing the control measures and strategies used to attain and maintain the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The SIP is extensive, containing such elements as air pollution control regulations, emission inventories, monitoring networks, attainment demonstrations, and enforcement mechanisms.

Each state must formally adopt the control measures and strategies in the SIP after the public has had an opportunity to comment on them and then submit the proposed SIP revisions to EPA. Once these control measures and strategies are approved by EPA, and after notice and comment, they are incorporated into the federally-approved SIP and are identified in part 52 “Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans,” title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR part 52). The full text of the state regulation approved by EPA is not reproduced in its entirety in 40 CFR part 52, but is “incorporated by reference.” This means that EPA has approved a given state regulation with a specific effective date. The public is referred to the location of the full text version should they want to know which measures are contained in a given SIP. The information provided allows EPA and the public to monitor the extent to which a state implements a SIP to attain and maintain the NAAQS and to take enforcement action if necessary.

The SIP is a living document which a state revises as necessary to address its unique air pollution problems. Therefore, EPA, from time to time, must take action on SIP revisions containing new and/or revised regulations as being part of the SIP. On May 22, 1997 (62 FR 27968), EPA revised the procedures for incorporating by reference federally-approved SIPs, as a result of consultations between EPA and the Office of the Federal Register (OFR). The description of the revised SIP document, IBR procedures and “Identification of plan” format are discussed in further detail in the May 22, 1997, Federal Register document. On February 10, 2005 (70 FR 7024), EPA published a Federal Register beginning the new IBR procedure for West Virginia. On February 28, 2007 (72 FR 8903), February 10, 2009 (74 FR 6542), December 28, 2010 (75 FR 81474), July 25, 2013 (78 FR 44884), and June 14, 2017 (82 FR 27118) EPA published updates to the IBR material for West Virginia. Since the publication of the last IBR update, EPA has approved into the SIP the following regulatory changes to the following West Virginia regulations:

None.

In this action, EPA is announcing the update to the IBR material as of May 1, 2018 and revising the text within 40 CFR 52.2520(b). In addition, notice is provided of correcting Federal Register citations listed in the Table (c) paragraph of 40 CFR 52.2520, as described: A. Under the “EPA approval date” EPA is correcting numerous Federal Register citation locations to reflect the first page of the preamble opposed to the regulatory text page for West Virginia regulations 45 CSR Series 8 and 45 CSR Series 14.

EPA has determined that this rule falls under the “good cause” exemption in section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) which, upon finding “good cause,” authorizes agencies to dispense with public participation and section 553(d)(3) which allows an agency to make a rule effective immediately (thereby avoiding the 30-day delayed effective date otherwise provided for in the APA). This rule simply codifies provisions which are already in effect as a matter of law in federal and approved state programs. Under section 553 of the APA, an agency may find good cause where procedures are “impractical, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Public comment is “unnecessary” and “contrary to the public interest” since the codification only reflects existing law. Immediate notice in the CFR benefits the public by removing outdated citations and incorrect table entries.

In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of previously EPA approved regulations promulgated by the State of West Virginia and federally effective prior to May 1, 2018. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region III Office (please contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section of this preamble for more information).

Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866.

• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and

• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

EPA has also determined that the provisions of section 307(b)(1) of the CAA pertaining to petitions for judicial review are not applicable to this action. Prior EPA rulemaking actions for each individual component of the West Virginia SIP compilations had previously afforded interested parties the opportunity to file a petition for judicial review in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit within 60 days of such rulemaking action. Thus, EPA sees no need in this action to reopen the 60-day period for filing such petitions for judicial review for this “Identification of plan” update action for West Virginia.

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

On October 2, 2017, we published a proposed rule to remove Deseret milkvetch from the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants (i.e., to “delist” the species) (82 FR 45779). Please refer to that proposed rule for a detailed description of the Federal actions concerning this species that occurred prior to October 2, 2017.

Deseret milkvetch was first collected in 1893, again in 1909, then not located again until 1981 (Barnaby 1989, p. 126; Franklin 1990, p. 2). The gap in collections may be due to confusion regarding initial records, which were wrongly attributed to Sanpete County, Utah (Franklin 1990, p. 2). The 1964 description and classification of Deseret milkvetch by Barneby is the accepted taxonomic status (Barneby 1989, p. 126; ITIS 2015).

Deseret milkvetch is a perennial, herbaceous plant in the legume family with silvery-gray pubescent leaves that are 2 to 5 inches (4 to 12 centimeters) long and flower petals that are white to pinkish with lilac-colored tips (Barneby 1989, p. 126). The flower structure indicates an adaptation to pollination primarily by large bees, likely bumblebees (Bombus spp.), which are generalist pollinators (Stone 1992, p. 4). The species appears to be tolerant of drought (Stone 1992, p. 3). A more detailed description of the biology and life history of Deseret milkvetch can be found in our 5-year review of the species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2011, pp. 5-7).

Deseret milkvetch is endemic to Utah County in central Utah, with the only known population near the town of Birdseye (Stone 1992, p. 2). It occurs exclusively on sandy-gravelly soils weathered from the Moroni geological formation, which are limited to an area of approximately 100 square miles (mi2) (259 square kilometers (km2)) (Franklin 1990, p. 4; Stone 1992, p. 3). The species is known to occur at elevations of 5,400 to 5,700 feet (ft) (1,646 to 1,737 meters (m)) (Stone 1992, p. 2; Anderson 2016, pers. comm.; Fitts 2016, pers. comm.). Based upon the species' narrow habitat requirements, it has likely always been rare, with little unoccupied suitable habitat (Franklin 1990, p. 6; Stone 1992, p. 6).

Deseret milkvetch is found on steep south- and west-facing slopes with scattered Colorado pinyon pine (Pinus edulis) and Utah juniper (Juniperus osteosperma) (Franklin 1990, p. 2). It also grows on west-facing road-cuts where plants are typically larger than those found in undisturbed habitat (Franklin 1990, p. 2). The species' habitat is sparsely vegetated (SWCA Environmental Consultants 2015, p. 7). The species is an associate of the pinyon-juniper plant community. It is not shade-tolerant but is found in open areas between trees (Goodrich et al. 1999, p. 265).

Deseret milkvetch is probably a relatively new species on the scale of geologic time. The species' genus has the ability to colonize disturbed or unstable habitats in dry climates. This ability has likely hastened the evolution of the genus and given rise to many species of Astragalus that are sharply differentiated and individually geographically restricted (Stone 1992, p. 6). Deseret milkvetch tolerates at least some degree of disturbance, such as that caused by road maintenance activities (Franklin 1990, p. 2; Fitts and Fitts 2009, p. 5).

In 1990, surveys for Deseret milkvetch estimated fewer than 5,000 plants in a single population (Franklin 1990, p. 3). A subsequent survey at the same site in 1992 estimated more than 10,000 plants, indicating that a large seed bank likely exists (Stone 1992, p. 7). Consequently, at the time of listing, we estimated a total population of 5,000 to 10,000 plants (64 FR 56590, October 20, 1999).

In 2008, the Utah Natural Heritage Program surveyed suitable habitats and provided a total population estimate for the species (Fitts 2008, p. 1). The surveyors found new plant sites (hereafter referred to as a colony) to the north and west of the previously known population. The total population estimate was 152,229 plants--including seedlings, juveniles, and adults (Fitts and Fitts 2009, p. 4), well above the number of plants known to occur in 1990. If only adults were counted in the 2008 survey, the population estimate was 86,775 to 98,818 plants (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2011, p. 10). The species remains known from a single population, with multiple colonies.

In 2009, surveys were expanded, and the updated total population estimate was 197,277 to 211,915 juvenile and adult plants (Fitts and Fitts 2010, p. 6); however, the survey methodology in this year was not clearly described. More plants likely occurred on nearby private land with exposed Moroni Formation outcrops, but the landowner did not give permission to survey (Fitts and Fitts 2010, p. 7). These surveys may have overestimated the species' population using the partial census method due to extrapolation from earlier hand-drawn colony boundaries; the small number of transects; and the inclusion of seedlings, which have a high rate of mortality (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2011, p. 10).

In 2016, partial surveys were conducted showing dense levels of occupancy in the northmost portion of the range, in areas that were known to be occupied but had not been previously surveyed (Fitts 2018, pers. comm.). In 2017, surveys of all accessible habitats were conducted in accordance with the protocol used in 2008, resulting in a population estimate of 88,427 (adults and juveniles) in the population total, with 50,483 on State lands (UNHP 2018, p. 4-5). Surveys in 2017 did not include private lands, and so we estimated the total population by applying known densities of adjacent State lands to the private land acreages (UNHP 2018, entire).

The 2017 population estimates represent a reduction in population from the surveys conducted in 2008 and 2009 but are still well above the number of plants known in 1990. We believe the reduction in numbers from 2009 to 2017 is consistent with what we know about the species' response to drought conditions. In 2015 and 2016, the habitat experienced moderate to severe drought conditions (National Drought Resilience Partnership 2018, entire). In late 2016 and early 2017, the habitat received above-average precipitation levels, and the lower overall population coupled with the increased proportion of juvenile plants recorded in spring of 2017 would be consistent with a response to two seasons of drought followed by increased precipitation in the preceding fall causing a germination event. The proportion of juvenile plants increased from 15 percent in 2008 to 44 percent in 2017 (USFWS 2011, p. 10; UNHP 2018, p. 4). We believe this represents a natural response cycle to annual precipitation patterns and not a declining trend caused by anthropogenic stressors. Additionally, the consistent presence of seedlings and juveniles in the 2008, 2009, 2016, and 2017 surveys indicates that recruitment occurs regularly and a robust seedbank exists. Although 2018 survey results are not yet available, we expect they will be reflective of the low precipitation level in 2018.

At the time of listing, we estimated the occupied habitat of Deseret milkvetch to include approximately 300 acres (ac) (122 hectares (ha)) in an area 1.6 miles (mi) (2.6 kilometers (km)) by 0.3 mi (0.5 km) (64 FR 56590; October 20, 1999). The most recent occupied habitat estimate is approximately 345 ac (140 ha) in an area 2.8 mi (4.5 km) by 0.3 mi (0.5 km) (Fitts and Fitts 2010, p. 6; SWCA Environmental Consultants 2015, p. 2). The species remains known from one population (Birdseye) of scattered colonies on the Moroni formation soils near Birdseye, Utah (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2011, p. 8).

In summary, periodic surveys of Deseret milkvetch were completed from 1990 through 2017. The available information indicates a substantial population increase since 1990 when the first surveys were conducted (from an estimated 5,000-10,000 plants in 1999 to an estimated 88,000 plants in 2017). Population and demographic fluctuations between 2008 and 2017 are likely a natural part of this species' lifecycle that is related to precipitation. While the exact distribution of colonies has shifted over time, there has been no overall reduction in the area occupied since the time of listing and additional colonies have been located (UNHP 2018, p. 3). Therefore, we conclude that the population has been stable to increasing overall since the time of listing.

An estimated 230 ac (93 ha; 67 percent) of the 345 ac (140 ha) of total occupied habitat for Deseret milkvetch are in the Birdseye Unit of the Northwest Manti Wildlife Management Area (WMA) owned by the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR). Of the remaining habitat, 25 ac (10 ha; 7 percent) are owned by the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) and 90 ac (36 ha; 26 percent) are privately owned (UDWR et al. 2006, p. 4). The Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA) owns most of the mineral rights in the species' habitat (UDWR et al. 2006, p. 7). No populations of Deseret milkvetch are known to occur on Federal lands (Franklin 1990, pp. 3-4; Anderson 2016, pers. comm.).

A recovery plan for Deseret milkvetch was not prepared; therefore, specific delisting criteria were not developed for the species. However, in 2005, we invited agencies with management or ownership authorities within the species' habitat to serve on a team to develop an interagency conservation agreement for Deseret milkvetch intended to facilitate a coordinated conservation effort between the agencies (UDWR et al. 2006, entire). The Conservation Agreement for Astragalus desereticus (Deseret milkvetch) (Conservation Agreement) was signed and approved by UDWR, UDOT, SITLA, and the Service in 2006, with a duration of 30 years. The Conservation Agreement provides guidance to stakeholders to address threats and establish goals to ensure the long-term survival of the species (UDWR et al. 2006, p. 7). Conservation actions identified in the Conservation Agreement (in italics), their current status, and efforts to accomplish these actions are described below.

• Maintain species' habitat within the WMA in its natural state, restricting habitat disturbance: This action is successful and ongoing. UDWR acquired the Birdseye Unit of the Northwest Manti WMA in 1967. Prior to this acquisition, livestock grazing occurred for more than 50 years on the property (UDWR et al. 2006, p. 6). Since the acquisition, livestock grazing has been used only on a limited basis as a management tool by UDWR. However, habitat occupied by Deseret milkvetch is not suitable for grazing, and impacts to the species from grazing have been negligible (UDWR et al. 2006, p. 7). This habitat has not been grazed by livestock since 2002 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 2011, p. 17). Future grazing within the occupied habitat is unlikely due to the steep terrain (Howard 2016, pers. comm.).

A draft wildlife management plan completed by UDWR proposes closing some unauthorized, unpaved roads within the WMA, which likely would further benefit the species by reducing habitat fragmentation and reducing future human access to the population (Howard 2018, pers. comm.). We anticipate that the plan will be finalized within the next year (Howard 2018, pers. comm.). Because this plan is currently only in draft, we do not rely on it in this final rule to delist the species. However, it provides an indication of future management intentions of UDWR to the continuing benefit of the species from the ongoing management of the WMA.

Removal of juniper in the WMA to improve habitat may occur, but areas occupied by Deseret milkvetch will be avoided to prevent plant damage and mortality associated with this type of surface-disturbing activity (Howard 2018, pers. comm.). The steep terrain associated with Deseret milkvetch makes grazing, juniper removal, and livestock grazing in the species' occupied habitat unlikely.

• Retain species' habitat within the WMA under the management of UDWR: This action is successful and ongoing. The UDWR continues to manage the species' habitat within the WMA in its natural state with minimal disturbance, as stipulated in the Conservation Agreement (Howard 2016, pers. comm.).

• Evaluate the feasibility of acquiring conservation easements or fee title purchases on small private land parcels between U.S. Highway 89 and the existing WMA as resources, and willing sellers become available: No easements or property have been acquired, and we do not rely on this conservation action in this final rule to delist the species. However, UDWR has a Statewide initiative to acquire additional lands, so that future acquisition may be possible (Howard 2016, pers. comm.).

• Avoid using herbicides in the species' habitat managed by UDOT: This action is successful and ongoing. The UDOT does not use herbicides in Deseret milkvetch habitat within highway rights-of-way, and has committed to continuing this action as stipulated in the Conservation Agreement (Kisen 2016, pers. comm.).

• Avoid disturbing plants during highway maintenance and construction carried out by UDOT: This action is successful and ongoing. The UDOT has not disturbed the species during highway maintenance and construction, and no highway widening projects are anticipated through at least 2040, which is as far as their planning extends (Kisen 2016, pers. comm.).

• Monitor populations on an annual basis as needed: This action is successful and ongoing. Surveys were conducted in May of 2016, 2017, and 2018 by Utah Natural Heritage Program personnel.

• Continue discussions between the UDWR and Service on the development and review of management plans and habitat restoration that may affect species' habitat on the WMA: This action is successful and ongoing. The Service's Utah Ecological Services Field Office is actively engaged with UDWR in the development and review of actions that may affect the species. The UDWR and Service meet periodically to implement protections identified in the Conservation Agreement.

In summary, most of the conservation actions described in the Conservation Agreement have been successfully implemented and are part of an ongoing management strategy for conserving Deseret milkvetch. Potential threats from residential development, livestock grazing, and highway maintenance and widening are addressed by conservation actions on the approximately 74 percent of the species' occupied habitat that is owned and managed by either UDWR or UDOT. The Conservation Agreement will continue to be implemented through at least 2036.

As described above, we have new information on Deseret milkvetch since our listing decision, and the species' status has improved. This improvement is likely due to expanded surveys, as well as the amelioration of threats and an improved understanding of the stressors affecting the species (see Summary of Factors Affecting the Species, below). In addition to the conservation actions identified in the Conservation Agreement, new opportunities for conservation of the species may be implemented in the future. For example, a new power line proposed near the species' habitat will use the same corridor as an existing transmission line (see Factor A discussion, below). However, this future action is not a factor in our delisting determination.

Survey results from 2017 (the most recent population estimates available) estimated that the total population was 88,427 juvenile and adult plants occurring on approximately 345 ac (140 ha) of habitat, which is a significant increase when compared to estimates of 5,000 to 10,000 plants occurring on approximately 300 ac (122 ha) at the time of listing. The majority of Deseret milkvetch occupied habitat (74 percent) is managed by UDWR and UDOT, and we have no information that indicates the species faces significant threats on private lands. All of the conservation actions for UDWR- and UDOT-managed habitat have been successfully implemented, with the exception of acquiring conservation easements. These measures have been effective in preventing impacts to the species and its habitat on State-managed lands. Additionally, as described below, threats identified at the time of listing in 1999 are not as significant as originally anticipated (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2011, p. 21).

We have made updates to our discussions of the species' population status (including 2017 information) and factors affecting the species, based on comments submitted by the public and information provided by peer reviewers. In addition, we now refer to the species primarily by its common name, rather than its scientific name, throughout this rule.

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for listing species, reclassifying species, or removing species from listed status. “Species” is defined by the Act as including any species or subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct vertebrate population segment of fish or wildlife that interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). A species is an “endangered species” for purposes of the Act if it is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range and is a “threatened species” if it is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. We consider “foreseeable future” as that period of time within which a reliable prediction can be reasonably relied upon in making a determination about the future conservation status of a species, as described in the Solicitor's opinion dated January 16, 2009 (M-37021).

A species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened species because of one or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. We must consider these same five factors in delisting a species.

For species that are already listed as endangered or threatened and being considered for delisting, the five-factor analysis is an evaluation of the threats currently facing the species and the threats that are reasonably likely to affect the species in the foreseeable future following the removal of the Act's protections. We may delist a species according to 50 CFR 424.11(d) if the best available scientific and commercial data indicate that the species is neither endangered nor threatened for the following reasons: (1) The species is extinct; (2) the species has recovered and is no longer endangered or threatened; and/or (3) the original scientific data used at the time the species was classified were in error. A recovered species has had threats removed or reduced to the point that it no longer meets the Act's definitions of endangered or threatened.

Deseret milkvetch is listed as a threatened species. For the purposes of this analysis, we will evaluate whether or not the currently listed species, Deseret milkvetch, should continue to be listed as a threatened species, based on the best scientific and commercial information available.

We consider 20 years to be a reasonably foreseeable future within which reliable predictions can be made for Deseret milkvetch. This time period includes multiple generations of the species, coincides with the duration of the Conservation Agreement, and falls within the planning period used by UDOT. We consider 20 years a conservative timeframe in view of the much longer-term protections in place for 67 percent of the species' occupied habitat that occurs within the UDWR WMA.

In considering what factors might constitute threats, we must look beyond the exposure of the species to a particular factor to evaluate whether the species may respond to the factor in a way that causes actual impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a factor and the species responds negatively, the factor may be a threat, and during the five-factor threats analysis, we will attempt to determine the significance of the threat. The threat is significant if it drives or contributes to the risk of extinction of the species such that the species warrants listing as endangered or threatened as those terms are defined by the Act. However, the identification of factors that could affect a species negatively may not be sufficient to justify a finding that the species warrants listing or should remain listed. The information must include evidence sufficient to suggest that the potential threat is likely to materialize and that it has the capacity (sufficient magnitude and extent) to affect the species' status such that it meets the definition of endangered or threatened under the Act. This determination does not necessarily require empirical proof of a threat. The combination of exposure and some corroborating evidence of how the species is likely impacted could suffice. The following analysis examines the factors currently affecting Deseret milkvetch, or that are likely to affect it within the foreseeable future.

Deseret milkvetch is found in three different land use zones, as categorized by Utah County Land Use Ordinance (Jorgensen 2016b, pers. comm.; Utah County 2016, chapter 5). Approximately 74.6 percent of the species' habitat occurs in Critical Environment Zone 1, which has the primary purpose of supporting water resources for culinary use, irrigation, recreation, natural vegetation, and wildlife. Approximately 16.7 percent occurs in Residential Agricultural Zone 5, which has the primary purpose of preserving agricultural lands. The remaining 8.6 percent occurs in Critical Environment Zone 2, which has the primary purpose of preserving fragile environmental uses (Jorgensen 2016b, pers. comm.). These zones do not strictly regulate management or land use and, therefore, are not discussed under Factor D, below; however, the Utah County Land Use Ordinance prioritizes uses and provides management guidance for all lands in Utah County, unless specifically exempted (Utah County 2016, chapter 5). All of the conservation actions in place for the species meet the guidelines under their respective land use zone, and we are not aware of any occupied habitat specifically exempted from the guidance described for the aforementioned land use zones.

The following potential stressors were identified for this species at the time of listing: (1) Residential development, (2) highway maintenance and widening, and (3) livestock grazing and trampling. For this final rule, we also considered: (4) Mineral development, (5) transmission lines, and (6) climate change. Each of these stressors is assessed below.

In our October 20, 1999, final listing rule (64 FR 56590), substantial human population growth and urban expansion were predicted in the Provo, Spanish Fork, and Weber River drainages east of the Wasatch Mountains. In that rule, increased residential development was considered a threat to the species due to the potential for loss of plants and habitat that results from the construction of roads, buildings, and associated infrastructure (e.g., utilities). However, counter to the predictions of the Quality Growth Efficiency Tools Technical Committee cited in that final listing rule, residential development in these areas has been very limited. The nearest community, Birdseye, is unincorporated and has not been included in recent U.S. Census Bureau surveys; therefore, no recent population estimates are available. We are aware of only one house, and a barn that was recently built adjacent to Deseret milkvetch occupied habitat (Fitts 2016, pers. comm.). We are aware of only three proposed development properties in this area. One property has the potential for 95 lots and is 2.8 mi (4.5 km) from the known occupied habitat of Deseret milkvetch. The other two developments would be single dwelling properties approximately four mi (6 km) and five mi (8 km) from known occupied habitat (Larsen 2016, pers. comm.; Jorgensen 2016a, pers. comm.). These three proposed developments are located near Thistle Creek, upstream from Deseret milkvetch habitat (Jorgensen 2016a, pers. comm.). However, the species' habitat occurs on steep upland slopes that are not vulnerable to potential habitat impacts from upstream areas. Residential development at this scale and distance from Deseret milkvetch population is not likely to impact the species or its habitat now or within the foreseeable future.

The majority of Deseret milkvetch habitat occurs on steep, rocky, erosive slopes that are not favorable for development; consequently, we do not anticipate any future residential development in the species' occupied habitat (Fitts 2016, pers. comm.). Additionally, as previously described, approximately 230 ac (93 ha)—67 percent of total habitat for the species—are in a WMA owned by the UDWR that is protected from residential development, as discussed under Factor D, below.

We conclude, based on the available information, that residential development is not a threat to Deseret milkvetch due to: (1) The minimal disturbance from residential development that has occurred on the species' habitat to date and the minimal amount of disturbance anticipated in the future; (2) the steep, rocky, erosive nature of the species' habitat, which precludes most development; and (3) the amount of habitat (67 percent) that is protected from residential development.

In our October 20, 1999, final listing rule (64 FR 56590), potential widening of Highway 89 was considered a threat to plants growing in the highway right-of-way. Highway 89 widening would likely result in the loss of Deseret milkvetch plants and habitat that are directly adjacent to Highway 89. Regular highway maintenance activities include herbicide use to control weeds and could also result in the loss of plants and habitat within the right-of-way. The species appears to tolerate some levels of disturbance related to road maintenance because it recolonizes areas that have been disturbed by tracked vehicles, road grading equipment, and road cuts (Franklin 1990, p. 2; Fitts and Fitts 2009, p. 5; SWCA 2015, p. 7).

Widening of Highway 89 has not occurred and is not anticipated by UDOT through at least 2040, which is as far as planning extends (Kisen 2016, pers. comm.). The nearest highway development project is a modification of the intersection of Highway 89 and Highway 6 (Kisen 2016, pers. comm.). This project is approximately seven mi (11 km) north of Birdseye and four mi (6 km) north of the nearest occurrence of the species. Therefore, we do not anticipate any direct or indirect impacts to the species. No other highway projects are currently planned within 20 mi (32 km) of Birdseye (Kisen 2016, pers. comm.).

Road maintenance on Highway 89 is ongoing. However, as committed to in the Conservation Agreement, UDOT avoids herbicide use and other disturbance in the species' habitat (Lewinsohn 2016, pers. comm.; UDWR et al. 2006, p. 9). In instances where herbicides must be used, UDOT will not apply it by an aerial application within 500 ft (152.5 m) of occupied habitat and will maintain a 100-ft (30-m) buffer for hand application around individual plants (UDWR et al. 2006, p. 9).

In summary, highway widening is not anticipated within the vicinity of occupied Deseret milkvetch habitat. We are not aware of planned road-widening construction projects in or near the species' habitat, and UDOT has committed to avoiding herbicide use and other disturbance in occupied Deseret milkvetch habitat during maintenance activities (Lewinsohn 2016, pers. comm.; UDWR et al. 2006, p. 9). Therefore, based on the available information, we conclude that highway widening and maintenance are not a threat to Deseret milkvetch.

In our October 20, 1999, final listing rule (64 FR 56590), livestock grazing and trampling were considered threats to the species because of direct consumption of plants, trampling of plants and the burrows of ground-dwelling pollinators, and increased soil erosion. In contrast to many species of Astragalus, this species apparently is not toxic to livestock, and is palatable and may be consumed (Stone 1992, p. 6; Tilley et al. 2010, p. 1).

Prior to UDWR acquiring the Northwest Manti WMA in 1967, livestock grazing occurred for more than 50 years on habitat occupied by Deseret milkvetch and may help to explain why attempts to locate the species were unsuccessful for decades (UDWR et al. 2006, p. 6). Once UDWR acquired the land, they chained (removed scrub growth) and seeded level land upslope of the species' habitat to improve grazing for wild ungulates and livestock. The last cattle grazing on the Wildlife Management Unit occurred in 2002 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 2011, p. 17).

The UDWR does not currently allow livestock grazing on the Birdseye Unit of the WMA and does not plan for any future grazing within the portion of the WMA that contains Deseret milkvetch habitat (Howard 2018, pers. comm.). Avoidance of livestock grazing in the species' habitat that is managed by UDWR is stipulated in the Conservation Agreement (UDWR et al. 2006, p. 8). Additionally, the species' habitat is not well-suited to grazing due to sparse forage and steep slopes. Some private lands where the species occurs allow livestock grazing; however, when last visited, there was no evidence of impacts to the species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 2011, p. 17).

In summary, livestock grazing and trampling were considered a threat to Deseret milkvetch in our October 20, 1999, final listing rule (64 FR 56590) because grazing occurred historically over much of the species' habitat and we were concerned about trampling and erosion impacts. However, livestock grazing no longer occurs on the UDWR WMA, representing 67 percent of the species' habitat. Additionally, occupied Deseret milkvetch habitat on both private and protected lands is steep and rocky, with sparse forage for cattle. Consequently, minimal grazing impacts have been documented. We conclude, based on the available information, that livestock grazing and trampling are not a threat to Deseret milkvetch.

Impacts from mineral development were not considered in our October 20, 1999, final listing rule (64 FR 56590). At the time the Conservation Agreement was signed, there was no information indicating that mineral development was going to occur in or near occupied Deseret milkvetch habitat (UDWR et al. 2006, p. 7). SITLA owns the mineral rights on most of the land occupied by the species, and the agency has not had any inquiries regarding mineral development in the species' habitat since the Conservation Agreement was signed (UDWR et al. 2006, p. 7; Wallace 2017, pers. comm.). In the Conservation Agreement, which will remain in effect through 2036, SITLA agreed to alert any energy and mineral developers to the presence of occupied habitat and recommend surface use stipulations that avoid disturbance and provide mitigation for unavoidable effects to plants or their habitat (UDWR et al. 2006, p. 8).

In summary, mineral development was not considered a threat when Deseret milkvetch was listed under the Act. According to the compliance office of SITLA, there have been no inquiries regarding mineral development in this area. It is a severed estate, therefore, SITLA does not own the mineral rights, but would manage surface disturbance associated with mineral development and the area is flagged in their business system as being under a conservation agreement (Wallace 2017, pers. comm.). Therefore, based on the available information, we conclude that mineral development is not a threat to Deseret milkvetch.

Impacts from transmission lines were not considered in our October 20, 1999, final listing rule (64 FR 56590). The Mona to Bonanza high-voltage transmission line is an existing power line near Deseret milkvetch habitat located at the easternmost extent of the known range of the species (Miller 2016, pers. comm.). The TransWest Express transmission line is a planned power line that would use the same corridor as the existing Mona to Bonanza transmission line (SWCA Environmental Consultants 2015, p. 1). TransWest Express developers estimated that approximately 10.9 ac (4.4 ha) of potential or occupied habitat for the species occurs within 300 ft (91 m) of proposed transmission structures, and approximately 0.25 ac (0.10 ha) would be directly disturbed (SWCA Environmental Consultants 2015, p. 17). However, minimal impacts are expected to result from the transmission line installation because dust abatement measures would be implemented, the proposed route is located farther away from Deseret milkvetch populations than the existing Mona to Bonanza transmission line, and existing access roads would be used within the species' habitat (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2016, pp. 25-31). Consequently, impacts from the proposed TransWest Express transmission line are not anticipated to result in a population-level effect to the species based upon the localized extent of impacts and the currently robust status of the species (see Species Abundance, Distribution, and Trends, above). In addition, because the species can tolerate some levels of disturbance and plants have recolonized disturbed areas, any remaining development-related impacts should be minimal (Fitts and Fitts 2009, p. 5; Franklin 1990, p. 2).

In summary, Deseret milkvetch maintains a large, robust population next to the existing Mona to Bonanza transmission line, and only a very minimal amount of habitat (less than 0.25 ac (0.10 ha)) would be disturbed by the proposed future construction of the TransWest transmission line. We conclude, based on the available information, that transmission lines are not a threat to Deseret milkvetch.

Impacts from climate change were not considered in our October 20, 1999, final listing rule (64 FR 56590). Our current analyses for species classification under the Act include consideration of ongoing and projected changes in climate. The terms “climate” and “climate change” are defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). “Climate” refers to the mean and variability of different types of weather conditions over time, with 30 years being a typical period for such measurements, although shorter or longer periods also may be used (IPCC 2007, p. 78). The term “climate change” thus refers to a change in the mean or variability of one or more measures of climate (e.g., temperature or precipitation) that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer, whether the change is due to natural variability, human activity, or both (IPCC 2007, p. 78). Various types of changes in climate can have direct or indirect effects on species. These effects may be positive, neutral, or negative, and they may change over time, depending on the species and other relevant considerations, such as the effects of interactions of climate with other variables (e.g., habitat fragmentation) (IPCC 2007, pp. 8-14, 18-19). In our analyses, we use our expert judgment to weigh relevant information, including uncertainty, in our consideration of various aspects of climate change.

Estimates regarding the risk of future persistent droughts in the southwestern United States range from 50 to 90 percent (Ault et al. 2013, p. 7545). Climate models that predict future temperatures over three different time periods in the 21st century for the southwestern United States show the greatest warming in summer months (3.5 to 6.5 degrees Fahrenheit (°F)) (1.9 to 3.6 degrees Celsius (°C)), with a localized maximum increase in temperatures in central Utah (Kunkel et al. 2013, p. 72). Nationwide, Utah ranks eighth in rate of warming since 1912, with a 0.233 °F (0.129 °C) increase per decade; and seventh in rate of warming since 1970, with a 0.588 °F (0.327 °C) increase per decade (Tebaldi et al. 2012, pp. 3, 5).

The Astragalus genus has the ability to colonize disturbed or unstable habitats in progressively dry climates and thus appears to be adapted to drought (Stone 1992, p. 6). We do not have a clear understanding of how Deseret milkvetch responds to precipitation changes, although the species has persisted in spite of recent dry conditions. Generally, plant numbers decrease during drought years and recover in subsequent seasons that are less dry. For example, many plants of Deseret milkvetch appeared to die-off in response to the 2012 drought, but have since repopulated the area from the seed bank (Fitts 2016, pers. comm.). Deseret milkvetch and other species in the bean family typically have persistent seed banks with at least some proportion of the seed bank being long-lived because the seeds are physically dormant for long periods of time (Dodge 2009, p. 3; Orscheg and Enright 2011, p. 186; Segura et al. 2014, p. 75). Dormant seeds have a seed coat that imposes a physical barrier between water and the embryo, and this type of dormancy provides an ecological advantage by staggering germination over a long period of time, protecting the embryo from microbial attack, and increasing the longevity of seeds within the soil (Fulbright 1987, p. 40). Species with physically dormant seeds typically have seeds germinating over many years, which increases the probability of the species' persistence in an unpredictable environment and has been termed a “bet-hedging strategy” (Simons 2009, pp. 1990-1991; Williams and Elliott 1960, pp. 740-742). This strategy buffers a population against catastrophic losses and negative effects from environmental variation (Tielbörger et al. 2014, p. 4). Deseret milkvetch can be dormant and not detectable for some years, but later detected in the same area given favorable precipitation conditions (Fitts 2016, pers. comm.). This pattern provides some evidence the species has a persistent seed bank and possibly other life stages that remain dormant during drought conditions.

Deseret milkvetch appears well-adapted to a dry climate and can quickly colonize after disturbance. Plants growing in high-stress landscapes (e.g., poor soils and variable moisture) are generally adapted to stress and thus may experience lower mortality during severe droughts (Gitlin et al. 2006, pp. 1477, 1484). Furthermore, plants and plant communities of arid and semi-arid systems may be less vulnerable to the effects of climate change if future climate conditions are within the historic natural climatic variation experienced by Deseret milkvetch (Tielbörger et al. 2014, p. 7). The species likely has experienced multiple periods of prolonged drought conditions in the past as documented from reconstructed pollen records in sagebrush steppe lands (Mensing et al. 2007, pp. 8-10). Natural climatic variation in the Southwest for the last 500 years included periodic major droughts (Kunkle et al. 2013, p. 14). Therefore, it is likely that Deseret milkvetch will be able to withstand future periods of prolonged drought.

In summary, climate change is affecting and will continue to affect temperature and precipitation events. We expect that Deseret milkvetch, like other narrow endemics, could experience future climate change-related drought. However, the scope of any effects is mostly speculative at this time because current data are not reliable at the local level. The information we do have indicates the species and the genus are adapted to drought and are able to recolonize disturbed areas. Therefore, based upon available information, we conclude that climate change is not a threat to Deseret milkvetch currently or within the foreseeable future.

The following stressors warranted consideration as possible current or future threats to Deseret milkvetch under Factor A: (1) Residential development, (2) highway maintenance and widening, (3) livestock grazing and trampling, (4) mineral development, (5) transmission lines, and (6) climate change. However, these stressors either have not occurred to the extent anticipated at the time of listing or are being adequately managed, or the species is tolerant of the stressor as described below.

• Minimal disturbance from residential development has occurred on Deseret milkvetch habitat to date or is anticipated in the future because of the steep, rocky, erosive nature of the species' habitat. In addition, 67 percent of the species' habitat is protected from residential development due to its inclusion in a State WMA.

• UDOT anticipates no highway widening in habitat occupied by Deseret milkvetch, and herbicide use and other disturbances are avoided in habitat for the species.

• The steep, rocky nature of Deseret milkvetch habitat and sparse forage availability minimize livestock grazing, and 67 percent of all of the species' known habitat is carefully managed by UDWR to restrict it from grazing.

• The lack of inquiries and severed estate status of the habitat occupied by Deseret milkvetch indicate that mineral development is not a threat.

• The existing transmission line is not a threat to Deseret milkvetch, and activity associated with the proposed transmission line occurring within the species' occupied habitat will be confined to existing access roads.

• Deseret milkvetch and its genus are likely adapted to drought related to climate change.

• Deseret milkvetch appears able to recolonize disturbed areas readily.

Therefore, based on the available information, we do not consider there to be any threats related to the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range of Deseret milkvetch.

Overutilization for any purpose was not considered a threat in the final rule to list the species (64 FR 56590; October 20, 1999). The only collections of the species that we are aware of were for scientific purposes. An unknown number of seeds were collected in 2007, and approximately 850 seeds were collected from 45 plants in 2008. In addition, 1,016 seeds were collected from 55 plants in 2009, for germination trials and long-term seed storage at Red Butte Gardens and Arboretum in Salt Lake City, Utah, and the National Center for Genetic Resources Preservation in Fort Collins, Colorado (Dodge 2009, p. 4). This amount of collection is insignificant given the current population estimates for the species, and overall it is beneficial because it will improve our understanding of species propagation and ensure genetic preservation. We are not aware of any other utilization of the species. Therefore, based on the available information, we do not consider there to be any threats related to overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes of Deseret milkvetch.

Disease and predation were not considered threats in the final rule to list the species (64 FR 56590; October 20, 1999). We are not aware of any issues or potential stressors regarding disease or insect predation. As described in more detail above under Factor A, grazing—which could be considered a form of predation—is limited in the species' habitat and does not affect the species throughout its range or at a population level. Therefore, based on the available information, we do not consider there to be any threats related to disease or predation of Deseret milkvetch.

Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act requires the Service to take into account “those efforts, if any, being made by any State or foreign nation, or any political subdivision of a State or foreign nation, to protect such species.” In relation to Factor D under the Act, we interpret this language to require us to consider relevant Federal, State, and Tribal laws, regulations, and other such mechanisms that may minimize any of the threats we describe in the threats analyses under the other four factors or otherwise enhance conservation of the species. We give the strongest weight to statutes and their implementing regulations and to management direction that stems from those laws and regulations; an example would be State governmental actions enforced under a State statute, constitution, or regulation or Federal action under statute or regulation.

For currently listed species that are being considered for delisting, we consider the adequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms to address threats to the species absent the protections of the Act. We examine whether other regulatory mechanisms would remain in place if the species were delisted, and the extent to which those mechanisms would continue to help ensure that future threats will be reduced or minimized.

In our discussion under Factors A, B, C, and E, we evaluate the significance of threats as mitigated by any conservation efforts and existing regulatory mechanisms. Where threats exist, we analyze the extent to which conservation measures and existing regulatory mechanisms address the specific threats to the species. Regulatory mechanisms, if they exist, may reduce or eliminate the impacts from one or more identified threats. As previously discussed, conservation measures initiated by UDWR, SITLA, and UDOT under the Conservation Agreement manage potential threats caused by residential development, highway maintenance and widening, and livestock grazing and trampling, as well as the more recently identified proposed transmission line. In addition to these conservation measures, relevant Utah State statutes and UDWR administrative rules that will remain in effect regardless of Deseret milkvetch's status under the Act include:

1. Title 23—Wildlife Resources Code of Utah, Chapter 21—Lands and Waters for Wildlife Purposes, Section 5—State-owned lands authorized for use as wildlife management areas, fishing waters and other recreational activities. This statute authorizes the creation, operation, maintenance, and management of wildlife management areas including the Birdseye Unit of the Northwest Manti WMA. The Birdseye Unit contains 67 percent of all known habitat occupied by Deseret milkvetch. Consequently, two-thirds of all known habitat is currently managed and will continue to be managed as wildlife habitat regardless of the species' status under the Act.

2. Utah Administrative Code, Rule R657-28—Use of Division Lands. This administrative rule describes the lawful uses and activities on UDWR lands including Birdseye Unit of the Northwest Manti WMA. These uses cannot conflict with the intended land use or be detrimental to wildlife or wildlife habitat. This administrative rule provides further support to beneficial management on the 67 percent of occupied habitat managed by UDWR, regardless of the species' status under the Act.

We are not aware of any habitat occupied by Deseret milkvetch on Federal lands. We anticipate that the conservation measures initiated by UDWR, SITLA, and UDOT under the Conservation Agreement will continue through at least 2036. Consequently, we find that conservation measures along with existing State regulatory mechanisms are adequate to address specific stressors absent protections under the Act.

In our October 20, 1999, final listing rule (64 FR 56590), small population size was considered a concern for the species because of the potential for low levels of genetic diversity as compared to other more widespread, related species. A species may be considered rare due to: (1) Limited geographic range, (2) occupation of specialized habitats, or (3) small population numbers (Primack 1998, p. 176). This species meets each of these qualifications.

Deseret milkvetch is likely a localized neoendemic, that is, it is a relatively new species on the scale of geologic time and likely has always been geographically restricted (rare) (Stone 1992, p. 6). A species that has always been rare, yet continues to survive, could be well-equipped to continue to exist in the future. Many naturally rare species exhibit traits that allow them to persist for long periods within small geographic areas, despite their small population size. Consequently, the fact that a species is rare does not necessarily indicate that it may be endangered or threatened. Rarity alone, in the absence of other stressors, is not a threat. Despite the species' unique habitat characteristics and limited range, its current population numbers and preliminary demographic analyses show that its known population (via information at monitored sites) is much larger than in 1990, when the first surveys were conducted, and will likely be sustained due to the species' resiliency and the absence of significant stressors. Additionally, as noted under Factor B, above, seeds have been collected for long-term seed storage at Red Butte Gardens and Arboretum in Salt Lake City, Utah, and the National Center for Genetic Resources Preservation in Fort Collins, Colorado (Dodge 2009, p. 4). This collection provides added security for the species.

In our October 20, 1999, final listing rule (64 FR 56590), stochastic events—particularly fire, drought, and disease—were considered a threat because of the species' small population size and highly restricted range. Because rare species may be vulnerable to single event occurrences, it is important to have information on how likely it is such an event may occur and how it may affect the species. Demographic stochasticity—random events in survival and reproductive success—and genetic stochasticity—from inbreeding and changes in gene frequency—are not significant threats based on limited abundance trends and the known population size of Deseret milkvetch (Stone 1992, pp. 8-10).

Environmental stochasticity—such as fire, drought, and disease—may also be a threat to the species (Stone 1992, p. 10). However, we have concluded that fire is unlikely in the open, a sparsely wooded habitat that the species favors (72 FR 3379, January 25, 2007; U.S. Fish and Wildlife 2011, p. 21). As explained above under “Climate Change” in the Factor A discussion, the species appears to be drought tolerant, showing an ability to rebound the following drought and recolonize disturbed areas in progressively dry climates. Lastly, as noted above in the Factor C discussion, there is no evidence of disease or insect pests affecting Deseret milkvetch. Since listing in 1999, survey data have shown that the species' known range is somewhat larger and its population numbers are much higher than previously thought, thus indicating tolerance to stochastic events. These increases are likely due to a combination of expanded surveys and increases in population.

Given the lack of threats within the Deseret milkvetch population and the robust population size, we conclude that rarity and stochastic events are not threats to the species.

Many of the stressors discussed in this analysis could work in concert with each other and result in a cumulative adverse effect to Deseret milkvetch, i.e., one stressor may make the species more vulnerable to other threats. For example, stressors discussed under Factor A that individually do not rise to the level of a threat could together result in habitat loss. Similarly, small population size in combination with stressors discussed under Factor A (residential development, highway maintenance and widening, livestock grazing and trampling, mineral development, transmission lines, and climate change) could present a potential concern.

However, most of the potential stressors we identified either have not occurred to the extent originally anticipated at the time of listing in 1999 or are adequately managed as described in this final rule. Furthermore, those stressors that are evident, such as drought and rarity, appear well-tolerated by the species. In addition, we do not anticipate stressors to increase on UDWR lands that afford protections to the species on 67 percent of occupied habitat for the reasons discussed earlier in this rule. Furthermore, the increases documented in the abundance and distribution of the species since it was listed in 1999 do not support a conclusion that cumulative activities threaten the species.

In the proposed rule published in the Federal Register on October 2, 2017 (82 FR 45779), we requested that all interested parties submit written comments on the proposal by December 1, 2017. We also contacted appropriate Federal and State agencies, scientific experts and organizations, and other interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposal. We did not receive any requests for a public hearing. All substantive information provided during the comment period has either been incorporated directly into this final determination or is addressed below.

In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270) and updated guidance issued on August 22, 2016 (USFWS 2016, entire), we solicited expert opinion from three knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise that included familiarity with Deseret milkvetch, its habitat, its biological needs and potential threats, or principles of conservation biology. We received responses from all of the peer reviewers.

We reviewed all comments we received from the peer reviewers for substantive issues and new information regarding the proposed delisting of Deseret milkvetch. The peer reviewers provided additional information, clarifications, and suggestions to improve the final rule. We included their information in this final rule. Two peer reviewers were supportive of the delisting action. The third provided only minor technical comments and editorial suggestions on the rule and did not express an opinion regarding the action.

We received 15 letters from the public (as well as one from a peer reviewer) that provided comments on the proposed rule. Of these, six commenters stated their support for the delisting of Deseret milkvetch, and six commenters believed that it does not warrant delisting. We also received three comments that were not directly related to the proposed action in any way and are not addressed below.

Relevant public comments are addressed in the following summary, and new information was incorporated into the final rule as appropriate.

(1) Comment: We received four public comments that the species should not be delisted based primarily on its limited range and single population.

Our Response: Rarity or range restriction alone is not a basis for determining that a species meets the definition of “endangered species” or “threatened species.” Our analysis of the best commercial and scientific information available indicates that the population of Deseret milkvetch is secure. We also determined that despite the limited range of this species, stressors either have not occurred to the extent anticipated at the time of listing in 1999 or are being adequately managed, or the species is tolerant of the stressor.

(2) Comment: We received one comment that our proposed delisting was premature because survey data results from 2016 were not available at the time of publication of the proposed rule (October 2, 2017). This commenter suggested that we should not base our decision on information that was being excluded from public access.

Our Response: The proposed delisting was based on the best commercial and scientific information available at the time. We did not have access to 2016 survey data at the time and did not base our decision on it or withhold this information from the public. Partial surveys were conducted in 2016, and full surveys were conducted in 2017. This rule has been updated with relevant information from both years. Survey results are not yet available for 2018.

(3) Comment: We received two public comments suggesting that additional surveys should be conducted before the species is delisted, to provide more information on population status and also how stressors are impacting the population.

Our Response: This final rule includes survey information from 2017, which supports our conclusion that the species has maintained occupancy and a robust population. Additionally, the post-delisting monitoring (PDM) plan provides for a minimum of 5 years of annual monitoring after this rule takes effect. The PDM plan also includes criteria to determine whether population trends allow for completion of monitoring, or if additional monitoring or a status review is needed. We believe this will provide adequate confirmation of population stability in the absence of the Act's protections.

(4) Comment: We received four public comments supporting the delisting of Deseret milkvetch on the basis that its listing has impeded human use on the land it occupies, specifically in regards to grazing and off-road vehicle use. These comments suggested the species should be delisted so that grazing and off-road vehicle use could increase within the habitat.

Our Response: We may only base our determination of the status of a species on the best available commercial or scientific information. We may not consider the impact to land management or the demand for other uses within the species' habitat when determining whether a species is endangered or threatened, except insofar as to whether such uses represent stressors that may threaten the species. Additionally, a conservation agreement for this species remains in effect, and we do not anticipate existing regulations regarding motorized vehicle use or grazing in the habitat to change as a result of this delisting. If the human use of the habitat for recreation, grazing, or other purposes increase significantly in the future, a reassessment of this species' status may be initiated.

(5) Comment: We received a comment stating that the lack of a recovery plan for the species, combined with the voluntary nature of the existing Conservation Agreement and the fact that only 18 years remain in the current agreement, means that adequate protections are not provided to the species in the absence of the protections of the Act.

Our Response: Recovery plans provide roadmaps to species recovery, but are not required in order to achieve recovery of a species or to evaluate it for delisting. Recovery plans are also nonbinding documents that rely on voluntary participation from landowners, land managers, and other recovery partners. Additionally, we have no information to suggest that UDWR, SITLA, and UDOT will not continue to act in good faith according to the Conservation Agreement as it exists. A listing decision must consider actions taken by States to provide for the conservation of a species. Lack of continued implementation of the Conservation Agreement or large changes in management practices in the species' habitat by the State of Utah may result in reevaluation of the status of Deseret milkvetch.

(6) Comment: We received one public comment stating that the projected development rates in Utah County are likely to negatively impact Deseret milkvetch habitat to the degree that would constitute a species-level threat; thus, delisting the species at this time is not appropriate.

Our Response: We agree that residential development in Utah County is increasing and that the patterns of such development are not entirely predictable. However, we have no information to suggest that development within Deseret milkvetch occupied habitat on private lands is imminent. Furthermore, development is prohibited within the Birdseye Wildlife Management Unit, which represents the majority of the known population. For additional detail, see our threats analysis under A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range.

(7) Comment: We received a public comment stating that we should not delist Deseret milkvetch due to our lack of information regarding the species, particularly in the areas of population biology, population viability, genetics, phenology, and response to stressors.

Our Response: We utilized the best scientific and commercial information available for this species in our determination. We conclude that enough information is available for Deseret milkvetch and its stressors to adequately evaluate its status. Should additional research or post-delisting monitoring in the future provide information that indicates our evaluation is in error or, the species' status has declined since delisting, we would reevaluate the status of the species based on this information.

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 424, set forth the procedures for determining whether a species meets the definition of “endangered species” or “threatened species.” The Act defines an endangered species as any species that is “in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range” and a threatened species as any species “that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” The Act requires that we determine whether a species meets the definition of “endangered species” or “threatened species” because of any of the following factors:

(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;

(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;

(C) Disease or predation;

(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or

(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.

The same factors apply whether we are analyzing the species' status throughout all of its range or a significant portion of its range.

We conducted a review of the status of Deseret milkvetch and assessed the five factors to evaluate whether Deseret milkvetch is in danger of extinction, or likely to become so in the foreseeable future, throughout all of its range. We also consulted with species experts and land management staff with UDWR and UDOT who are actively managing for the conservation of the species. We carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial information available regarding the past, present, and future threats to the species. We considered all of the stressors identified at the time of listing (1999) as well as newly identified potential stressors such as mineral development, transmission lines, and climate change. As previously described, the stressors considered in our five-factor analysis fall into one or more of the following categories:

• Stressors including residential development, highway widening, and livestock grazing and trampling have not occurred to the extent anticipated at the time of listing, and existing information indicates that the extent of the impact will not change in the future.

• Stressors including highway maintenance, livestock grazing, transmission lines, and mineral development are adequately managed through the Conservation Agreement.

• The species is tolerant of stressors including climate change, rarity, stochastic events, and cumulative effects, and existing information indicates that this tolerance will not change in the future.

These conclusions are supported by the available information regarding species abundance, distribution, and trends, and are in agreement with information presented in our advance notice of proposed rulemaking (72 FR 3379; January 25, 2007), in our 5-year review (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2011), and in our proposed delisting rule (82 FR 45779; October 2, 2017). Thus, after assessing the best available information, we conclude that Deseret milkvetch is not in danger of extinction throughout all of its range, nor is it likely to become so in the foreseeable future.

Because we determined that Deseret milkvetch is not in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future throughout all of its range, we will consider whether the Deseret milkvetch is in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future within any significant portions of its range.

Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The Act defines “endangered species” as any species which is “in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range,” and “threatened species” as any species which is “likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” The term “species” includes “any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment [DPS] of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.” We published a final policy interpreting the phrase “significant portion of its range” (SPR) (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014). The final policy states that: (1) If a species is found to be an in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future throughout a significant portion of its range, the entire species is listed as an endangered species or a threatened species, respectively, and the Act's protections apply to all individuals of the species wherever found; (2) a portion of the range of a species is “significant” if the species is not currently in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future throughout all of its range, but the portion's contribution to the viability of the species is so important that, without the members in that portion, the species would be in danger of extinction, or likely to become so in the foreseeable future, throughout all of its range; (3) the range of a species is considered to be the general geographical area within which that species can be found at the time the Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service makes any particular status determination; and (4) if a vertebrate species is in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future throughout an SPR, and the population in that significant portion is a valid DPS, we will list the DPS rather than the entire taxonomic species or subspecies.

The SPR policy is applied to all status determinations, including analyses for the purposes of making the listing, delisting, and reclassification determinations. However, we acknowledge the recent adverse ruling by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, which has vacated the “significant portion” part of the Services' SPR Policy (Desert Survivors, et al. v. U.S. Department of the Interior, et al., No. 16-cv-01165-JCS (Northern District of California, Aug. 24, 2018)). The procedure for analyzing whether any portion is an SPR is similar, regardless of the type of status determination we are making. The first step in our analysis of the status of a species is to determine its status throughout all of its range. If we determine that the species is in danger of extinction, or likely to become so in the foreseeable future, throughout all of its range, we list the species as an endangered (or threatened) species, and no SPR analysis will be required.

When we conduct an SPR analysis, we first identify any portions of the species' range that warrant further consideration. The range of a species can theoretically be divided into portions in an infinite number of ways. However, there is no purpose in analyzing portions of the range that are not reasonably likely to be significant and either in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future. To identify only those portions that warrant further consideration, we determine whether there is substantial information indicating that (1) the portions may be significant and (2) the species may be in danger of extinction in those portions or likely to become so within the foreseeable future. We emphasize that answering these questions in the affirmative is not a determination that the species is in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future throughout a significant portion of its range—rather, it is a step in determining whether a more detailed analysis of the issue is required. In practice, a key part of this analysis is whether the threats are geographically concentrated in some way. If the threats to the species are affecting it uniformly throughout its range, no portion is likely to warrant further consideration. Moreover, if any concentration of threats applies only to portions of the range that clearly do not meet the biologically based definition of “significant” (i.e., the loss of that portion clearly would not be expected to increase the vulnerability to extinction of the entire species), those portions will not warrant further consideration.

If we identify any portions that may be both (1) significant and (2) in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future, we engage in a more detailed analysis to determine whether both of these standards are indeed met. The identification of an SPR does not create a presumption, prejudgment, or other determination as to whether the species in that identified SPR is in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future. We must go through a separate analysis to determine whether the species is in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future in the SPR. To determine whether a species is in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future throughout an SPR, we will use the same standards and methodology that we use to determine if a species is in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future throughout its range.

Depending on the biology of the species, its range, and the threats it faces, it may be more efficient to address the “significant” question first, or the status question first. Thus, if we determine that a portion of the range is not “significant,” we do not need to determine whether the species is in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future. If we determine that the species is not in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future in a portion of its range, we do not need to determine if that portion is “significant.”

Applying the process described above, to identify whether any portions warrant further consideration for Deseret milkvetch, we determine whether there is substantial information indicating that (1) particular portions may be significant and (2) the species may be in danger of extinction in those portions or likely to become so within the foreseeable future. To identify portions that may be significant, we consider whether any natural divisions within the range might be of biological or conservation importance. To identify portions where the species may be in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future, we consider whether the threats are geographically concentrated in any portion of the species' range.

We evaluated the range of Deseret milkvetch to determine if any area may be a significant portion of the range. Based on the small range of Deseret milkvetch—approximately 345 ac (140 ha) in an area 2.8 mi (4.5 km) by 0.3 mi (0.5 km)—we determined that the species is a single, contiguous population and that no separate areas of the range are significantly different from others or likely to be of greater biological or conservation importance than any other areas due to natural biological reasons alone. Therefore, there is not substantial information that logical, biological divisions exist within the species' range.

After determining no natural biological divisions are delineating separate portions of the Deseret milkvetch population, we next examined whether any threats are geographically concentrated in some way that would indicate the species could be in danger of extinction, or likely to become so, in that area. There is some difference in livestock grazing between State and private lands, with little or no grazing on the 67 percent of habitat occurring on State lands and occasional potential grazing on the remaining private lands. However, steep topography limits grazing everywhere, and no fences are separating State and private lands (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2011, p. 17). We have reviewed other potential threats and conclude that none of them is concentrated in any portion of the species' range to affect the representation, redundancy, or resiliency of the species.

We did not identify any portions of the species' range that are likely to be both significant and in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future. Therefore, no portion warrant further consideration to determine whether the species is in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future in a significant portion of its range. We conclude that the species is, therefore, not an endangered species or threatened species based on its status in a significant portion of its range.

We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial information available regarding the past, present, and future threats to Deseret milkvetch. After review and analysis of the information regarding stressors as related to the five statutory factors, we find that the ongoing stressors are not of sufficient imminence, intensity, or magnitude to indicate that this species is presently in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Additionally, no threats exist currently, nor are any potential stressors expected to rise to the level that would likely cause the species to become in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future, throughout all or a significant portion of the species' range. Because the species is not in danger of extinction now or the foreseeable future throughout all of its range or any significant portion of its range, it does not meet the definition of an endangered species or threatened species. Therefore we find that Deseret milkvetch no longer requires the protection of the Act, and we are removing the species from the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants.

This final rule revises 50 CFR 17.12(h) by removing Deseret milkvetch from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants. The prohibitions and conservation measures provided by the Act, particularly through sections 7 and 9, no longer apply to this species. Federal agencies will no longer be required to consult with the Service under section 7 of the Act in the event that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out may affect Deseret milkvetch. There is no critical habitat designated for this species; therefore, this rule does not affect 50 CFR 17.96.

Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires us, in cooperation with the States, to implement a monitoring program for not less than five years for all species that have been delisted due to recovery. The purpose of this requirement is to verify that a species remains secure from risk of extinction after it has been removed from the protection of the Act. The monitoring is designed to detect the failure of any delisted species to sustain itself without the protective measures provided by the Act. If at any time during the monitoring period, data indicate that protective status under the Act should be reinstated, we can initiate listing procedures, including, if appropriate, emergency listing under section 4(b)(7) of the Act. Section 4(g) of the Act explicitly requires us to cooperate with the States in development and implementation of post-delisting monitoring programs, but we remain responsible for compliance with section 4(g) of the Act and, therefore, must remain actively engaged in all phases of post-delisting monitoring. We also seek active participation of other entities that are expected to assume responsibilities for the species' conservation post-delisting.

We are delisting Deseret milkvetch based on new information we have received as well as recovery actions taken. Since delisting will be due in part to recovery, we have prepared the post-delisting monitoring (PDM) plan for Deseret milkvetch. The PDM plan was prepared in coordination with the Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR) and UDWR. Monitoring will be a joint effort between UDNR and the Service. The PDM plan discusses the current status of the species and describes the methods proposed for monitoring if the species is removed from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants. Monitoring will occur annually for at least five years, beginning in 2019. At the end of 5 years, the species' population status will be evaluated, with three possible outcomes: (1) If the population is stable or increasing with no new or increasing stressors, PDM will conclude; (2) if the population is decreasing, but may be correlated with precipitation levels and remains above 20,000 plants on the WMA, PDM will be extended for an additional 3 to 5 years and then the population status will be reevaluated; or (3) if the population is decreasing without correlation to precipitation levels, and fewer than 20,000 plants exist on the WMA, a formal status review will be initiated.

A final PDM plan is available (see ADDRESSES). We will work closely with our partners to maintain the recovered status of Deseret milkvetch and ensure post-delisting monitoring is conducted and future management strategies are implemented (as necessary) to benefit Deseret milkvetch.

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

In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments (59 FR 22951), E.O. 13175, and the Department of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with Tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make information available to Tribes. We have determined that no Tribes will be affected by this rule because no tribal lands are within or adjacent to Deseret milkvetch habitat.

A complete list of all references cited in this final rule is available at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2016-0013, or upon request from the Utah Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

The primary authors of this final rule are staff members of the Service's Mountain-Prairie Region and the Utah Ecological Services Field Office.

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