On April 12, 2021, DOE proposed major revisions to the Department's “Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for Consideration of New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures for Consumer Products and Certain Commercial/Industrial Equipment” (“Process Rule”) in a notice of proposed rulemaking that accepted comments on those proposed revisions through May 27, 2021 (86 FR 18901). In a subsequent NOPR that published on July 7, 2021, DOE proposed additional revisions to the Process Rule and requested comment on the proposals and any potential alternatives (86 FR 35668). These additional proposed revisions are consistent with current DOE practice and would remove unnecessary obstacles to DOE's ability to meet its statutory obligations under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (“EPCA”). On July 29, 2021, interested parties in the matter, the Joint Commenters, requested an extension of the public comment period for the NOPR to September 13, 2021. 1 The Joint Commenters asked for this additional time due to their assertion that the proposed rule is complex and multi-faceted which requires more time to effectively review it and formulate their comments. The Joint Commenters also stated that they would need more time after the public webinar to formulate and submit their comments.

DOE has reviewed the request and is extending the comment period to September 13, 2021 to allow additional time for interested parties to submit comments.

This document of the Department of Energy was signed on August 2, 2021, by Kelly Speakes-Backman, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary and Acting Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the Federal Register .

DOE has established an early assessment review process to conduct a more focused analysis to evaluate, based on statutory criteria, whether a new or amended energy conservation standard is warranted. Based on the information received in response to the RFI and DOE's own analysis, DOE will determine whether to proceed with a rulemaking for a new or amended energy conservation standard. If DOE makes an initial determination that a new or amended energy conservation standard would satisfy the applicable statutory criteria or DOE's analysis is inconclusive, DOE would undertake the preliminary stages of a rulemaking to issue a new or amended energy conservation standard. If DOE makes an initial determination based upon available evidence that a new or amended energy conservation standard would not meet the applicable statutory criteria, DOE would engage in notice and comment rulemaking before issuing a final determination that new or amended energy conservation standards are not warranted.

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (“EPCA”), 1 among other things, authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291-6317) Title III, Part C  2 of EPCA, added by Public Law 95-619, Title IV, section 441(a) (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317, as codified), established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. This equipment includes pumps, the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A))

Under EPCA, DOE's energy conservation program consists essentially of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6311), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316).

Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered equipment established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE may, however, grant waivers of federal preemption in limited instances for particular state laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions set forth under 42 U.S.C. 6316(a) (applying the preemption waiver provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6297).

DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or amended standards for covered equipment. EPCA requires that any new or amended energy conservation standard prescribed by the Secretary of Energy (“Secretary”) be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy or water efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)). The Secretary may not prescribe an amended or new standard that will not result in significant conservation of energy, or is not technologically feasible or economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3))

EPCA also requires that, not later than 6 years after the issuance of any Final Rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE evaluate the energy conservation standards for each type of covered equipment, including those at issue here, and publish either a notice of determination that the standards do not need to be amended, or a notice of proposed rulemaking (“NOPR”) that includes new proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to a Final Rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1))

DOE published a framework document for pumps on January 25, 2013. 78 FR 7304. This document described the procedural and analytical approaches DOE anticipated using to evaluate potential new energy conservation standards for pumps. DOE solicited comment on this document and invited stakeholders to a public meeting to discuss the document.

A commercial and industrial pumps working group (“CIP working group”) was established in 2013 under the Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Advisory Committee (“ASRAC”) in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act and the Negotiated Rulemaking Act. (5 U.S.C. App.; 5 U.S.C. 561-570). See also 78 FR 44036. The purpose of the CIP working group was to discuss and, if possible, reach consensus on proposed standards for pump energy efficiency. On June 19, 2014, the CIP working group reached consensus on proposed energy conservation standards for specific rotodynamic, clean water pumps  3 used in a variety of commercial, industrial, agricultural, and municipal applications. The CIP working group assembled their recommendations into a Term Sheet (See Docket EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039-0092). 4

The Term Sheet contained recommendations on the definitions relevant to all pumps, the scope for commercial and industrial pumps, energy conservation standards for pumps within scope, and the test metric for commercial and industrial pumps. Consequently, DOE initiated both an energy conservation standards rulemaking and a test procedure rulemaking to implement these recommendations.

On January 26, 2016, DOE published a final rule adopting energy conservation standards for commercial and industrial pumps manufactured on or after January 27, 2020. 81 FR 4368 (“January 2016 ECS Final Rule”). The energy conservation standards established in the January 2016 ECS Final Rule were consistent with those recommended by the CIP working group and approved by ASRAC. 81 FR 4368, 4375. The current energy conservation standards for pumps are codified at 10 CFR 431.465. Additionally, DOE established a test procedure for determining pump energy efficiency published in a Final Rule on January 25, 2016. 81 FR 4086 (“January 2016 TP Final Rule”). 5 The current test procedures for pumps are codified at 10 CFR 431.464 and in Appendix A to Subpart Y of 10 CFR part 431 (“Appendix A”).

DOE is publishing this RFI to collect data and information during the early assessment review process to inform its decision, consistent with its obligations under EPCA, as to whether the Department should proceed with an energy conservation standards rulemaking. Below DOE has identified certain topics for which information and data are requested to assist in the evaluation of the potential for amended energy conservation standards. DOE also welcomes comments on other issues relevant to its early assessment that may not specifically be identified in this document.

This RFI covers equipment meeting the pump definition codified in 10 CFR 431.462. “Pump” means equipment designed to move liquids (which may include entrained gases, free solids, and totally dissolved solids) by physical or mechanical action and includes a bare pump  6 and, if included by the manufacturer at the time of sale, mechanical equipment, 7 driver, 8 and controls. 9 10 CFR 431.462.

As part of the January 2016 ECS Final Rule, DOE established energy conservation standards for five categories of clean water pumps: End suction close-coupled (“ESCC”); end suction frame mounted/own bearings (“ESFM”); in-line (“IL”); radially split, multi-stage, vertical, in-line diffuser casing (“RSV”); and submersible turbine (“ST”) pumps. 10 CFR 431.464(a)(1)(i). Each of these categories is limited to pumps that have a shaft input power greater than or equal to 1 horsepower (“hp”) and less than or equal to 200 hp at the best efficiency point (“BEP”)  10 and full impeller diameter. DOE defines each of these categories in 10 CFR 431.462. DOE provides additional specifications regarding the applicability of the test procedure, and therefore the energy conservation standards, at 10 CFR 431.464(a)(ii). 11

Pumps are further delineated into equipment classes based on nominal speed of rotation and operating mode. 10 CFR 431.465. All pump equipment classes are summarized in Table II.1.

In a test procedure RFI published on April 16, 2021, DOE requested comment on whether it should expand or remove some of the limitations in 10 CFR 431.464(a)(ii) for pumps. 86 FR 20075.

In developing its recommendations, and in consideration of time constraints, the CIP working group further limited its scope to clean water pumps. (Term Sheet, recommendation #8). The CIP working group also recommended that pump energy efficiency standards not apply to (1) fire pumps, (2) self-priming pumps, (3) prime-assist pumps, (4) magnet driven pumps, (5) pumps designed to be used in nuclear facilities, and (6) pumps meeting design and construction requirements in various military specifications. Id. Consistent with the CIP working group recommendations, DOE established energy conservation standards for clean water pumps (10 CFR 431.465(b)(2)) and excluded from the scope of the energy conservation standards the pumps listed above (10 CFR 431.465(c)). Additionally, consistent with the recommendation from the CIP working group (See Term Sheet, recommendation #6), DOE excluded from coverage under the standards positive displacement pumps, axial/mixed flow pumps, double suction pumps, multistage axially split pumps, multistage radial-split horizontal pumps, multistage radial split vertical immersible pumps, and vertical turbine (non-submersible) pumps. 81 FR 4368, 4376.

Issue 1: DOE seeks comment on whether to consider energy conservation standards for pumps other than clean water pumps. Additionally, DOE seeks comment on whether energy conservation standards should be considered for positive displacement, axial/mixed flow, double suction, multistage axially split, multistage radial-split horizontal, multistage radial split vertical immersible, or non-submersible vertical turbine pumps, fire pumps, self-priming pumps, prime-assist pumps, magnet driven pumps, pumps used in nuclear facilities, or pumps specified for certain military uses. Specifically, DOE is interested in information and data on the industries in which these pumps are typically used, shipment data for these products (or the relative shipments for these products compared to clean water pumps currently with the scope of DOE's efficiency standards), and additional safety or performance standards that these pump types must meet.

The January 2016 ECS Final Rule estimated that the established energy conservation standard for pumps would result in 0.10 quadrillion British thermal units (“quads”) of site energy savings in site energy use over a 30-year period. 81 FR 4368, 4371. Additionally, in the January 2016 ECS Final Rule, DOE estimated that an energy conservation standard established at an energy efficiency level equivalent to that achieved using the maximum available technology (“max-tech”) would have resulted in 0.38 additional quads of site energy savings. 81 FR 4368, 4415.

As a preliminary step in evaluating potential energy savings, DOE updated its energy savings estimates from the January 2016 ECS Final Rule. DOE's current estimate indicates that an amended energy conservation standard established at the same max-tech as the January 2016 ECS Final Rule would result in 0.25 quads of site energy savings (0.69 quads of full-fuel cycle energy savings) which is a reduction from 0.38 quads. The primary driver for the reduced estimate is a revised estimate of the base case efficiency distribution. In preparation for this RFI, DOE reviewed its Compliance Certification database  12 and found that the efficiency distribution by basic model in the marketplace in 2020 exceeded that assumed in the January 2016 ECS Final Rule for the adopted standard level ( i.e., there are fewer models at baseline, 13 indicating that manufacturers redesigned pump models to surpass, rather than just meet, the current Federal standard). 14

While DOE's request for information is not limited to the following issues, DOE is particularly interested in comment, information, and data on the following topics to inform whether potential amended energy conservation standards would result in a significant savings of energy.

DOE uses base case efficiency distributions to calculate life cycle cost (“LCC”) savings resulting from each considered energy efficiency level. In the analysis supporting the January 2016 ECS Final Rule, DOE developed the base case efficiency distributions based on the shipments data provided by manufacturers  15 and used base case efficiency distribution specific to equipment class, shaft input power and flow. 16

Issue 2: DOE seeks data and information on the distribution of pump efficiencies. To the extent available, DOE requests the data, in terms of pump energy index (“PEI”); by pump shipments at the equipment class level; and disaggregated by shaft input power and flow, for bare pumps only. DOE seeks comment on how the shipments efficiency distribution might differ across ranges of flow and shaft input power for each equipment class.

Consumer inputs to the energy use analysis are based on operational demands that are independent of the pump efficiency, while equipment inputs to the analysis are based on the efficiency of the pump. Consumer inputs include consumer duty point that is defined by the flow and head, annual load profile, and annual operating hours. With limited data available with respect to the duty point in the January 2016 ECS Final Rule analysis, DOE developed a distribution of duty points ( i.e., operating shaft input power and flow) based on shipments data provided by manufacturers. DOE developed four representative load profiles, characterized by different weights at 50 percent, 75 percent, 100 percent, and 110 percent of the flow at the duty point. The load profiles were developed to represent a range of pump loading conditions within an annual cycle. For the January 2016 ECS Final Rule, DOE estimated statistical distributions and average values of annual operating hours by application based on inputs from a subject matter expert and feedback from the CIP working group. In addition, in the January 2016 ECS Final Rule, DOE sized the pumps to operate within 75 percent to 110 percent of their BEP flow. 81 FR 4368, 4390.

Issue 3: DOE requests data and information on whether, and if so, how, the field energy use of pumps has changed since the January 2016 ECS Final Rule. Specifically, DOE is interested in any information and data related to whether there have been changes in duty points ( i.e., flow, head, and shaft input power required for a given application), annual hours of operation, and load profiles since the January 2016 ECS Final Rule.

Issue 4: DOE requests comment on whether the characterization of pump sizing practices in the January 2016 ECS Final Rule remains appropriate. If not, DOE requests data and information on how pump sizing practices have changed since the January 2016 ECS Final Rule.

In the January 2016 ECS Final Rule shipments analysis, DOE developed shipment projections for pumps and, in turn, calculated equipment stock from 2020 through 2049, starting with the 2012 shipment estimates from the Hydraulics Institute (“HI”) (Docket EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039-0068). To project shipments of pumps, DOE relied primarily on Annual Energy Outlook 2014 forecasts. DOE used the shipments projection and the equipment stock to determine the National Energy Savings (“NES”).

Issue 5: DOE requests 2020 (or the most recent year available) annual sales data ( i.e., number of shipments) for pumps by equipment class, as shown in 10 CFR 431.465(b)(4). If disaggregated fractions of annual sales are not available at the equipment class level, DOE requests more aggregated fractions of annual sales at the category level ( i.e., ESCC, ESFM, IL, RSV, ST). If available, DOE requests annual sales data by equipment class for the previous five years (2015-2019).

During the January 2016 ECS Final Rule, DOE considered a number of technology options that manufacturers could use to reduce energy consumption in pumps. 81 FR 4368, 4383. DOE seeks comment on any changes to these technology options that could affect whether DOE could propose a “no-new-standards” determination, such as an insignificant increase in the range of efficiencies and performance characteristics of these technologies.

While DOE's request for information is not limited to the following issues, DOE is particularly interested in comment, information, and data on the following.

A complete list of technology options evaluated for pumps in preparation for the January 2016 ECS Final Rule is presented in Table II.2. 81 FR 4368, 4383.

In the January 2016 ECS Final Rule, DOE determined that most of the technology options listed in Table II.2 had limited potential to improve pump efficiency. 81 FR 4368, 4383. Specifically, DOE received manufacturer feedback that certain technologies (a) did not significantly improve efficiency; (b) were not applicable to the equipment for which standards were being considered; (c) did not significantly improve efficiency across the entire scope of each equipment class; or (d) benefits degraded quickly over time. Id.

Table II.3 summarizes the pump technology options that DOE screened from its analysis in the January 2016 ECS Final Rule, and the applicable screening criteria.

Ultimately, hydraulic redesign was the only design option incorporated into the January 2016 ECS Final Rule engineering analysis. 81 FR 4368, 4385. Hydraulic redesign is a broad term used to describe the system design of a bare pump's wetted components. Although hydraulic redesign focuses on the specific hydraulic characteristics of the impeller and the volute/casing, it also includes design choices related to clearances, seals, and other volumetric losses. 17

Issue 6: DOE seeks comment on if there are additional technology options that were not considered during the January 2016 ECS Final Rule that may have a significant potential for improving pump energy use beyond hydraulic redesign. Additionally, DOE requests feedback on whether, and if so, how, technologically feasible design options might vary by equipment class. DOE also seeks comment on how any of the listed technologies in Table II.3 may have changed since the January 2016 ECS Final Rule. Specifically, DOE is interested in data that support whether DOE should continue to screen-out the technologies listed in Table II.3 from its engineering analysis.

In the January 2016 ECS Final Rule, DOE identified representative configurations that were based on typical product offerings for each of the five equipment classes. 81 FR 4368, 4385. For the ESCC, ESFM, and IL equipment classes, the representative configuration was a pump fitted with a cast bronze impeller, a cast-iron volute and a mechanical seal. Id. For RSV and ST equipment classes, the representative configuration was a pump fitted with sheet metal-based fabricated stainless-steel impeller(s), and sheet metal-based fabricated stainless-steel casing and internal static components. Id. DOE is aware that many manufacturers redesigned their pump models in order to meet the standards set forth in the January 2016 ECS Final Rule (see discussion in Section II.B).

Issue 7: DOE seeks comment on whether the representative configurations used in the January 2016 ECS Final Rule analysis for ESCC, ESFM, and IL pump impeller, volute and mechanical seal, and for RSV and ST impeller and bowl/casing continue to provide an accurate representation of the current market.

DOE uses a standardized, minimally compliant bare pump, inclusive of a minimally compliant motor, as a reference pump. The efficiency of the minimally compliant pump is defined as a function of certain physical properties of the bare pump, such as flow at BEP and specific speed. 18 Section II.B.1.1.1 of Appendix A. The terms in the efficiency model ( i.e., BEP flow rate at full impeller diameter and nominal speed of rotation, specific speed) can be measured or calculated using the physical properties of the pump, except for the “C-value”. The “C-value” is a constant based on the speed of rotation and equipment category of the pump model. 81 FR 4368, 4377-4378.

This pump hydraulic efficiency model is an adaptation of the European Union's (“EU”) model equation, 19 modified to use United States customary units and 60 Hz electrical input power. 81 FR 4368, 4377. DOE defined pump efficiency levels using efficiency percentile ranges. Id. As an example, at the 25th percentile, 25 percent of pump models are less efficient than the defined efficiency model. 20

The C-values specified in 10 CFR 431.465 correspond to the lower 25th percentile of efficiency for the ESCC, ESFM and IL equipment classes. 81 FR 4368, 4370. For the ST equipment classes, C-values for pumps at 3600 rpm correspond to the lower 25th percentile of efficiency, while C-values for pumps at 1800 rpm represent the baseline efficiency evaluated for the January 2016 ECS Final Rule. Id. Due to a lack of available data for ST pumps at 1800 rpm, DOE used data from the ST 3600 rpm analysis to set the C-value standard for ST pumps at 1800 rpm. 81 FR 4368, 4382. Ultimately, the standard for ST pumps at 1800 rpm was set to the baseline efficiency C-value established for ST pumps at 3600 rpm. Id. Because of a lack of available data for all RSV pumps, DOE harmonized the C-values for the RSV equipment classes with the EU 40th percentile value. 81 FR 4368, 4370.

Issue 8: DOE requests data for all pump equipment classes that would enable DOE to conduct an efficiency level analysis similar to that conducted for the January 2016 ECS Final Rule. To the extent available, DOE requests data grouped by equipment class and shaft power, and that includes pump energy rating (“PER”), pump hydraulic efficiency at BEP, specific speed at 60 Hz, and the BEP flow rate at full impeller diameter and nominal speed of rotation. If these data are not available, DOE requests test data that would allow for the calculation of these values according to Appendix A ( e.g., pump hydraulic efficiency at BEP can be calculated from bare pump PER at constant load, bare pump hydraulic output power and part load motor losses at 75 percent, 100 percent, and 110 percent of BEP flow  21 ).

In its analysis supporting the January 2016 ECS Final Rule, DOE assigned the max-tech efficiency level as the maximum available efficiency already offered in the marketplace. DOE established a max-tech level at the 70th efficiency percentile for all equipment classes. 81 FR 4368, 4386. At this max-tech level there were existing pumps available in the market that met this level for all shaft powers between 1 and 200 hp. 81 FR 4368, 4386. However, the opportunity for efficiency improvement is not equal across the entire range of shaft powers, specifically, DOE's analysis supporting the January 2016 ECS Final Rule indicated that application of the design options listed in Table II.2 resulted in greater efficiency improvement for smaller pumps compared to larger pumps. 22

Issue 9: DOE requests information on whether conducting a max-tech analysis based on size (for example, developing small and large shaft power designations) or specific speed would be more representative of the pumps market and provide an opportunity for additional energy savings.

In determining whether a proposed energy conservation standard is economically justified, DOE analyzes, among other things, the potential economic impact on consumers, manufacturers, and the Nation. DOE seeks comment on whether there are economic barriers to the adoption of more-stringent energy conservation standards. DOE also seeks comment and data on any aspects of its economic justification analysis from the January 2016 ECS Final Rule that may indicate whether a more-stringent energy conservation standard would be economically justified or cost effective.

While DOE's request for information is not limited to the following issues, DOE is particularly interested in comment, information, and data on the following.

In generating end-user price inputs for the LCC analysis and the National Impacts Analysis (“NIA”), DOE identified distribution channels ( i.e., how the equipment are distributed from the manufacturer to the consumer), and estimated relative sales volumes through each channel. Table II.5 presents the distribution channels identified by the CIP working group with their corresponding share of total pump sales that were used in the January 2016 ECS Final Rule analysis. 81 FR 4368, 4389.

Issue 10: DOE seeks input on whether the distribution channels described, and the percentage of shipments in each channel, as shown in Table II.5, reflect the current market.

In the January 2016 ECS Final Rule analysis, DOE conducted a LCC and payback period (“PBP”) analysis to estimate the economic impacts of potential new standards on individual consumers of pump equipment. The analysis included, among others, the inputs further elaborated below.

In generating end-user price inputs for the LCC analysis and NIA in the January 2016 ECS Final Rule, DOE assumed that installation, maintenance, and repair costs remain identical across efficiency levels. With the market efficiency moving beyond what was projected in the January 2016 ECS Final Rule, there may be additional or different data available to represent the relationship between installation, repair, and maintenance costs and efficiency.

Issue 11: DOE requests feedback and data on whether installation costs at higher efficiency levels differ in comparison to baseline installation costs. To the extent that these costs differ, DOE seeks supporting data and the reasons for those differences.

Issue 12: DOE requests feedback and data on whether repair and maintenance costs at higher efficiency levels differ in comparison to repair and maintenance costs at baseline levels, respectively, both in terms of value and frequency of occurrence during the equipment lifetime. To the extent that these costs differ, DOE seeks supporting data and the reasons for those differences.

The lifetime energy use of a pump is calculated as the annual energy use multiplied by the equipment economic lifetime. DOE considers economic lifetime, also called service lifetime, as the total number of years that the equipment is in service (from initial equipment installation until its final retirement), and the mechanical lifetime, as the total number of operating hours from initial equipment installation until its final retirement. In the January 2016 ECS Final Rule, DOE estimated the pump equipment lifetimes to range between 4 and 40 years, with an average lifetime of 15 years across all equipment classes, based on estimates from market experts and input from the CIP working group. The analysis conducted for the January 2016 ECS Final Rule used Weibull lifetime distribution per equipment class, and included variability by pump rotation speed, and lifetime extensions through repairs. 23

Issue 13: DOE requests comment and data on whether any market and technology changes since the January 2016 ECS Final Rule would affect its equipment lifetime estimates for pumps for which DOE currently has standards, and if so, how. DOE additionally requests equipment lifetime data for any pump types discussed through Section II.A that are not currently subject to energy conservation standards.

DOE invites all interested parties to submit in writing by the date under the DATES heading, comments and information on matters addressed in this notification and on other matters relevant to DOE's early assessment of whether more-stringent energy conservation standards are warranted for pumps.

Submitting comments via https://www.regulations.gov. The https://www.regulations.gov web page requires you to provide your name and contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties, DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.

However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your comment. If this instruction is followed, persons viewing comments will see only first and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any documents submitted with the comments.

Do not submit information for which disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as Confidential Business Information (CBI)) to https://www.regulations.gov. Comments submitted through https://www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received through the website will not be protected under CBI. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential Business Information section.

DOE processes submissions made through https://www.regulations.gov before posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that is generated through https://www.regulations.gov after you have successfully uploaded your comment.

Submitting comments via email. Comments and documents submitted via email also will be posted to https://www.regulations.gov. If you do not want your personal contact information to be publicly viewable, do not include it in your comment or any accompanying documents. Instead, provide your contact information in a cover letter. Include your first and last names, email address, telephone number, and optional mailing address. The cover letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it does not include any comments.

Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, documents, and other information to DOE. Faxes will not be accepted.

Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide only unsecured documents in English, and free of any defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature of the author.

Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting time.

Confidential Business Information. Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information that he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via email two well-marked copies: One copy of the document marked “confidential” including all the information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document marked “non-confidential” with the information believed to be confidential deleted. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential status of the information and treat it according to its determination.

It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public docket, without change and as received, including any personal information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be exempt from public disclosure).

DOE considers public participation to be a very important part of the process for developing test procedures and energy conservation standards. DOE actively encourages the participation and interaction of the public during the comment period in each stage of this process. Interactions with and between members of the public provide a balanced discussion of the issues and assist DOE in the process. Anyone who wishes to be added to the DOE mailing list to receive future notices and information about this process should contact Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or via email at ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ee.doe.gov.

This document of the Department of Energy was signed on August 2, 2021, by Kelly Speakes-Backman, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary and Acting Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the Federal Register .

The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2021-0621; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-01517-T” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposal because of those comments.

Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact received about this proposed AD.

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3220; email shahram.daneshmandi@faa.gov. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

The FAA issued AD 2018-25-16, Amendment 39-19527 (83 FR 64441, December 17, 2018) (AD 2018-25-16), for certain Airbus Defense and Space S.A. Model CN-235, CN-235-200, and CN-235-300 airplanes. AD 2018-25-16 requires revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations. The FAA issued AD 2018-25-16 to address fatigue cracking, damage, and corrosion in principal structural elements; such fatigue cracking, damage, and corrosion could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

Since the FAA issued AD 2018-25-16, the FAA has determined that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations, including inspections for discrepancies (cracking) of certain structural elements, are necessary.

EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2020-0251, dated November 11, 2020 (EASA AD 2020-0251) (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Defense and Space S.A. Model CN-235, CN-235-100, CN-235-200, and CN-235-300 airplanes. EASA AD 2020-0251 states that it requires repetitive inspections of certain structural elements, which are currently specified in an alert operators transmission (AOT). EASA AD 2020-0251 further states that those inspections will be added to the airworthiness limitations document when that document is next revised. Airplanes with an original airworthiness certificate or original export certificate of airworthiness issued after March 20, 2018, must comply with the airworthiness limitations specified as part of the approved type design and referenced on the type certificate data sheet; this AD therefore does not include those airplanes in the requirement to revise the existing maintenance or inspection program.

This proposed AD was prompted by a determination that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations, including inspections for discrepancies (cracking) of certain structural elements, are necessary. The FAA is proposing this AD to address fatigue cracking, damage, and corrosion in principal structural elements; such fatigue cracking, damage, and corrosion could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane. See the MCAI for additional background information.

EASA AD 2020-0251 describes new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations for airplane systems, structural inspections, safe life structural items, and safe life system items. EASA AD 2020-0251 also describes repetitive inspections for discrepancies (cracking) of certain structural elements and corrective action (repair). This material 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.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, the FAA has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. The FAA is proposing this AD because the FAA has evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

This proposed AD would require revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations, and repetitive inspections for discrepancies (cracking) of certain structural elements and corrective actions, which are specified in EASA AD 2020-0251 described previously, as proposed for incorporation by reference. Any differences with EASA AD 2020-0251 are identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD.

This proposed AD would require revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new actions ( e.g., inspections). Compliance with these actions is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by this proposed AD, the operator may not be able to accomplish the actions described in the revisions. In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) according to paragraph (k)(1) of this proposed AD.

In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA initially worked with Airbus and EASA to develop a process to use certain EASA ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has since coordinated with other manufacturers and civil aviation authorities (CAAs) to use this process. As a result, EASA AD 2020-0251 will be incorporated by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2020-0251 in its entirety, through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular section in the EASA AD does not mean that operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to “all required actions and compliance times,” compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section titled “Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)” in the EASA AD. Service information specified in EASA AD 2020-0251 that is required for compliance with EASA AD 2020-0251 will be available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0621 after the FAA final rule is published.

The FAA's process of incorporating by reference MCAI ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with corresponding FAA ADs has been limited to certain MCAI ADs (primarily those with service bulletins as the primary source of information for accomplishing the actions required by the FAA AD). However, the FAA is now expanding the process to include MCAI ADs that require a change to airworthiness limitation documents, such as airworthiness limitation sections.

For these ADs that incorporate by reference an MCAI AD that changes airworthiness limitations, the FAA requirements are unchanged. Operators must revise the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the information specified in the new airworthiness limitation document. The airworthiness limitations must be followed according to 14 CFR 91.403(c) and 91.409(e).

The previous format of the airworthiness limitation ADs included a paragraph that specified that no alternative actions ( e.g., inspections), or intervals, may be used unless the actions and intervals are approved as an AMOC in accordance with the procedures specified in the AMOCs paragraph under “Other FAA Provisions.” This new format includes a “New Provisions for Alternative Actions and Intervals” paragraph that does not specifically refer to AMOCs, but operators may still request an AMOC to use an alternative action or interval.

The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 8 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

The FAA has determined that revising the existing maintenance or inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although the agency recognizes that this number may vary from operator to operator. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program changes for their affected fleet(s), the FAA has determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate. The FAA estimates the total cost per operator for the new proposed actions to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).

The FAA has received no definitive data on which to base the cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed 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.

The FAA is 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.

The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 this proposed regulation:

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

(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(3) Would 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 proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2021-0617; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-00385-T” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposal because of those comments.

Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact received about this proposed AD.

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3225; email dan.rodina@faa.gov. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2021-0093, dated March 30, 2021 (EASA AD 2021-0093) (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus SAS Model A300-600 series airplanes.

EASA AD 2021-0093 specifies that it requires tasks (limitations) already required by EASA AD 2019-0090 (which corresponds to FAA AD 2019-21-01, Amendment 39-19767 (84 FR 56935, October 24, 2019) (AD 2019-21-01)) and EASA AD 2020-0111R2 (which corresponds to FAA AD 2020-23-11, Amendment 39-21327 (85 FR 75838, November 27, 2020) (AD 2020-23-11)) and invalidates prior instructions for those tasks. This proposed AD would, for AD 2019-21-01 and AD 2020-23-11, terminate the limitation for the tasks identified in the service information referred to in EASA AD 2021-0093 only.

This proposed AD was prompted by a determination that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary. The FAA is proposing this AD to address fatigue cracking, damage, and corrosion in principal structural elements, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the fuselage. See the MCAI for additional background information.

EASA AD 2021-0093 describes new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations for airplane structures and safe life limits.

This material 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.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, the FAA has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA is proposing this AD because the FAA has evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

This proposed AD would require revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations, which are specified in EASA AD 2021-0093 described previously, as incorporated by reference. Any differences with EASA AD 2021-0093 are identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD.

This proposed AD would require revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new actions ( e.g., inspections). Compliance with these actions is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by this proposed AD, the operator may not be able to accomplish the actions described in the revisions. In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance according to paragraph (k)(1) of this proposed AD.

In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, the FAA proposes to incorporate EASA AD 2021-0093 by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2021-0093 in its entirety through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular section in EASA AD 2021-0093 does not mean that operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to “all required actions and compliance times,” compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section titled “Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)” in EASA AD 2021-0093. Service information required by EASA AD 2021-0093 for compliance will be available at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0617 after the FAA final rule is published.

The FAA's process of incorporating by reference MCAI ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with corresponding FAA ADs has been limited to certain MCAI ADs (primarily those with service bulletins as the primary source of information for accomplishing the actions required by the FAA AD). However, the FAA is now expanding the process to include MCAI ADs that require a change to airworthiness limitation documents, such as airworthiness limitation sections.

For these ADs that incorporate by reference an MCAI AD that changes airworthiness limitations, the FAA requirements are unchanged. Operators must revise the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the information specified in the new airworthiness limitation document. The airworthiness limitations must be followed according to 14 CFR 91.403(c) and 91.409(e).

The previous format of the airworthiness limitation ADs included a paragraph that specified that no alternative actions ( e.g., inspections) or intervals may be used unless the actions and intervals are approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures specified in the AMOCs paragraph under “Other FAA Provisions.” This new format includes a “New Provisions for Alternative Actions and Intervals” paragraph that does not specifically refer to AMOCs, but operators may still request an AMOC to use an alternative action or interval.

The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 118 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

The FAA has determined that revising the existing maintenance or inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although the agency recognizes that this number may vary from operator to operator. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program changes for their affected fleet(s), the FAA has determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate. Therefore, the agency estimates the average total cost per operator to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).

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.

The FAA is 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.

The FAA has determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 this proposed regulation:

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

(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(3) Would 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 proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2021-0571; Project Identifier AD-2021-00101-T” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposal because of those comments.

Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact received about this NPRM.

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Tak Kobayashi, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-3553; email: takahisa.kobayashi@faa.gov. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

The FAA has received reports of damage to the TR translating sleeve secondary sliders. Gouging damage to the slider end and grooving damage along the length of the slider occurred due to contact between the slider and the slider track liner. This damage was found only on TR sleeves installed on Rolls-Royce engines with mission improvement configuration thrust reversers. This damage, if not addressed, could result in failure of the TR translating sleeve secondary slider and possible detachment of the outer cowl, which could strike the fuselage causing damage to the airplane, and could result in reduced control or performance of the airplane.

The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB780043-00 RB, Issue 001, dated January 15, 2021. This service information specifies procedures for determining the serial number of the TR, and applicable on-condition actions; or replacing the TR with a serviceable TR. On-condition actions include reworking affected TR slider track liners; determining the serial number of the TR translating sleeves; checking to determine if certain TR translating sleeves have been installed on certain TRs; performing a detailed inspection of the secondary sliders of affected TR translating sleeves for cracking, grooving, gouging damage, and any existing repair; performing a dye penetrant inspection on any cracking, grooving or gouging damage, and any existing repair for cracking; and repairing any discrepancy found.

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 ADDRESSES .

This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information already described, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this service information at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0571.

The FAA worked in conjunction with industry, under the Airworthiness Directive Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee (AD ARC), to enhance the AD system. One enhancement is a process for annotating which steps in the service information are “required for compliance” (RC) with an AD. Boeing has implemented this RC concept into Boeing service bulletins.

In an effort to further improve the quality of ADs and AD-related Boeing service information, a joint process improvement initiative was worked between the FAA and Boeing. The initiative resulted in the development of a new process in which the service information more clearly identifies the actions needed to address the unsafe condition in the “Accomplishment Instructions.” The new process results in a Boeing Requirements Bulletin, which contains only the actions needed to address the unsafe condition ( i.e., only the RC actions).

The effectivity of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB780043-00 RB, Issue 001, dated January 15, 2021, includes all Model 787-8, 787-9, and 787-10 airplanes equipped with Rolls-Royce engines. This proposed AD would only require accomplishing the actions specified in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB780043-00 RB, Issue 001, dated January 15, 2021, on airplanes with an original airworthiness certificate or original export certificate of airworthiness issued on or before the effective date of this AD. Airplanes certificated after the effective date of this AD will not be delivered with affected TRs or TR translating sleeves. However, because the affected TRs and TR translating sleeves are rotable parts, the FAA has determined that these parts could later be installed on airplanes delivered with acceptable parts, thereby subjecting those airplanes to the unsafe condition. This proposed AD would therefore include a parts installation prohibition applicable to all Model 787-8, 787-9, and 787-10 airplanes equipped with Rolls-Royce engines. Furthermore, the FAA has determined that a parts installation prohibition needs to be specified for airplanes on which the corrective actions required by this proposed AD have been accomplished. In general, such a prohibition is not necessary since an airplane that is credited for compliance with an AD requirement must be maintained at the AD-compliant configuration. However, the corrective actions required by this AD are accomplished on the TRs and TR translating sleeves, and those parts can be moved from one airplane to another as part of regular maintenance activities. To prevent inadvertent maintenance where an AD-compliant airplane is re-configured to a non-compliant configuration by installing a TR or TR translating sleeve on which the corrective actions have not been accomplished, this proposed AD would explicitly specify a parts installation prohibition for those airplanes that have complied with an AD requirement.

The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 14 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-condition repairs, dye-penetrant inspections, TR sleeve serial number checks, or checks to determine if certain TR sleeves have been installed on certain TRs, that would be required. The FAA has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these on-condition actions:

The FAA has received no definitive data on which to base the cost estimates for the on-condition rework and detailed inspections specified in this proposed AD.

The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate. According to the manufacturer, however, some or all of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected operators.

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.

The FAA is 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.

The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 this proposed regulation:

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

(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(3) Would 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 proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2021-0213; Project Identifier 2018-CE-036-AD” at the beginning of your comments. The FAA specifically invites comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM because of those comments.

Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact received about this NPRM.

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this AD. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Mike Kiesov, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, General Aviation & Rotorcraft Section, International Validation Branch, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, MO 64106. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), which is the aviation authority for New Zealand, has issued DCA/750XL/30, dated July 5, 2018 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to address an unsafe condition on Pacific Aerospace Limited Model 750XL airplanes. The MCAI states:

The CAA advises the root cause is a deviation from the approved engineering data. This condition, if not corrected, could lead to the loss of primary and secondary power sources from corrosion of the ground connection or failure of the fastening hardware, which could result in the simultaneous loss of multiple systems. According to the CAA, this condition was observed on the production line and has been corrected for new airplanes in production. The MCAI requires inspecting the battery ground connections and separating the ground connections as necessary. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0213.

The FAA reviewed Pacific Aerospace Mandatory Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/104, Issue 1, dated May 2, 2018 (PACSB/XL/104I1). The service information specifies procedures for inspecting the battery ground connections and separating the ground connections as necessary. 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.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information already described.

The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 23 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA also estimates that it would take about 1 work-hour per airplane to comply with the grounding connection inspection of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.

Based on these figures, the FAA estimates the cost of the proposed inspection on U.S. operators to be $1,955, or $85 per airplane.

In addition, the FAA estimates that any necessary action to separate the connections would take about 3 work-hours and require parts costing $25, for a cost of $280 per airplane. The FAA has no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.

The FAA has included all costs in this cost estimate. According to the manufacturer, however, some of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected operators.

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.

The FAA is 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.

The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 this proposed regulation:

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

(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(3) Would 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 proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2021-0620; Project Identifier 2019-SW-074-AD” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposal because of those comments.

Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact received about this NPRM.

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Andrea Jimenez, Aerospace Engineer, COS Program Management Section, Operational Safety Branch, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, FAA, 1600 Stewart Ave., Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone (516) 228-7330; email andrea.jimenez@faa.gov . Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2014-0038, dated February 14, 2014 (EASA AD 2014-0038), to correct an unsafe condition for Hélicoptères Guimbal Model Cabri G2 helicopters. EASA advises of a report of an in-flight engine shutdown caused by a failure of the cooling fan. EASA further advises the failure of the cooling fan was caused by a crack in the fan external ring. After EASA AD 2014-0038 was issued, a second occurrence was reported of an in-flight engine shutdown caused by failure of the cooling fan, which was determined to be caused by a crack on the cooling fan front flange.

Accordingly, EASA issued EASA AD 2014-0196, dated September 2, 2014 (EASA AD 2014-0196), which retained the modification requirements of EASA AD 2014-0038 and required repetitive inspections of the engine cooling fan front flange and corrective actions depending on the findings. After EASA issued EASA AD 2014-0196, further analysis determined the crack was caused by the engine start/stop (ESS) cycles. Therefore, EASA superseded EASA AD 2014-0196 with EASA AD 2016-0033, dated February 24, 2016 (EASA AD 2016-0033), which retained the inspection and modification requirements of EASA AD 2014-0196 and depending on the findings, required replacement of the affected part pending approval of the newly designed part.

After EASA issued EASA AD 2016-0033, HG developed a newly designed engine cooling fan part number (P/N) G52-04-101, which consists of composite materials having improved structural strength. Accordingly, EASA superseded EASA AD 2016-0033 with EASA AD 2017-0039, dated February 24, 2017 (EASA AD 2017-0039), which retained the requirements of EASA AD 2016-0033 and required replacing the affected cooling fans with the newly designed cooling fan which terminates the repetitive inspections from EASA AD 2016-0033.

Since EASA issued EASA AD 2017-0039, HG issued a revision to its service bulletin requiring a life limit requirement for the replacement of the affected cooling fans. Accordingly, EASA superseded EASA AD 2017-0039 with EASA AD 2019-0187, dated July 31, 2019, and corrected August 2, 2019 (EASA AD 2019-0187). EASA AD 2019-0187 retains some of the requirements in EASA AD 2017-0039 and requires a new compliance time and life limit for the replacement of the affected part. EASA AD 2019-0187 also removes the modification and inspection requirements which are covered by EASA AD 2019-0025, dated February 4, 2019.

The unsafe condition described in the EASA ADs, if not addressed, could result in failure of the cooling fan and subsequent engine in-flight shut-down and reduced control of the helicopter.

These helicopters have been approved by EASA and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the European Union, EASA has notified the FAA about the unsafe condition described in its AD. The FAA is proposing this AD after evaluating all known relevant information and determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of the same type designs.

The FAA reviewed Guimbal Service Bulletin SB 16-021, Revision E, dated August 27, 2019. This service information specifies instructions for retrofitting the cooling fan with the new front flange, aft ring, and 24-hole pulley. This service information also specifies that upon completion of all the required actions, the cooling fan assembly P/N G52-00-000, P/N G52-00-001 and P/N G52-04-100 become P/N G52-04-101.

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.

The FAA also reviewed Guimbal Service Bulletin SB 16-021, Revision D, dated May 20, 2019, which is not incorporated by reference, and which specifies procedures for accessing the cooling fan and removing it from service; modifying, applying adhesive and torqueing the rear flange; installing the improved cooling fan, and additional actions.

This proposed AD would require removing from service any affected part-numbered cooling fan. An alternative, for certain part-numbered cooling fans, modifying the cooling fan before it exceeds a certain total hours TIS.

EASA AD 2019-0187 allows certain cooling fans with certain total hours TIS to be retrofitted before exceeding their life limit, whereas this proposed AD would require removing these cooling fans from service or as an alternate to removing them from service, modifying the cooling fan before exceeding the total hours TIS. EASA AD 2019-0187 allows a compliance time in months TIS to replace certain part-numbered cooling fans, whereas this proposed AD would only allow hours TIS.

EASA AD 2019-0187 retains the compliance time of March 10, 2017, which is the effective date of EASA AD 2017-0039. This proposed AD would require compliance within the effective date of this AD. The FAA has determined that these compliance times are adequate to address the identified unsafe condition.

The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 32 helicopters of U.S. Registry. Labor rates are estimated at $85 per work-hour. Based on these numbers, the FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD.

Removing the affected cooling fan from service and installing the newly designed cooling fan would take about 16 work-hours and parts would cost about $4,600 for an estimated cost of $5,960 per replacement and $190,720 for the U.S. fleet.

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.

The FAA is 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.

The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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, I certify this proposed regulation:

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

(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(3) Would 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 proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2021-0616; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-00256-T” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposal because of those comments.

Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact received about this proposed AD.

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3220; email shahram.daneshmandi@faa.gov. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2021-0058, dated March 1, 2021 (EASA AD 2021-0058) (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Saab AB, Support and Services Model SAAB 340B airplanes.

This proposed AD was prompted by a report that the 2LN circuit breaker for the emergency cabin lighting on a SAAB 340B airplane tripped without fault in the system. Investigation results found that the circuit breaker 2LN has too low a rating (5A) for maximum charging conditions. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the low rating of the 2LN circuit breaker during maximum charging conditions. This condition, if not corrected, could lead to an insufficiently charged emergency battery, with consequent loss of cabin emergency lighting, possibly resulting in injury to occupants during an evacuation. See the MCAI for additional background information.

EASA AD 2021-0058 describes procedures for replacing the 2LN circuit breaker having a rating of 5A with a new breaker having a current rating of 7.5A.

This material 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.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, the FAA has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA is proposing this AD because the FAA evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in EASA AD 2021-0058 described previously, as incorporated by reference, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD.

In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA developed a process to use certain civil aviation authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, EASA AD 2021-0058 will be incorporated by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2021-0058 in its entirety, through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular section in EASA AD 2021-0058 does not mean that operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to “all required actions and compliance times,” compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section titled “Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)” in EASA AD 2021-0058. Service information specified in EASA AD 2021-0058 that is required for compliance with it will be available at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0616 after the FAA final rule is published.

The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 27 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed 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.

The FAA is 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.

The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 this proposed regulation:

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

(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(3) Would 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 proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2021-0543; Project Identifier AD-2021-00353-T” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposal because of those comments.

Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact received about this NPRM.

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Jeffrey W. Palmer, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5351; fax: 562-627-5210; email: jeffrey.w.palmer@faa.gov. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

The FAA has received reports of nuisance stick shaker activation while the airplane was accelerating to cruise speed at the top of a climb. Investigation revealed the cause of the activation was the AOA sensor vanes had frozen and malfunctioned due to insufficient heat in certain AOA sensors to prevent ice buildup. This condition could be caused by heavy moisture conditions on the ground, leading to water entering the AOA vane pivot and freezing prior to or during flight. It was determined that the potential for AOA vane pivot freezing exists on certain AOA sensors having part numbers used on Model 737-200 airplanes. This condition, if not addressed, could result in the AOA sensor vanes being immobilized, which could result in unreliable or inaccurate AOA sensor data being transmitted to airplane systems, and consequent loss of control of the airplane.

The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1324, dated March 2, 2021. This service information specifies procedures for doing a general visual inspection of the left and right side AOA sensor vane shape, or inspecting the left and right AOA sensors to determine the part number, and replacing any affected AOA sensor with a new or serviceable sensor.

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 ADDRESSES .

This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions identified as “RC” (required for compliance) in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1324, dated March 2, 2021, already described, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this service information at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0543.

The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 11 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary replacements that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. The agency has 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.

The FAA is 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.

The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 this proposed regulation:

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

(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(3) Would 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 proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface of the earth to support IFR operations at Rogers Field, Chester, CA.

Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2021-0557; Airspace Docket No. 21-AWP-2”. The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 2200 S. 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198.

This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020. FAA Order 7400.11E is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11E lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface of the earth at Rogers Field, Chester, CA.

The Class E airspace would be established extending upward from 700 feet above ground level (AGL) within a 4-mile radius of the airport. In addition, airspace extending upward from 700 feet AGL would be established within an area 2 miles each side of the approach course to runway 34, extending 3.3 miles south from the 4-mile radius parallel to the extended center line of runway 16, then proceeding southeast 7 miles on a course of 131°. This would form a dog leg that provides controlled airspace for aircraft as they descend below 1500 feet AGL on approach to runway 34. The airspace extending upward from 700 feet AGL would also include an area 2 miles each side of the 330° bearing from the airport extending from the 4-mile radius northwest 1.5 miles. This area would provide controlled airspace for the departure and missed approach procedures.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11E, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

Currently when applying for a renewal of a U.S. passport, applicants must meet certain criteria to use the mail-in application form. These mail-in applications are processed through the Lockbox where fees, applicant data, and photo images are captured. The Lockbox transmits this data and the physical applications to a passport agency or center for further processing.

The Department proposes to amend 22 CFR 51.21(b), (b)(2), (b)(3); and 51.8(a), (b), (c), (d) to allow eligible applicants the option to apply on-line via MyTravelGov, which can be found on the Department's official website. Online Passport Renewal (OPR) refers to the electronic capability for processing renewal applications in a paperless environment. Applicants must meet all eligibility requirements for using OPR or will be referred to the paper application process. Applicants using OPR will enter their application information and upload their photos directly into the OPR system, and submit their payment through pay.gov . This process will improve efficiency and accessibility by offering online verification of renewal eligibility, electronic photo upload, and electronic payment. Applications received through OPR will automatically enter review queues at a passport agency or center, thus eliminating the physical application and processing at the Lockbox. The new OPR system will improve the customer experience, reduce operational and maintenance costs, and focus on data quality, protection, and traceability. The first release of the OPR system will apply to persons in the United States, with the intent for future releases applying to persons abroad.

The Department is publishing this rule as a proposed rule and is providing 60 days for public comments.

The Department of State, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), has reviewed this regulation and, by approving it, certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule gives greater flexibility to applicants residing in the United States, who are applying to renew their U.S. passport.

This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any year and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

This rule is not a major rule as defined by the Congressional Review Act. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign based companies in domestic and import markets.

This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), Regulatory Planning and Review. The Department does not anticipate that demand for passport services will change as a result of this rule change.

This regulation will not have substantial direct effects 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. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to require consultations or warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do not apply to this regulation.

The Department has determined that this rulemaking will not have tribal implications, will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, and will not pre-empt tribal law. Accordingly, the requirements of E.O. 13175 do not apply to this proposed rule.

This rule does not impose any new reporting or record-keeping requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, 22 CFR part 51 is proposed to be amended as follows:

Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to the EPA.

Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2021-0474, at https://www.regulations.gov. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov . The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission ( i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

The EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Missouri SIP received on January 19, 2021. The revisions are to Title 10, Division 10 of the Code of State Regulations (CSR), 10 CSR 10-5.540 “Control of Emissions From Batch Process Operations” which limits the volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from batch process operations by incorporating reasonably available control technology (RACT) requirements in the St. Louis 1997 ozone nonattainment area as required by the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990. These revisions remove references to state rule 10 CSR 10-6.030, “Sampling Methods for Air Pollution Sources,” and replaces them with references to 10 CSR 10-6.070, “New Source Performance Regulations,” where the new source performance standards in 40 CFR part 60 are appropriately incorporated by reference. These revisions are described in detail in the technical support document (TSD) included in the docket for this action.

Missouri received no comments during the state public comment period on the proposed rule revisions. The EPA is proposing to approve the revisions to this rule because it will not have a negative impact on air quality.

The State submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. The State provided public notice on this SIP revision from December 16, 2019 to February 6, 2020 and received no comments on this rulemaking. As explained above and in the TSD included in the docket, the revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and implementing regulations.

The EPA is proposing to approve Missouri's request to revise 10 CSR 10-5.540. The EPA is soliciting comment on the substantive and administrative revisions detailed in this proposal and the TSD. The EPA is not soliciting comment on existing rule text that has been previously approved by the EPA into the SIP. Final rulemaking will occur after consideration of any comments.

In this document, the EPA is proposing to include regulatory text in an EPA final rule that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the Missouri Regulation described in the proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 7 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the 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);

• 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 the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTA) because this rulemaking does not involve technical standards; 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).

The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:

Throughout this document, “we,” “us,” or “our” refer to the EPA.

Under section 110(k) of the Clean Air Act (“Act” or CAA), the EPA is required to take action by approving, disapproving, or conditionally approving, in whole or in part, SIPs and SIP revisions submitted by the states. In today's action, the EPA is proposing to approve a SIP revision titled “Revision to Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for the 1997 Ozone NAAQS, Clark County, Nevada” (August 2020) (herein, referred to as the “2020 Ozone Maintenance Plan Revision”), submitted by the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) on September 30, 2020. 1 The 2020 Ozone Maintenance Plan Revision updates certain elements of the maintenance plan for Clark County for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, including certain emissions inventories and the motor vehicle emissions budgets (“budgets” or MVEBs). The 2020 Ozone Maintenance Plan Revision was prepared in response to the EPA's conditional approval of the “Revision to Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in Ozone Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan: Clark County, Nevada” (October 2018) (herein, referred to as the “2018 Ozone Maintenance Plan Revision”). 2 The 2020 Ozone Maintenance Plan Revision revises certain budgets from the 2018 Ozone Maintenance Plan Revision to prevent interference with reasonable further progress or attainment of the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS. If the EPA takes final action to approve the 2020 Ozone Maintenance Plan Revision, the revised budgets will replace Clark County's existing budgets for the plan horizon year (2022) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. At that time, the previously-approved budgets would no longer be applicable for transportation conformity purposes, and the revised budgets would need to be used beginning on the publication date of the EPA's final approval in the Federal Register . 3

Under section 109 of the CAA, the EPA promulgates NAAQS for pervasive air pollutants, such as ozone. The NAAQS are concentration levels that, the attainment and maintenance of which, the EPA has determined to be requisite to protect public health and welfare. Under CAA section 107(d), the EPA must designate all areas of the country as attainment, nonattainment or unclassifiable for new or revised NAAQS. Section 110 of the CAA requires states to develop and submit SIPs to implement, maintain, and enforce the NAAQS. Once a nonattainment area has attained the NAAQS, the state may request redesignation of the area from nonattainment to attainment, and the EPA grants such requests if the criteria in CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) are met, including the approval of a maintenance plan (under CAA section 175A) that demonstrates how the area will maintain the NAAQS for at least 10 years after the redesignation. Such former nonattainment areas that have been redesignated to attainment are referred to as “maintenance areas.”

In 1997, the EPA replaced the 1-hour ozone  4 NAAQS at a level of 0.12 parts per million (ppm) with an 8-hour ozone NAAQS at a level of 0.08 ppm (herein, the “1997 ozone NAAQS”). 5 In 2004, the EPA designated a portion of Clark County as a “Subpart 1” nonattainment area for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. 6 In 2011, the EPA determined that the Clark County 8-hour ozone nonattainment area had attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, based on complete, quality-assured, and certified ambient air monitoring data that showed the area monitored attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS for the 2007-2009 monitoring period. 7

In light of ambient monitoring data showing that the Clark County ozone nonattainment area had attained the 1997 ozone NAAQS, NDEP submitted a request to redesignate the Clark County ozone area from nonattainment to attainment and submitted the “Ozone Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan, Clark County, Nevada (March 2011)” (herein, the “2011 Ozone Maintenance Plan”) to the EPA for approval as a revision to the Clark County portion of the Nevada SIP. Prepared by the Clark County Department of Air Quality and Environmental Management (currently named “Department of Environment and Sustainability” (DES)), 8 the 2011 Ozone Maintenance Plan includes the required elements for maintenance plans, including an attainment inventory, maintenance demonstration, monitoring network, verification of continued attainment, contingency plan, and budgets. 9 The 2011 Ozone Maintenance Plan demonstrates maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS through year 2022 by reference to emissions inventories developed for years 2015 and 2022 that show emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (NO X ) in those years would not exceed the level of the corresponding emissions of the 2008 attainment inventory. The 2011 Ozone Maintenance Plan established budgets for NO X and VOC for years 2008, 2015, and 2022. The budgets were derived from the on-road motor vehicle emissions estimates prepared using the EPA's then-current on-road vehicle emissions model, MOBILE6.2, and the most recent vehicle mix and activity data available from the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada. In 2013, the EPA approved the 2011 Ozone Maintenance Plan and redesignated the Clark County ozone nonattainment area to attainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. 10

Through adoption of the 2011 Ozone Maintenance Plan, Clark County DES committed to maintaining an ambient air quality monitoring network to verify the continued attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS in the Clark County ozone maintenance area. 11 At the present time, 10 monitoring sites continuously monitor ambient concentrations of ozone within the maintenance area. Since 2008, i.e., the year used for the attainment inventory in the 2011 Ozone Maintenance Plan, ambient ozone concentrations in Clark County have decreased. As shown in Table 1, 8-hour ozone design values have decreased from 0.082 ppm in 2008 to 0.073 ppm in 2019. 12 In more recent years, the design value has remained relatively steady, varying little from year to year. Table 1 shows that Clark County has maintained the 1997 ozone NAAQS through the first seven years (2013 through 2019) of the first maintenance period.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to revise the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions standards for light-duty vehicles for 2023 and later model years to make the standards more stringent. On January 20, 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order 13990 “Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science To Tackle the Climate Crisis” directing EPA to consider whether to propose suspending, revising, or rescinding the standards previously revised under the “The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks,” promulgated in April 2020. The SAFE rule significantly weakened the standards established in 2012 for this time period. Based on our updated assessment, EPA is proposing under the Clean Air Act to revise the GHG standards to be more stringent than the SAFE rule standards in each model year from 2023 through 2026. EPA is also proposing to include several flexibilities to ease the auto manufacturers' transition to the more stringent standards, including incentives for the production of vehicles with zero or near-zero emissions technology. In addition, EPA is proposing some technical amendments to clarify and streamline our regulations. The proposed revised standards would result in significant net benefits. The “Revised 2023 and Later Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards” proposal was signed on July 29th and will be published separately in the Federal Register . The pre-publication version is available at https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/proposed-rule-revise-existing-national-ghg-emissions.

Please note that EPA is deviating from its typical approach for public hearings. Because of current CDC recommendations, as well as state and local orders for social distancing to limit the spread of COVID-19, EPA is not holding in-person public meetings at this time.

EPA will begin pre-registering speakers for the hearing upon publication of this document in the Federal Register . To register to speak at the virtual hearing, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, preferably by email to ASD-Registration@epa.gov. The last day to pre-register to speak at the hearing will be August 18, 2021.

Each commenter will have 3 minutes to provide oral testimony. EPA may ask clarifying questions during the oral presentations but will not respond to the presentations at that time. EPA recommends submitting the text of your oral comments as written comments to the rulemaking docket. Written statements and supporting information submitted during the comment period will be considered with the same weight as oral comments and supporting information presented at the public hearing.

Please note that any updates made to any aspect of the hearing logistics, including any change to the date of the hearing or a potential additional session on August 26, 2021, will be posted online at the light-duty vehicle GHG rule website https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/proposed-rule-revise-existing-national-ghg-emissions. While EPA expects the hearing to go forward as set forth above, please monitor our website or contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to determine if there are any updates. EPA does not intend to publish a document in the Federal Register announcing updates.

If you require the services of a translator or special accommodations such as audio description, please pre-register for the hearing and describe your needs by August 18, 2021. EPA may not be able to arrange accommodations without advance notice.

EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0208. EPA has also developed a website for this proposal, which is available at https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/proposed-rule-revise-existing-national-ghg-emissions. Please refer to the notice of proposed rulemaking for detailed information on accessing information related to the proposal.

In support of its channel substitution request, the Petitioner states that the Commission has recognized that VHF channels have certain characteristics that pose challenges for their use in providing digital television service, including propagation characteristics that allow undesired signals and noise to be receivable at relatively far distances and nearby electrical devices to cause interference. According to the Petitioner, it has received numerous complaints of poor or no reception from viewers, and explains the importance of a strong over-the-air signal in the Portland area during emergencies, when, it states, cable and satellite service may go out of operation. Finally, the Petitioner demonstrated that the channel 21 noise limited contour would fully encompass the existing channel 12 contour, and an analysis using the Commission's TVStudy software indicates that Petitioner's proposal would result in an increase in population served.

This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, MB Docket No. 21-130; RM-11897; DA 21-843, adopted July 15, 2021, and released July 16, 2021. The full text of this document is available for download at https://www.fcc.gov/edocs. To request materials in accessible formats (braille, large print, computer diskettes, or audio recordings), please send an email to FCC504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Government Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (VOICE), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

This document does not contain information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed information collection burden “for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, do not apply to this proceeding.

Members of the public should note that all ex parte contacts are prohibited from the time a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is issued to the time the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, see 47 CFR 1.1208. There are, however, exceptions to this prohibition, which can be found in Section 1.1204(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1204(a).

See Sections 1.415 and 1.420 of the Commission's rules for information regarding the proper filing procedures for comments, 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 73 as follows:

The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ), requires that we identify species of wildlife and plants that are endangered or threatened based solely on the best scientific and commercial data available. As defined in section 3 of the Act, an endangered species is any species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and a threatened species is any species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Through the Federal rulemaking process, we add species that meet these definitions to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at § 17.11 (50 CFR 17.11) or the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants at 50 CFR 17.12. As part of this program, we maintain a list of species that we regard as candidates for listing. A candidate species is one for which we have on file sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threats to support a proposal for listing as endangered or threatened, but for which preparation and publication of a proposal is precluded by higher priority listing actions. We may identify a species as a candidate for listing after we have conducted an evaluation of its status—either on our own initiative, or in response to a petition we have received. If we have made a finding on a petition to list a species, and have found that listing is warranted, but precluded by other higher priority listing actions, we will add the species to our list of candidates.

We maintain this list of candidates for a variety of reasons: (1) To notify the public that these species are facing threats to their survival; (2) to provide advance knowledge of potential listings that could affect decisions of environmental planners and developers; (3) to provide information that may stimulate and guide conservation efforts that will remove or reduce threats to these species and possibly make listing unnecessary; (4) to request input from interested parties to help us identify those candidate species that may not require protection under the Act, as well as additional species that may require the Act's protections; and (5) to request necessary information for setting priorities for preparing listing proposals. We encourage collaborative conservation efforts for candidate species and offer technical and financial assistance to facilitate such efforts. For additional information regarding such assistance, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , above.

We have been publishing CNORs since 1975. The most recent CNOR that included foreign species was published on October 10, 2019 (84 FR 54732), and covered the period October 1, 2016, through September 30, 2018. CNORs published since 1994 are available on our website at http://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/cnor.html. For copies of CNORs published prior to 1994, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , above.

On September 21, 1983, we published guidance for assigning a listing priority number (LPN) for each candidate species (48 FR 43098). Using this guidance, we assign each candidate an LPN of 1 to 12, depending on the magnitude of threats, immediacy of threats, and taxonomic status; the lower the LPN, the higher the listing priority (that is, a species with an LPN of 1 would have the highest listing priority). Section 4(h)(3) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(h)(3)) requires the Secretary to establish guidelines for such a priority-ranking system. As explained below, in using this system, we first categorize based on the magnitude of the threat(s), then by the immediacy of the threat(s), and finally by taxonomic status.

Under this priority-ranking system, magnitude of threat can be either “high” or “moderate to low.” This criterion helps ensure that the species facing the greatest threats to their continued existence receive the highest listing priority. All candidate species face threats to their continued existence, so the magnitude of threats is in relative terms. For all candidate species, the threats are of sufficiently high magnitude to put them in danger of extinction or make them likely to become in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future. However, for species with higher magnitude threats, the threats have a greater likelihood of bringing about extinction or are expected to bring about extinction on a shorter timescale (once the threats are imminent) than for species with lower-magnitude threats. Because we do not routinely quantify how likely or how soon extinction would be expected to occur absent listing, we must evaluate factors that contribute to the likelihood and time scale for extinction. We therefore consider information such as: (1) The number of populations or extent of range of the species affected by the threat(s), or both; (2) the biological significance of the affected population(s), taking into consideration the life-history characteristics of the species and its current abundance and distribution; (3) whether the threats affect the species in only a portion of its range, and, if so, the likelihood of persistence of the species in the unaffected portions; (4) the severity of the effects and the rapidity with which they have caused or are likely to cause mortality to individuals and accompanying declines in population levels; (5) whether the effects are likely to be permanent; and (6) the extent to which any ongoing conservation efforts reduce the severity of the threat(s).

As used in our priority-ranking system, immediacy of threat is categorized as either “imminent” or “nonimminent,” and is based on when the threats will begin. If a threat is currently occurring or likely to occur in the very near future, we classify the threat as imminent. Determining the immediacy of threats helps ensure that species facing actual, identifiable threats are given priority for listing proposals over species for which threats are only potential or species that are intrinsically vulnerable to certain types of threats but are not known to be presently facing such threats.

Our priority-ranking system has three categories for taxonomic status: Species that are the sole members of a genus; full species (in genera that have more than one species); and subspecies and distinct population segments of vertebrate species (DPS).

The result of the ranking system is that we assign each candidate an LPN of 1 to 12. For example, if the threats are of high magnitude, with immediacy classified as imminent, the listable entity is assigned an LPN of 1, 2, or 3 based on its taxonomic status ( i.e., a species that is the only member of its genus would be assigned to the LPN 1 category, a full species to LPN 2, and a subspecies or DPS would be assigned to LPN 3). In summary, the LPN ranking system provides a basis for making decisions about the relative priority for preparing a proposed rule to list a given species. No matter which LPN we assign to a species, each species included in this document as a candidate is one for which we have concluded that we have sufficient information to prepare a proposed rule for listing because it is in danger of extinction or likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.

For more information on the process and standards used in assigning LPNs, a copy of the 1983 guidance is available on our website at: https://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/48fr43098-43105.pdf. Information on the LPN assigned to a particular species is summarized in this CNOR, and the species assessment for each candidate contains the LPN chart and a more-detailed explanation—including citations to, and more-detailed analyses of, the best scientific and commercial data available—for our determination of the magnitude and immediacy of threat(s) and assignment of the LPN.

Since publication of the last CNOR that included foreign species on October 10, 2019 (84 FR 54732), we reviewed the available information on candidate species to ensure that a proposed listing is justified for each species, and reevaluated the relative LPN assigned to each species. We also evaluated the need to emergency list any of these species, particularly species with higher priorities ( i.e., species with LPNs of 1, 2, or 3). This review and reevaluation ensures that we focus conservation efforts on those species at greatest risk.

We are not identifying any new candidates or removing any candidates through this document. However, we are changing the listing priority number for one existing candidate.

In addition to reviewing candidate species since publication of the last CNOR that included foreign species, we have worked on findings in response to petitions to list species, on proposed rules to list species under the Act, and on final listing determinations. Some of these findings and determinations have been completed and published in the Federal Register , while work on others is still under way (see Preclusion and Expeditious Progress, below, for details).

Combined with other findings and determinations published separately from this CNOR, 19 foreign species are candidates awaiting preparation of a proposed listing rule or “not-warranted” finding. Table 4 identifies these 19 species.

The Act provides two mechanisms for considering species for listing. One method allows the Secretary, on the Secretary's own initiative, to identify species for listing under the standards of section 4(a)(1). The second method provides a mechanism for the public to petition us to add a species to the Lists. As described further in the paragraphs that follow, the CNOR serves several purposes as part of the petition process: (1) In some instances (in particular, for petitions to list species that the Service has already identified as candidates on its own initiative), it serves as the initial petition finding; (2) for candidate species for which the Service has made a warranted-but-precluded petition finding, it serves as a “resubmitted” petition finding that the Act requires the Service to make each year; and (3) it documents the Service's compliance with the statutory requirement to monitor the status of species for which listing is warranted but precluded, and to ascertain if they need emergency listing.

First, the CNOR serves as an initial petition finding in some instances. Under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, when we receive a petition to list a species, we must determine within 90 days, to the maximum extent practicable, whether the petition presents substantial information indicating that listing may be warranted (a “90-day finding”). If we make a positive 90-day finding, we must promptly commence a status review of the species under section 4(b)(3)(A); we must then make, within 12 months of the receipt of the petition, one of the following three possible findings (a “12-month finding”):

(1) The petitioned action is not warranted, in which case we must promptly publish the finding in the Federal Register ;

(2) The petitioned action is warranted (in which case we are required to promptly publish a proposed regulation to implement the petitioned action; once we publish a proposed rule for a species, sections 4(b)(5) and 4(b)(6) of the Act govern further procedures, regardless of whether or not we issued the proposal in response to a petition); or

(3) The petitioned action is warranted, but (a) the immediate proposal of a regulation and final promulgation of a regulation implementing the petitioned action is precluded by pending proposals to determine whether any species is endangered or threatened, and (b) expeditious progress is being made to add qualified species to the Lists. We refer to this third option as a “warranted-but-precluded finding,” and after making such a finding, we must promptly publish it in the Federal Register .

We define “candidate species” to mean those species for which the Service has on file sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threats to support issuance of a proposed rule to list, but for which issuance of the proposed rule is precluded (61 FR 64481; December 5, 1996). The standard for making a species a candidate through our own initiative is identical to the standard for making a warranted-but-precluded 12-month petition finding on a petition to list, and we add all petitioned species for which we have made a warranted- but-precluded 12-month finding to the candidate list.

Therefore, all candidate species identified through our own initiative already have received the equivalent of substantial 90-day and warranted-but-precluded 12-month findings. Nevertheless, if we receive a petition to list a species that we have already identified as a candidate, we review the status of the newly petitioned candidate species and through this CNOR publish specific section 4(b)(3) findings ( i.e., substantial 90-day and warranted-but-precluded 12-month findings) in response to the petitions to list these candidate species. We publish these findings as part of the first CNOR following receipt of the petition. We have identified the candidate species for which we received petitions and made a continued warranted-but-precluded finding on a resubmitted petition by the code “C*” in the category column on the left side of Table 4, below.

Second, the CNOR serves as a “resubmitted” petition finding. Section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Act requires that when we make a warranted-but-precluded finding on a petition, we treat the petition as one that is resubmitted on the date of the finding. Thus, we must make a 12-month petition finding for each such species at least once a year in compliance with section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act, until we publish a proposal to list the species or make a final not-warranted finding. We make these annual resubmitted petition findings through the CNOR. To the extent these annual findings differ from the initial 12-month warranted-but-precluded finding or any of the resubmitted petition findings in previous CNORs, they supersede the earlier findings, although all previous findings are part of the administrative record for the new finding, and in the new finding, we may rely upon them or incorporate them by reference as appropriate, in addition to explaining why the finding has changed.

Third, through undertaking the analysis required to complete the CNOR, the Service determines if any candidate species needs emergency listing. Section 4(b)(3)(C)(iii) of the Act requires us to implement a system to monitor effectively the status of all species for which we have made a warranted-but-precluded 12-month finding, and to make prompt use of the emergency listing authority under section 4(b)(7) of the Act to prevent a significant risk to the well being of any such species. The CNOR plays a crucial role in the monitoring system that we have implemented for all candidate species by providing notice that we are actively seeking information regarding the status of those species. We review all new information on candidate species as it becomes available, prepare an annual species assessment form that reflects monitoring results and other new information, and identify any species for which emergency listing may be appropriate. If we determine that emergency listing is appropriate for any candidate, we will make prompt use of the emergency listing authority under section 4(b)(7) of the Act. For example, on August 10, 2011, we emergency listed the Miami blue butterfly (76 FR 49542). We have been reviewing and will continue to review, at least annually, the status of every candidate, whether or not we have received a petition to list it. Thus, the CNOR and accompanying species assessment forms constitute the Service's system for monitoring and making annual findings on the status of petitioned species under sections 4(b)(3)(C)(i) and 4(b)(3)(C)(iii) of the Act.

A number of court decisions have elaborated on the nature and specificity of information that we must consider in making and describing the petition findings in the CNOR. The CNOR that published on November 9, 2009 (74 FR 57804), describes these court decisions in further detail. As with previous CNORs, we continue to incorporate information of the nature and specificity required by the courts. For example, we include a description of the reasons why the listing of every petitioned candidate species is both warranted and precluded at this time. We make our determinations of preclusion on a nationwide basis to ensure that the species most in need of listing will be addressed first and also because we allocate our listing budget on a nationwide basis (see below). Our preclusion determinations are further based upon our budget for listing activities for unlisted species only, and we explain the priority system and why the work we have accomplished has precluded action on listing candidate species.

In preparing this CNOR, we reviewed the current status of, and threats to, the 19 foreign species candidates for which we have received a petition to list. We find that the immediate issuance of a proposed rule and timely promulgation of a final rule for each of these species has been, for the preceding months, and continues to be, precluded by higher priority listing actions. Additional information that is the basis for this finding is found in the species assessments and our administrative record for each species.

The immediate publication of proposed rules to list these species was precluded by our work on higher priority listing actions, listed below, during the period from October 1, 2018, through September 30, 2020. Below we describe the actions that continue to preclude the immediate proposal and final promulgation of a regulation implementing each of the petitioned actions for which we have made a warranted-but-precluded finding, and we describe the expeditious progress we are making to add qualified species to, and remove species from, the Lists. We will continue to monitor the status of all candidate species, including petitioned species, as new information becomes available to determine if a change in status is warranted, including the need to emergency list a species under section 4(b)(7) of the Act. As described above, under section 4 of the Act, we identify and propose species for listing based on the factors identified in section 4(a)(1)—either on our own initiative or through the mechanism that section 4 provides for the public to petition us to add species to the Lists of Endangered or Threatened Wildlife and Plants.

To make a finding that a particular action is warranted but precluded, the Service must make two determinations: (1) That the immediate proposal and timely promulgation of a final regulation is precluded by pending proposals to determine whether any species is endangered or threatened; and (2) that expeditious progress is being made to add qualified species to either of the Lists and to remove species from the Lists (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(B)(iii)).

A listing proposal is precluded if the Service does not have sufficient resources available to complete the proposal, because there are competing demands for those resources, and the relative priority of those competing demands is higher. Thus, in any given fiscal year (FY), multiple factors dictate whether it will be possible to undertake work on a proposed listing regulation or whether promulgation of such a proposal is precluded by higher priority listing actions—(1) the amount of resources available for completing the listing function, (2) the estimated cost of completing the proposed listing regulation, and (3) the Service's workload, along with the Service's prioritization of the proposed listing regulation, in relation to other actions in its workload.

The resources available for listing actions are determined through the annual Congressional appropriations process. In FY 1998 and for each fiscal year since then, Congress has placed a statutory cap on funds that may be expended for the Listing Program (spending cap). This spending cap was designed to prevent the listing function from depleting funds needed for other functions under the Act (for example, recovery functions, such as removing species from the Lists), or for other Service programs (see House Report 105-163, 105th Congress, 1st Session, July 1, 1997). The funds within the spending cap are available to support work involving the following listing actions: Proposed and final rules to add species to the Lists or to change the status of species from threatened to endangered; 90-day and 12-month findings on petitions to add species to the Lists or to change the status of a species from threatened to endangered; annual “resubmitted” petition findings on prior warranted-but-precluded petition findings as required under section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Act; critical habitat petition findings; proposed rules designating critical habitat or final critical habitat determinations; and litigation-related, administrative, and program-management functions (including preparing and allocating budgets, responding to Congressional and public inquiries, and conducting public outreach regarding listing and critical habitat).

For more than two decades, the size and cost of the workload in these categories of actions have far exceeded the amount of funding available to the Service under the spending cap for completing listing and critical habitat actions under the Act. Since we cannot exceed the spending cap without violating the Anti-Deficiency Act (31 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1)(A)), each year we have been compelled to determine that work on at least some actions was precluded by work on higher-priority actions. We make our determinations of preclusion on a nationwide basis to ensure that the species most in need of listing will be addressed first, and because we allocate our listing budget on a nationwide basis. Through the listing cap and the amount of funds needed to complete court-mandated actions within the cap, Congress and the courts have in effect determined the amount of money remaining (after completing court-mandated actions) for listing activities nationwide. Therefore, the funds that remain within the listing cap—after paying for work needed to comply with court orders or court-approved settlement agreements—set the framework within which we make our determinations of preclusion and expeditious progress.

In FY 2019, through the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2019 (Pub. L. 116-6, February 15, 2019), Congress appropriated the Service $18,318,000 under a consolidated cap for all domestic and foreign listing work, including status assessments, listing determinations, domestic critical habitat designations, and related activities. In FY 2020, through the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 (Pub. L. 116-94, December 20, 2019), Congress appropriated $20,318,000 for all domestic and foreign listing work. The amount of funding Congress will appropriate in future years is uncertain.

The work involved in preparing various listing documents can be extensive, and may include, but is not limited to: Gathering and assessing the best scientific and commercial data available and conducting analyses used as the basis for our decisions; writing and publishing documents; and obtaining, reviewing, and evaluating public comments and peer-review comments on proposed rules and incorporating relevant information from those comments into final rules. The number of listing actions that we can undertake in a given year also is influenced by the complexity of those listing actions; that is, more complex actions generally are more costly. The Service has developed several ways to determine the relative priorities of the actions within its workload to identify the work it can complete with the funding it has available under the spending cap for listing and critical habitat actions each year.

The Service's Listing Program workload is broadly composed of four types of actions, which the Service prioritizes as follows: (1) Compliance with court orders and court-approved settlement agreements requiring that petition findings or listing determinations or critical habitat designations be completed by a specific date; (2) essential litigation-related, administrative, and listing program-management functions; (3) section 4 (of the Act) listing and critical habitat actions with absolute statutory deadlines; and (4) section 4 listing actions that do not have absolute statutory deadlines.

In previous years, the Service received many new petitions, including multiple petitions to list numerous species—in one example, a single petition sought to list 404 domestic species. The emphasis that petitioners placed on seeking listing for hundreds of species at a time through the petition process significantly increased the number of actions within the third category of our workload—actions that have absolute statutory deadlines for making findings on those petitions. In addition, the necessity of dedicating all of the Listing Program funding towards determining the status of 251 candidate species and complying with other court-ordered requirements between 2011 and 2016 added to the number of petition findings awaiting action. Because we are not able to work on all of these at once, the Service's most recent effort to prioritize its workload focuses on addressing the backlog in petition findings that has resulted from the influx of large multi-species petitions and the 5-year period in which the Service was compelled to suspend making 12-month findings for most of those petitions. The number of petitions that are awaiting status reviews and accompanying 12-month findings illustrates the considerable extent of this backlog. As a result of the outstanding petitions to list hundreds of species, and our efforts to make initial petition findings within 90 days of receiving the petition to the maximum extent practicable, at the beginning of FY 2020, we had 36 12-month petition findings for foreign species yet to be initiated and completed and 422 12-month petition findings for domestic species yet to be initiated and completed.

To determine the relative priorities of the outstanding 12-month petition findings, the Service developed a prioritization methodology (methodology) (81 FR 49248; July 27, 2016) after providing the public with notice and an opportunity to comment on the draft methodology (81 FR 2229; January 15, 2016). Under the methodology, we assign outstanding 12-month petition findings to one of five priority bins. (1) The species is critically imperiled; (2) strong data are already available about the status of the species; (3) new science is underway that would inform key uncertainties about the status of the species; (4) conservation efforts are in development or underway and likely to address the status of the species; or (5) the available data on the species are limited. As a general matter, 12-month findings with a lower bin number have a higher priority than, and are scheduled before, 12-month findings with a higher bin number. However, we make some limited exceptions—for example, we may schedule a lower-priority finding earlier if batching it with a higher-priority finding would generate efficiencies. We may also consider where there are any special circumstances whereby an action should be moved up (or down) in scheduling. Since before Congress first established the spending cap for the Listing Program in 1998, the Listing Program workload has required considerably more resources than the amount of funds Congress has allowed for the Listing Program. Therefore, it is important that we be as efficient as possible in our listing process.

Consistent with our methodology, within the five priority bins we determine the relative timing of foreign species actions using sub-ranking considerations, i.e., as tie-breakers for determining relative timing within each of the five bins. We consider the extent to which the protections of the Act would be able to improve conditions for that species and its habitat relative to the other species within the same bin, and in doing so, we give weight to the following considerations, in order from greater weight to lesser weight.

1. FWS Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) enforcement capacity— We prioritize species actions where OLE currently has the expertise and workforce capacity to identify taxa ( e.g., some invertebrates require time-intensive inspection and expertise to differentiate listed from non-listed species). The capacity to identify taxa to effectively enforce a listing greatly increases the impact of the listing.

2. Species in trade to and/or from the United States— We prioritize actions for these species over those that are neither imported to nor exported from the United States because we can regulate import, export, and other activities with these species through permitting and incentivizing activities—including requirement of an enhancement finding or for scientific purposes—that benefit the conservation of the species, and by deterring and prohibiting activities that do not. In addition, the Lacey Act, in part, makes it illegal to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase species taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any U.S. law, treaty, or regulation. Thus, violations of the Act and its implementing regulations can be one component of a Lacey Act violation, further adding to the impact of the Act's listing.

3. Species in trade through U.S. ports (i.e., in-transit or transshipment)— We prioritize timing of actions for these species over those in trade outside of the United States because the capacity to track, regulate, and enforce this activity is greater than for species in trade outside the United States.

4. Within the United States, interstate trade— We prioritize timing of actions for species traded between States within the United States (interstate activity) over those not traded between States within the United States (intrastate activity). The Act prohibits certain activities with listed species in interstate commerce. FWS regulation of this interstate activity can result in incentivizing and permitting activities—including requirement of an enhancement finding or for scientific purposes—that benefit the conservation of the species, and deterring and prohibiting activities that do not. As noted above, such violations of the Act can also be one component of a Lacey Act violation.

5. CITES status —We use Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) status to prioritize timing of listing actions under the Act for species as follows: Appendix II (highest priority for listing actions under the Act relative to other CITES-listed species) > Appendix III > Appendix I (lowest priority for listing actions under the Act relative to other CITES-listed species).

• Appendix I species: Appendix I includes species threatened with extinction that are or may be affected by trade, and trade in Appendix-I specimens may take place only in exceptional circumstances. With narrow exceptions, CITES does not allow primarily commercial international trade in Appendix-I species, and commercial use of Appendix-I specimens is also prohibited after import. Allowed international trade in these species is subject to a dual permitting process that requires both importing and exporting countries to find that the trade will not be detrimental to the species' survival. Thus, a listing under the Act would generally provide comparatively less additional conservation of these species than for CITES species that are not subject to this level of regulation.

• Appendix II species: Appendix II includes species that may become threatened with extinction if their trade is not regulated or because they need to be regulated so that trade in certain other Appendix-I or -II species may be effectively controlled. CITES allows international trade in Appendix-II species for primarily commercial purposes, and does not require the dual-permitting process established for Appendix-I species. Listing under the Act is more likely to improve conservation capacity for Appendix-II species than for the Appendix-I species that are comparatively more tightly controlled under CITES.

• Appendix III species: Appendix III includes species listed unilaterally by a range country to obtain international cooperation in controlling trade. International trade in Appendix-III species exported from a country that has included the species in Appendix III requires an export permit, while other exports and re-exports require documentation. Appendix-III species have fewer substantive conservation controls for trade than for Appendix-I or -II species. However, we generally prioritize the timing for Appendix-II species over Appendix-III species because the CITES Parties having collectively identified Appendix-II species as requiring trade regulation to avoid threatening their survival.

6. IUCN Red List status— We prioritize timing of actions for species considered at greater risk by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) over those that are considered at lesser risk. Per IUCN categories, Critically endangered (highest priority) > Endangered > Vulnerable > Near-threatened > Least concern > Data deficient > Not assessed > Extinct (lowest priority). We use this criterion to identify species for which listing would likely have greater positive impacts on their conservation because they are more likely in greater need of conservation. Although IUCN's rating system is not directly comparable to the definitions for an endangered species and threatened species under the Act (which is why this is considered low in our prioritization scheme), and does not establish any legal status, IUCN's Red List provides a readily-accessible, expert-validated assessment of conservation threat.

We applied the methodology and tie-breakers described above to develop a multi-year Foreign Species Workplan (Workplan) for completing the outstanding status assessments and accompanying 12-month findings. The purpose of the Workplan is to provide transparency and predictability to the public about when the Service anticipates completing specific 12-month findings while allowing for flexibility to update the Workplan when new information changes the priorities. In June 2020, the Service released its Foreign Species Workplan for addressing the Act's foreign listing decisions over the subsequent 5 years. The Workplan identified the Service's schedule for addressing all foreign species on the candidate list and 45 status reviews and accompanying 12- month findings, and identified which 12-month findings we would complete by FY 2025 for foreign species that have been petitioned for Federal protections under the Act. As we implement our Workplan and work on proposed rules for the highest-priority species, we increase efficiency by preparing multi-species proposals when appropriate, and these may include species with lower priority if they overlap geographically or have the same threats as one of the highest-priority species. The Foreign Species Workplan is available online at: https://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/foreign-listing-workplan.html.

As noted above, an additional way in which we determine relative priorities of outstanding actions in the section 4 program is application of the listing priority guidelines (48 FR 43098; September 21, 1983). Under those guidelines, which apply primarily to candidate species, we assign each candidate an LPN of 1 to 12, depending on the magnitude of threats (high or moderate to low), immediacy of threats (imminent or nonimminent), and taxonomic status of the species (in order of priority: monotypic genus (a species that is the sole member of a genus), a species, or a part of a species (subspecies or distinct population segment)). The lower the LPN, the higher the listing priority (that is, a species with an LPN of 1 would have the highest listing priority). A species with a higher LPN would generally be precluded from listing by species with lower LPNs, unless work on a proposed rule for the species with the higher LPN can be combined for efficiency with work on a proposed rule for other high-priority species.

Finally, proposed rules for reclassification of threatened species status to endangered species status (“uplistings”) are generally lower in priority because, as listed species, they are already afforded the protections of the Act and implementing regulations. However, for efficiency reasons, we may choose to work on a proposed rule to reclassify a species to endangered species status if we can combine this with higher-priority work.

The Foreign Species Workplan that the Service released in 2020 outlined work for foreign species over the period from FY 2020 to FY 2025. Tables 1 and 2 under Expeditious Progress, below, identify the higher-priority listing actions that we completed through the end of FY 2020 (September 30, 2020), as well as those we have been working on in FY 2020 but have not yet completed. For FY 2020, our Foreign Species Workplan includes nine 12-month findings or proposed listing actions that are at various stages of completion at the time of this finding. In addition to the actions scheduled in the Foreign Species Workplan, the overall Listing Program workload also includes the National Listing Workplan that includes 74 12-month findings or proposed listing actions, development and revision of regulations required by new court orders or settlement agreements to address the repercussions of any new court decisions, and proposed and final critical habitat designations or revisions for species that have already been listed. The Service's highest priorities for spending its funding in FY 2019 and FY 2020 were actions included in the Workplan and actions required to address court decisions.

As explained above, a determination that listing is warranted but precluded must also demonstrate that expeditious progress is being made to add and remove qualified species to and from the Lists. Please note that in the Code of Federal Regulations, the “Lists” are grouped as one list of endangered and threatened wildlife (50 CFR 17.11(h)) and one list of endangered and threatened plants (50 CFR 17.12(h)). However, the “Lists” referred to in the Act mean one list of endangered species (wildlife and plants) and one list of threatened species (wildlife and plants). For the purposes of evaluating our expeditious progress, when we refer to the “Lists,” we mean this latter grouping of one list of endangered species and one list of threatened species.

As with our “precluded” finding, the evaluation of whether expeditious progress is being made is a function of the resources available and the competing demands for those funds. As discussed earlier, the FY 2020 appropriations law included a spending cap of $20,318,000 for listing activities, and the FY 2019 appropriations law included a spending cap of $18,318,000 for listing activities.

As discussed below, given the limited resources available for listing, the competing demands for those funds, and the completed work catalogued in the tables below, we find that we are making expeditious progress in adding qualified species to the Lists.

The work of the Service's foreign listing program in FY 2019 and FY 2020 (as of September 30, 2020) includes all three of the steps necessary for adding species to the Lists: (1) Identifying species that may warrant listing (90-day petition findings); (2) undertaking an evaluation of the best available scientific data about those species and the threats they face to determine whether or not listing is warranted (a status review and accompanying 12-month finding); and (3) adding qualified species to the Lists (by publishing proposed and final listing rules). We explain in more detail how we are making expeditious progress in all three of the steps necessary for adding qualified species to the Lists (identifying, evaluating, and adding species). Subsequent to discussing our expeditious progress in adding qualified species to the Lists, we explain our expeditious progress in removing from the Lists species that no longer require the protections of the Act.

Generally, we first make expeditious progress in identifying species that may warrant listing. In FY 2019 and FY 2020 (as of September 30, 2020), we completed 90-day findings on petitions to list 14 species. However, for foreign species, we have not received petitions to list species in FY 2019 or FY 2020 (as of September 30, 2020).

Second, we are making expeditious progress in evaluating the best scientific and commercial data available about species and threats they face (status reviews) to determine whether or not listing is warranted. In FY 2019 and FY 2020 (as of September 30, 2020), we completed 12-month findings for 69 domestic species. In addition, we funded and worked on the development of 12-month findings for 34 domestic species and proposed listing determinations for 9 candidates, and we initiated 12-month findings for nine foreign species. Although we did not complete those actions during FY 2019 or FY 2020 (as of September 30, 2020), we made expeditious progress towards doing so by initiating and making progress on the status reviews to determine whether adding the species to the Lists is warranted.

Third, we are making expeditious progress in adding qualified species to the Lists. In FY 2019 and FY 2020 (as of September 30, 2020), we published a final listing rule for 1 foreign species and 7 domestic species, including final critical habitat designations for 1 of those domestic species and final protective regulations under the Act's section 4(d) for 2 of those domestic species. In addition, we published proposed rules to list an additional 20 domestic species (including concurrent proposed critical habitat designations for 13 species and concurrent protective regulations under the Act's section 4(d) for 14 species).

The Act also requires that we make expeditious progress in removing species from the Lists that no longer require the protections of the Act. Specifically, we are making expeditious progress in removing (delisting) species, as well as reclassifying endangered species to threatened species status (downlisting). Delisting and downlisting actions are funded through the recovery line item in the budget of the Endangered Species Program. Thus, delisting and downlisting actions do not factor into our assessment of preclusion; that is, work on recovery actions does not preclude the availability of resources for completing new listing work. However, work on recovery actions does count towards our assessment of making expeditious progress because the Act states that expeditious progress includes both adding qualified species to, and removing qualified species from, the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. In FY 2019 and FY 2020 (as of September 30, 2020), we finalized downlisting of 2 species (one of which is a foreign species), finalized delisting rules for 7 domestic species, proposed downlisting for 7 domestic species, and proposed delisting of 11 domestic species. The rate at which the Service has completed delisting and downlisting actions in FY 2019 and FY 2020 (as of September 30, 2020) is higher than any point in the history of the Act, which underscores the expeditious progress we are making.

The tables below catalog the Service's progress in FY 2019 and FY 2020 (as of September 30, 2020) as it pertains to our evaluation of making expeditious progress. Table 1 includes completed and published foreign listing actions; Table 2 includes foreign listing actions funded and initiated in previous fiscal years and in FY 2020 that are not yet complete as of September 30, 2020; and Table 3 includes completed and published proposed and final downlisting and delisting actions for foreign species.

When a petitioned action is found to be warranted but precluded, the Service is required by the Act to treat the petition as resubmitted on an annual basis until a proposal or withdrawal is published. If the petitioned species is not already listed under the Act, the species becomes a “candidate” and is reviewed annually in the CNOR.

Another way that we have been expeditious in making progress in adding and removing qualified species to and from the Lists is that we have made our actions as efficient and timely as possible, given the requirements of the Act and regulations and constraints relating to workload and personnel. We are continually seeking ways to streamline processes or achieve economies of scale, such as batching related actions together for publication. Given our limited budget for implementing section 4 of the Act, these efforts also contribute toward our expeditious progress in adding and removing qualified species to and from the Lists.

We reviewed the LPNs for all foreign candidate species and are changing the LPN for the Brasília tapaculo ( Scytalopus novacapitalis ).

Brasília tapaculo is a small, shy, ground-dwelling bird with limited flight ability. The tapaculo is found in dense, swampy, gallery-forest habitat that is a smaller habitat component occurring within the wider tropical savanna or Cerrado of the Central Goia's Plateau of Brazil. Gallery forests are narrow fringes of thick streamside vegetation that occur on the edges of rivers and streams at elevations of approximately 800-1,000 meters (m) (2,625-3,281 feet (ft)).

The Brasília tapaculo is described as rare, but the population size is unknown. Despite a lack of data on population trends, the population is assumed to be declining because of the continued decline of the tapaculo's gallery-forest habitat. The species is currently known to occur in six protected areas and has been found on private land next to protected areas. These protected areas are limited in extent and size, with few larger than 25,000 hectares (ha) (61,776 acres (ac)). In the early 2000s, only 1.2 percent of the Cerrado was in protected areas; however, more recent estimates are 6.5 percent.

The primary threat to the species is ongoing habitat loss and fragmentation. The Cerrado is the largest, most diverse, and possibly most threatened tropical savanna in the world. Land in the Cerrado is currently being converted for intensive grazing and mechanized agriculture, including soybean and rice plantations. The tapaculo's gallery-forest habitat has been less affected by clearing for agriculture than the surrounding Cerrado. However, effects to gallery forest arise from wetland drainage and the diversion of water for irrigation and from annual burning of adjacent grasslands for agricultural space. Effects from climate change may also be negatively altering the Cerrado and the tapaculo's specialized gallery-forest habitat within the Cerrado by reducing the amount of available habitat for the species.

The IUCN recently changed the status of the species from near threatened to endangered, identifying the species' small and fragmented range as justification for the change in status. The Brazilian Red List assessed the species as endangered, noting severe fragmentation and continuing decline in area and quality of habitat. International trade is not a significant threat to the species, and the species is not included in the Appendices to CITES.

In the October 10, 2019, CNOR, we assigned the Brasília tapaculo an LPN of 8. After reevaluating the available information, we have determined that a change to an LPN of 2 is warranted at this time. The Brasília tapaculo does not represent a monotypic genus. Threats to the species are high in magnitude and are imminent. Habitat destruction and fragmentation and conversion of the Cerrado, mainly for agriculture and livestock, is ongoing and affects the small geographic range of the species. The species only occurs in a handful of small protected areas, and even in these areas the species is reported as rare. Therefore, an LPN of 2 is valid for this species to reflect imminent threats of high magnitude.

For all 19 candidates, we continue to find that listing is warranted but precluded as of the date of publication of this document. In the course of preparing proposed listing rules or not-warranted petition findings in the future, we continue to monitor new information about these species' status so that we can make prompt use of our authority under section 4(b)(7) of the Act in the case of an emergency posing a significant risk to any of these species.

Below are updated summaries for 18 petitioned candidates that we did not change the LPN, for which we published findings under section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act. In accordance with section 4(b)(3)(C)(i), we treat any petitions for which we made warranted-but-precluded 12-month findings within the past year as having been resubmitted on the date of the warranted-but-precluded finding. We are making continued warranted-but-precluded 12-month findings on the petitions for these species.

The Sira curassow ( Pauxi koepckeae ) is a large game bird that is known only from the Cerros del Sira region of Peru. Size and coloration are similar to the southern helmeted curassow, but their ranges are separated by approximately 2,000 kilometers (1,243 miles), and the Sira curassow has a shorter and rounder pale-blue casque (a horn-like bony appendage above the bill) that is flattened against the head.

The Sira curassow inhabits cloud-forest habitat (a type of rainforest that occurs on high mountains in the tropics) at elevations from 1,100-1,450 m (3,609-4,757 ft) and above.

Historical population data are lacking, but the population is currently estimated at fewer than 250 mature individuals and is declining. The primary cause of the decline is ongoing hunting by local indigenous communities. Additionally, the Sira curassow's range within the Cerros del Sira region is limited (550 square kilometers (212 square miles)) and declining. Its habitat is being degraded by subsistence agriculture, forest clearing, road building, and associated rural development. Although the Sira curassow is legally protected in a large portion of its range in El Sira Communal Reserve, illegal hunting still occurs. A majority of the deforestation occurs outside of the El Sira Communal Reserve.

The species is classified as critically endangered on the IUCN Red List. The species is not known to be in international trade, and the species is not included in the Appendices to CITES. The species is also not included in the European Union Wildlife Trade Regulations.

In the October 10, 2019, CNOR, the Sira curassow was assigned an LPN of 2. After reevaluating the threats to the species, we have determined that no change in the LPN is warranted. The Sira curassow does not represent a monotypic genus. It faces threats that are high in magnitude based on its very small estimated population and limited range. The few locations where it exists continue to face pressure from hunting and habitat loss. The best scientific and commercial data available indicate that the population decline will continue in the future. Because the species is experiencing significant population declines due to both hunting and habitat loss and degradation, we have made no change to the LPN of 2, which reflects imminent threats of high magnitude.

The southern helmeted curassow ( Pauxi unicornis ) is a game bird with a distinctive pale-blue, horn-like appendage (or casque) above its bill. The southern helmeted curassow is known only from central Bolivia on the eastern slope of the Andes, where large portions of its habitat are in national parks. The species inhabits dense, humid, foothill and lower montane forest and adjacent evergreen forest at altitudes between 450 and 1,500 m (1,476 and 4,921 ft).

The total population of southern helmeted curassow is estimated to be between 1,500 and 7,500 individuals and is declining. Hunting the species is estimated to be the primary threat to the species, followed by habitat loss and degradation. Although the national parks have been important for the preservation of the species, financial and human resources needed to protect park resources are limited. Within the parks, there are human settlements and ongoing encroachment, including illegal logging operations and forest clearing for farming. Rural development and road building limit the species' ability to disperse. Range reductions due to effects from climate change are also predicted for the southern helmeted curassow, when warming temperatures may cause the species to shift its distribution upslope and outside of protected national parks.

The southern helmeted curassow is classified as critically endangered on the IUCN Red List. Trade has not been noted internationally, and the species is not included in the Appendices to CITES. In 1997, the species was listed in Annex B of the European Union Wildlife Trade Regulations as part of a genus-level listing of all species in the genus Pauxi. The European Union Wildlife Trade Regulations are directly applicable in all European Union Member States; species listed on Annex B require a permit for import. In 2008, the species was moved from Annex B to Annex D (a lower level of protection) because it was one of the species that are not subject to levels of international trade that might be incompatible with their survival, but warrant monitoring of trade levels. The species continues to be listed on Annex D; species listed on Annex D require an import notification form completed by the importer for import.

In the October 10, 2019, CNOR, the southern helmeted curassow was assigned an LPN of 2. After reevaluating the threats to the species, we have determined that no change in the LPN is warranted because the threats are of high magnitude and are imminent. The southern helmeted curassow does not represent a monotypic genus. It faces threats that are high in magnitude based on its small, limited range. The few locations where it exists continue to face pressure from hunting and from habitat loss and destruction, and the population will likely continue to decline. Because the species is experiencing ongoing population declines and habitat loss, an LPN of 2 remains valid for this species, which reflects imminent threats of high magnitude.

Lord Howe Island pied currawong ( Strepera graculina crissalis ) is a fairly large, crow-like bird, endemic to Lord Howe Island, New South Wales, Australia. Lord Howe Island is a small island northeast of Sydney, Australia, with 28 smaller islets and rocks. The Lord Howe Island pied currawong occurs throughout the island but is most numerous in the mountainous areas on the southern end. It has also been recorded to a limited extent on the Admiralty Islands, located 1 kilometer (0.6 mile) north of Lord Howe Island. The Lord Howe Island pied currawong breeds in rainforests and palm forests, particularly along streams. Approximately 75 percent of Lord Howe Island, plus all outlying islets and rocks within the Lord Howe Island group, is protected under the Permanent Park Preserve, which has similar status to that of a national park.

The best current population estimate indicates that there are approximately 200 individuals. Researchers have determined that most, if not all, available habitat on Lord Howe Island is occupied based on the estimate of 200 individuals and estimates of the extent of available breeding habitat.

The potential for the introduction of other nonnative rodents to this island ecosystem has also been identified as an issue for this subspecies, although the subspecies has persisted among invasive black rats. Because the Lord Howe Island pied currawong often preys on small rodents, it may be subject to nontarget poisoning during ongoing rat-baiting programs. In June 2019, the Lord Howe Island Rodent Eradication Project began by placing poison bait traps around the island. To ensure the currawong's safety, project evaluators determined that approximately 50-60 percent of the wild population would need to be held in captive management during the eradication effort. The subspecies is known to sometimes eat rodents and feed them to their offspring. It is unlikely currawong targets the poison bait directly. A study is underway focusing on the effects of this project. In addition to its small population size, direct persecution (via shootings) by humans in retaliation for predation on domestic and endemic birds has been documented. The incidence of shootings has declined since the 1970s, when conservation efforts on Lord Howe Island began, but occasional shootings were still occurring as recently as 2006. Another potential threat to the currawong is rising global temperatures associated with climate change that may affect the cloud layer on the island's mountaintops—resulting in drying of the forest where the currawong gets about half of its food, possibly creating a food shortage for the subspecies.

The New South Wales Threatened Species Conservation Act of 1995 lists the Lord Howe Island pied currawong as vulnerable due to its extremely limited range and its small population size, as does Australia's Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act List of Threatened Fauna. The subspecies is not listed on the IUCN Red List, is not included in the Appendices to CITES, and this subspecies is not known to be in international trade.

In the October 10, 2019, CNOR, the Lord Howe Island pied currawong was assigned an LPN of 6. After reevaluating the threats to the Lord Howe Island pied currawong, we have determined that no change in the LPN for the subspecies is warranted. The Lord Howe Island pied currawong does not represent a monotypic genus or a full species. It faces threats that are high in magnitude due to a combination of factors including its small population size and risks from nontarget poisoning from rodent control. Aspects of the rodent-eradication program carry some risk, such as those associated with trapping and holding the birds, and the effects of a missed breeding cycle. If the rodent-eradication program is successful, effects from nontarget poisoning and any predation by rodents on currawong eggs will cease to be stressors for the currawong. However, because significant conservation efforts for the currawong have been implemented, and the subspecies is being closely managed and monitored, we find that the threats are nonimminent. Therefore, based on the best information available, an LPN of 6 remains valid to reflect nonimminent threats of high magnitude.

Chatham oystercatcher ( Haematopus chathamensis ) is the rarest oystercatcher in the world, with a recent population estimate of 300 to 320 individuals. It is native to the Chatham Island group located 860 kilometers (534 miles) east of mainland New Zealand. The species breeds along the coastline of four islands in the chain: Chatham, Pitt, South East, and Mangere. The Chatham oystercatcher is found mainly along rocky shores, including wide volcanic rock platforms and occasionally on sandy or gravelly beaches.

Predation of eggs and chicks, and to a lesser extent of adults, is thought to be the main threat to the Chatham oystercatcher population. Although the Mangere and South East nature reserves are free of all mammalian predators, nonnative mammalian predators inhabit Chatham and Pitt Islands. Feral cats are the most common predator of eggs. Other documented predators include gulls ( Larus spp.), the native brown skua ( Catharacta antarctica ), weka ( Gallirallus australis hectori ), and domestic dogs. Nest destruction and disturbance by humans and livestock are also noted threats. Habitat loss and degradation has occurred from introductions of nonnative marram grass ( Ammophila arenaria ) in the early 1900s to revegetate destabilized dunes. The dense marram grass is unsuitable for Chatham oystercatcher nesting. Consequently, the Chatham oystercatcher is forced to nest closer to shore, where nests are vulnerable to tides and storm surges; up to 50 percent of eggs are lost in some years. Rising sea levels associated with climate change will likely affect future nesting success. Additionally, the Chatham oystercatcher may be at risk from loss of genetic diversity given its small population size.

The species has experienced a three-fold increase in its population since the first reliable census was conducted in 1987. Most of this increase occurred during a period of intensive management, especially predator control, from 1998 through 2004. The Chatham oystercatcher is listed as nationally critical by the NZDOC and it is protected under New Zealand's Wildlife Act. It is classified as endangered on the IUCN Red List, and the species is not included in the Appendices to CITES.

In the October 10, 2019, CNOR, the Chatham oystercatcher was assigned an LPN of 8. After reevaluating the threats to this species, we have determined no change in the LPN for the species is warranted. The Chatham oystercatcher does not represent a monotypic genus. The current population estimate is very small, and the species has a limited range. The NZDOC has taken measures to recover and maintain the species, and the population appears to have stabilized. However, the species continues to face moderate threats from predation, trampling, nest disturbance, storm surges, and habitat loss due to nonnative marram grass that are affecting nesting success and survival. These threats are ongoing and imminent. The LPN remains an 8 to reflect imminent threats of moderate magnitude.

Orange-fronted parakeet ( Cyanoramphus malherbi ) is considered the rarest parakeet in New Zealand. It is distributed on the South Island of mainland New Zealand and a few offshore islands. The three remaining naturally occurring populations are all within a 30-kilometer (18.6-mile) radius of one another in fragmented beech tree forests ( Nothofagus spp.) of the upland valleys. Orange-fronted parakeets have also been captive-bred and released onto four predator-free islands where breeding has been confirmed.

The species' range contracted when its population was severely reduced in the late 1800s and early 1900s for unknown reasons. From 1999 to 2000, the mainland population crashed from perhaps 500 to 700 birds to a rough estimate of 100 to 200 birds as a result of ship rat or black rat ( Rattus rattus ) eruptions. Information on the current population status is mixed. In 2013, the total population was estimated between 290 and 690 individuals (130 to 270 on the mainland, and 160 to 420 on the islands). More recently, there are indications that both the offshore and mainland populations have declined to around 100 and 250 birds, respectively, but these are rough estimates. In 2019, the orange-fronted parakeet had one of its best breeding seasons in decades with more than three times as many nests compared to previous years and produced at least 150 wild-born chicks, potentially doubling the population.

The most prominent factors affecting the species on the mainland are predation by nonnative mammals such as weasels and rats ( Rattus spp.), as well as habitat destruction. Trade of this species is not known to be a threat. Habitat loss and degradation has historically affected large areas of native forest on the mainland. The species' habitat is also degraded by introduced herbivores that alter forest structure in a way that reduces the available feeding habitat for the parakeet. Additionally, silviculture (care and cultivation) of beech forests has removed mature trees with nest cavities needed by the species. The parakeet competes with two other native parakeets for nest sites and food and with nonnative wasps and finches for food. Lastly, Psittacine beak and feather disease virus is a potential threat to this species. The disease was discovered in wild native birds ( e.g., the red-fronted parakeet, Cyanoramphus novaezelandiae ) in New Zealand in 2008. Infected birds generally follow one of three paths: They develop immunity, die within a couple of weeks, or become chronically infected. Chronic infections result in feather loss and deformities of beak and feathers. However, the disease has not been documented in the orange-fronted parakeet.

The species was uplisted from nationally endangered to nationally critical by the NZDOC, it is protected under New Zealand's Wildlife Act, and is listed as critically endangered on the IUCN's Red List. The orange-fronted parakeet is included in Appendix II to CITES.

In the October 10, 2019, CNOR, the orange-fronted parakeet was assigned an LPN of 8. After reevaluating the factors affecting the species, we have determined that no change in the LPN is warranted because NZDOC is actively managing for the species including monitoring known populations, successfully captive-breeding and releasing birds into the wild, and implementing predator control programs. The orange-fronted parakeet does not represent a monotypic genus. Although the species' available suitable nesting habitat in beech forests is limited, there appears to have been some success with predator control, captive-breeding, and translocations to offshore islands. The species faces threats ( e.g., predation, habitat degradation, and competition for food and suitable nesting habitat) that are moderate in magnitude because the NZDOC continues to take measures to aid the recovery of the species. We find that the threats to this species are ongoing and imminent. Therefore, an LPN of 8 remains valid for this species to reflect imminent threats of moderate magnitude.

The Bogotá rail ( Rallus semiplumbeus ) is a medium-sized nonmigratory bird. The species is found in the East Andes of Colombia, South America, and is largely restricted to areas at elevation from 2,500-4,000 m (8,202-13,123 ft) in and surrounding Bogotá, Colombia, on the Ubaté-Bogotá Plateau. This region formerly supported vast marshes and swamps, but few lakes with suitable habitat for the rail remain. The species is secretive, and wetland habitats most frequently used by rail are fringed by dense vegetation-rich shallows.

The current population size of the Bogotá rail is estimated between 1,000 and 2,500 mature individuals and is thought to be declining. The primary threat to the rail is habitat loss and degradation of wetlands. Approximately 8 million people live in the City of Bogotá, and 11 million in the larger metro area. The wetlands have experienced a 97 percent loss in historical extent with few suitably vegetated marshes remaining. Additionally, road building may result in further habitat loss and human interference, including introduction of nonnative species in previously stable wetland environments. The Bogotá rail is listed as endangered by IUCN. The species is not known to be in international trade, and is not included in the Appendices to CITES.

In the October 10, 2019, CNOR, the Bogotá rail was assigned an LPN of 2. After reevaluating the threats to this species, we have determined that no change in the LPN for the species is needed. The Bogotá rail does not represent a monotypic genus. It faces threats that are high in magnitude due to the pressures on the species' habitat. Its range is very small and is rapidly contracting because of widespread habitat loss and degradation of wetlands. Although portions of the Bogotá rail's range occur in protected areas, most of the savanna wetlands are unprotected. The population is small and is estimated to be declining. The factors affecting the species are ongoing and imminent. Thus, the LPN remains at 2 to reflect imminent threats of high magnitude.

The takahē ( Porphyrio hochstetteri ) is the largest extant rail in the world. It is flightless. The takahē was once widespread in the forest and grassland ecosystems on the South Island of New Zealand. It was thought to be extinct until it was rediscovered in the Murchison Mountains on the South Island in 1948, inhabiting approximately 650 square kilometers (251 square miles). In addition to its native range on the mainland, the takahē has been introduced to offshore islands and mainland sanctuaries. When rediscovered in 1948, it was estimated that the population consisted of 100 to 300 birds, and the minimum total population now rests at 306 individuals.

Several factors have historically led to the species' decline, including hunting, competition from introduced herbivores (animals that feed on plants), and predators such as weasels and the weka, a flightless woodhen that is endemic to New Zealand. Currently, weasel predation appears to be the most significant of these threats. Weasel trapping is an effective tool at slowly increasing survival and reproductive output of takahē; however, control efforts do not completely eliminate the threat.

Takahē is a long-lived bird, potentially living between 14 and 20 years, and has a low reproductive rate, with clutches consisting of one to three eggs. Severe weather in the Murchison Mountains (cold winters and high snowfall) may also be a limiting factor to the takahē. The population of takahē remains very small and has low genetic diversity relative to other species. The New Zealand Department of Conservation (NZDOC) is currently attempting to manage further loss of genetic diversity through translocations. Additionally, NZDOC has implemented a captive-breeding and release program to supplement the mainland population and has established several reserve populations on islands and fenced mainland sites; these actions are having a positive effect on population growth. New Zealand considers the takahē a nationally vulnerable species and it is protected under New Zealand's Wildlife Act. The takahē is listed as endangered on the IUCN Red List. The species is not known to be in international trade, and the species is not included in the Appendices to CITES.

In the October 10, 2019, CNOR, the takahē was assigned an LPN of 8. After reevaluating the threats to the takahē, we have determined that no change in the classification of the magnitude and imminence of threats to the species is warranted at this time. The takahē does not represent a monotypic genus. Limited suitable habitat and the threat of predation, combined with the takahē's small population size and naturally low reproductive rate, are threats to this species that are moderate in magnitude. Although it has a small population, has limited suitable habitat, and may experience inbreeding depression, because the NZDOC is actively involved in measures to aid the recovery of the species, we find the threats are moderate in magnitude. Despite the conservation efforts, the threats are ongoing and imminent. Therefore, the LPN remains at 8 to reflect imminent threats of moderate magnitude.

Black-backed tanager ( Tangara peruviana ) is a small bird endemic to the coastal Atlantic Forest region of southeastern Brazil. It is currently found in the coastal states of Espirito Santo, Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo, Paraná, Santa Catarina, and Rio Grande do Sul. The species is generally restricted to the sand-forest restinga habitat, which is a coastal component habitat of the greater Atlantic Forest complex. Restingas are herbaceous, shrubby, coastal sand-dune habitats. The black-backed tanager is primarily found in undisturbed vegetated habitat but has also been observed in secondary-growth forests. It has also been observed visiting gardens and orchards of houses close to forested areas. The black-backed tanager is one of just a few tanagers known to migrate seasonally. Within suitable habitat, the black-backed tanager is generally not considered rare. The population estimate is between 2,500 to 10,000 mature individuals. Populations currently appear to be small, fragmented, and declining. The estimated extent of the resident and breeding range in 2015 was 9,400 square kilometers (3,629 square miles). However, estimates have since increased to 316,000 square kilometers (122,008 square miles) because of updated information in the reported range in coastal areas south of Rio de Janeiro beyond Florianopolis and into the northeast corner of Rio Grande do Sul.

The primary factor affecting the species is rapid and widespread loss and fragmentation of habitat because of urban expansion and beachfront development. The black-backed tanager's remaining suitable habitat in the areas of Rio de Janeiro and Paraná have largely been destroyed, and habitat loss and degradation will likely increase in the future. Additional habitat loss from sea-level rise associated with global climate change may compound an increased demand by humans to develop the remaining land. Small portions of this species' range occur in six protected areas, but intact lowland forest, restinga, and mangrove habitats used by resident black-backed tanagers on the northern part of Santa Catarina Island is unprotected.

The black-backed tanager is classified as vulnerable by the IUCN. The species is also listed as vulnerable in Brazil. It is not included in the Appendices to CITES, although it has infrequently been illegally sold in the pet trade.

In the October 10, 2019, CNOR, the black-backed tanager was assigned an LPN of 8. After reevaluating the available information, we have determined that no change in the LPN for this species is warranted at this time. The black-backed tanager does not represent a monotypic genus. We find that the threat from habitat loss is moderate in magnitude due to the species' fairly large range, its existence in protected areas, and an indication of some flexibility in its diet and habitat suitability. Threats are imminent because the species is at risk due to ongoing and widespread loss of habitat due to beachfront and related development. Therefore, an LPN of 8 remains valid for this species to reflect imminent threats of moderate magnitude.

Yellow-browed toucanet ( Aulacorhynchus huallagae ) is a rare bird in the toucan family. The species has a small range on the eastern slope of the Andes of north-central Peru, at elevations of 2,000-2,600 m (6,562-8,530 ft). The yellow-browed toucanet occurs in humid montane forests and occupies four known locations within its small range. Part of the species' range is within national parks. The population status is not well known because of the inaccessibility of its habitat, but is estimated at 600 to 1,500 mature individuals.

Deforestation for livestock, agriculture, timber, and gold mining appears to be the primary threat. Habitat loss and destruction from deforestation for agriculture have been widespread in the region. The yellow-browed toucanet is described as scarce wherever found, and ongoing population and habitat declines resulting from habitat loss are assumed.

The yellow-browed toucanet is classified as endangered on the IUCN Red List, as well as by the Peruvian government. The species is not included in the Appendices to CITES.

In the October 10, 2019, CNOR, the yellow-browed toucanet was assigned an LPN of 2. After reevaluating the available information, we find that no change in the LPN is warranted at this time. The yellow-browed toucanet does not represent a monotypic genus. The estimated population is small with just three known locations within a restricted range. The magnitude of threats to the habitat remains high, and its population is likely declining. Therefore, an LPN of 2 remains valied for this species to reflect imminent threats of high magnitude.

Gizo white-eye ( Zosterops luteirostris ) is a small passerine (perching) bird described as warbler-like. It is endemic to the small island of Ghizo in the Solomon Islands in the South Pacific Ocean, east of Papua New Guinea. The total range of the species is estimated to be less than 35 square kilometers (13.5 square miles), of which less than 1 square kilometer (0.39 square mile) is the old-growth forest that the species seems to prefer. Little information is available about this species and its habitat. It is locally common in old-growth forest patches and less common elsewhere. The species has been observed in a variety of habitats on the island, but it is unknown whether sustainable populations can exist outside of forested habitats. The population is estimated to be between 250 and 1,000 mature individuals and is suspected to be declining.

Habitat loss appears to be the main threat. The loss of old-growth forested areas and less suitable secondary growth forests because of logging, conversion to agricultural areas, and local resource extraction for firewood affect the species. Forested areas around Gizo—a town on Ghizo Island and the capital of Solomon Islands Western Province—that previously supported the species were degraded by the 2007 tsunami and were found less likely to support the species even 5 years later in 2012. The dense human population of the Solomon Islands may also be adversely affecting the Gizo white-eye and its habitat. There has been prolific growth in human settlement on Ghizo Island, mainly in the form of temporary housing. Small populations of the Gizo white-eye are likely subject to both demographic and unpredictable environmental events that can contribute to extirpations.

The IUCN Red List classifies this species as endangered. It is not included in the Appendices to CITES, and this species is not known to be in international trade.

In the October 10, 2019, CNOR, the Gizo white-eye was assigned an LPN of 2. After reevaluating the available information, we find that no change in the LPN is warranted. The Gizo white-eye does not represent a monotypic genus. It faces threats that are high in magnitude due to declining suitable habitat and its small, declining population size. The best information available indicates that forest clearing is occurring at a pace that is rapidly denuding its habitat; secondary-growth forest continues to be converted to agricultural purposes. Additionally, the human population on the small island is likely contributing to the reduction in old-growth forest for local uses such as timber and clearing for gardens. These threats to the species are ongoing, high in magnitude, and imminent. Therefore, an LPN of 2 remains valid for this species to reflect imminent threats of high magnitude.

Helmeted woodpecker ( Dryocopus galeatus ) is a fairly small woodpecker native to regions of southern Brazil, eastern Paraguay, and northeastern Argentina. The helmeted woodpecker is nonmigratory, occurring in subpopulations in suitable habitat within its range. Characteristic habitat is large tracts of well-preserved southern Atlantic Forest in both lowland and montane areas from sea level up to elevations of 1,000 m (3,280 ft). The species prefers mature (old-growth) trees in tropical and subtropical semi-deciduous forests as well as in mixed deciduous coniferous forests.

The helmeted woodpecker is one of the rarest woodpeckers in the Americas. Its population declined sharply between 1945 and 2000, in conjunction with the clearing of mature forest habitat, and is currently estimated at 400-8,900 individuals. The principal threat to the helmeted woodpecker is loss, degradation, and fragmentation of its Atlantic Forest habitat. Forest clearing has recently slowed, and the species occurs in at least 17 protected areas throughout its range. However, habitat degradation continues, and the population is likely declining. Competition for nest cavities is also likely a limiting factor. The helmeted woodpecker is listed as endangered in Brazil and as vulnerable by the IUCN. It is not included in the Appendices to CITES.

In the October 10, 2019, CNOR, the helmeted woodpecker was assigned an LPN of 8. After reevaluating the available information, we find that no change in the LPN for the helmeted woodpecker is warranted. The helmeted woodpecker does not represent a monotypic genus. The magnitude of threats to the species is moderate because the species' range is fairly large. The threats are imminent because the forest habitat upon which the species depends is still being altered and degraded. Therefore, an LPN of 8 continues to be valid for this species to reflect imminent threats of moderate magnitude.

Okinawa woodpecker ( Dendrocopos noguchii syn. Sapheopipo noguchii ) is a relatively large woodpecker found on Okinawa Island, Japan, and one of the world's rarest woodpeckers. The species prefers subtropical evergreen broadleaf forests that are undisturbed and mature. It currently occurs within the forested areas in the northern part of the island, generally in the Yambaru forest, and in some undisturbed forest in coastal areas. Most of the older forests that support the species are within the Jungle Warfare Training Center (formerly known as the Northern Training Area or Camp Gonsalves), part of the U.S. Marine Corps installation on Okinawa Island.

Deforestation in the Yambaru region has been cited as the main cause of the Okinawa woodpecker's reduced habitat and population. As of the mid 1990s, only 40 square kilometers (15 square miles) of suitable habitat was available for this species. While most of the activities associated with habitat loss appear to have ceased, the Okinawa woodpecker still suffers from limited suitable habitat and a small population size. This situation makes it vulnerable to extinction from disease and natural disasters such as typhoons. Additionally, the species is vulnerable to introduced predators such as feral dogs and cats, Javan mongoose ( Herpestes javanicus ), and Japanese weasel ( Mustela itatsi ).

In 2016, the Japanese Government designated Yambaru National Park and nominated the northern part of Okinawa Island (including Yambaru National Park) as a United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization World Heritage Centre. The species is listed as critically endangered in the Red List of Threatened Birds in Japan and protected from acquisition and transfer under Japan's wildlife protection system. Okinawa woodpecker is not included in the Appendices to CITES, and is not known to be in international trade.

In the October 10, 2019, CNOR, the Okinawa woodpecker was assigned an LPN of 2. After reevaluating the available information, we find that no change in the LPN is warranted. The Okinawa woodpecker does not represent a monotypic genus. Threats to the species are high in magnitude due to the scarcity of its old-growth habitat. The population is very small and is likely declining. Although new protected areas have been established that will likely benefit the Okinawa woodpecker, it is not yet clear that these areas will be fully protected from logging and other anthropogenic development and nonnative predators. Even though threats from logging have been reduced, it will take many years for secondary and clear-cut forest habitat to mature such that it is suitable for the woodpecker. The threats to the species are ongoing, imminent, and high in magnitude due to its restricted range, small population size, past habitat loss, and endemism. Therefore, an LPN of 2 remains valid for this species to reflect imminent threats of high magnitude.

Colorado delta clam ( Mulinia modesta ) is a relatively large, estuarine bivalve that was once very abundant at the head of the Gulf of California in the Colorado River estuary in Mexico prior to the construction of dams on the Colorado River. Recognizing that the clam is M. modesta, we now also recognize that the clam has a broader distribution into the northern and central portions of the Gulf of California. Therefore, the species is more widespread and found in the upper, northern, and central portions of the Gulf of California, and is capable of living in salinities ranging from brackish (mixture of salt and fresh water) to full seawater.

Information regarding abundance of the Colorado delta clam in the Gulf of California is limited. The minimum average standing population of the Colorado delta clam in the upper Gulf was estimated to be at least 5 billion individuals over the past 1,000 years to account for the shells accumulated in ridges, with the delta clam accounting for 84-95 percent of all bivalve mollusks in the upper Gulf. However, after decades of dam building on the Colorado River and its tributaries, the Colorado delta clam is estimated to be 6 percent as abundant in the upper Gulf as it was before dam construction began. While it is clear the clam has declined dramatically in the upper Gulf where it was most abundant before Colorado River dams were built, we are not aware of total population estimates covering its full range because benthic surveys of the near-coastal invertebrate macrofauna in central and southern Gulf are lacking.

The species has not been assessed for the IUCN Red List. It is not commercially harvested or known to be in international trade, and is not included in the Appendices to CITES.

Although the specific causes for the dramatic decline of the clam in the Colorado delta and upper Gulf of California region have not definitively been identified, several researchers have indicated that it was a consequence of decrease in the Colorado River's inflow to the estuary since completion of the dams. Environmental changes to the estuary associated with the decrease in river inflow include increased salinity, decreased sediment load, decreased input of naturally derived nutrients, and elimination of the spring/summer flood. Dams and diversions along the Colorado River have greatly affected the estuarine environment of the Colorado delta and have likely caused the localized decline in abundance of the clam in this region. However, the best available information does not indicate that dams and diversions are a stressor for the Colorado delta clam elsewhere within its range in the northern and central portions of the Gulf of California. Additionally, stressors for the clam throughout its range may arise from other natural or manmade factors affecting the clam's continued existence, such as pollution-related problems and effects from climate change, which are likely to increase in the future.

In the October 10, 2019, CNOR, the Colorado delta clam was assigned an LPN of 8. With the confirmation that the clam is Mulinia modesta, we recognize that it has a broader distribution into the northern and central portions of the Gulf of California and is capable of living in full seawater. However, we lack information about the distribution and viability of populations of the clam outside of the Colorado delta region. Despite the conservation measures in place (primarily portions of the species' range occurring within two large protected areas), the species continues to face habitat loss and degradation in the Colorado delta region due to dams and diversions on the Colorado River, along with other changes associated with decrease in river inflow and pollution. Because this threat appears to be affecting the clam in upper Gulf of California, and not in the remainder of its range, it is moderate in magnitude. The threat of habitat loss and degradation in the Colorado delta region is ongoing and imminent. Therefore, an LPN of 8 remains valid for this species to reflect imminent threats of moderate magnitude.

Fluminense swallowtail ( Parides ascanius ) is a black, white, and red swallowtail butterfly. The species may be confused with the Harris' mimic swallowtail, but the Harris' mimic has a red streak on the underside of its wing. The fluminense swallowtail also inhabits the restinga (sand forest) habitats of the coastal Atlantic Forest of Brazil within the State of Rio de Janeiro. There are at least eight confirmed subpopulations of fluminense swallowtail, and several other small, likely ephemeral, subpopulations are currently being studied ( i.e., 8-12 estimated subpopulations). The overall number of subpopulations reported for the species has declined from fewer than 20 colonies in 1994, to 8 to 12 in 2017. The butterfly is described as seasonally common, with sightings of up to 50 individuals at one colony in a single morning. A study at Biological Reserve of Poço das Antas estimated that the subpopulation ranged from 10 to 50 individuals. The best available information does not provide estimates for butterfly numbers in the remaining subpopulations. The best available information indicates that there is a decline of subpopulations as well as a decrease in the numbers of individuals within each subpopulation. An estimate of the total area occupied by this species is less than 500 square kilometers (193 square miles).

Habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation are the primary threats to this species. The species occupies highly specialized habitat and requires large areas to maintain a viable colony. Based on a number of estimates, 88 to 95 percent of the area historically covered by tropical forests within the Atlantic Forest biome has been converted or severely degraded as a result of human activities. Habitat loss and destruction is caused primarily by road and building construction, drainage of swamps, and vegetation suppression, and the remaining tracts are severely fragmented. Fire, either wildfire or human-caused, has the potential to destroy the few remaining occupied habitats. This coastal butterfly may also be affected by habitat loss from sea-level rise, which may be compounded by human use of the remaining land for infrastructure and housing. The species' life history also contributes to its scarcity. Fluminense swallowtails, whose larvae feed only on a single plant species, tend to be more affected by habitat degradation than species with multiple food sources. Illegal collection of the fluminense swallowtail is likely occurring and ongoing. The species is located near urban areas and is easy to capture. Recently, multiple specimens of fluminense swallowtail have been advertised online with costs ranging from $220 to $700 USD. The impact of illegal collection to the fluminense swallowtail is difficult to assess, but removal of individuals from the remaining small and fragmented populations could, in combination with other stressors, contribute to local extirpations.

Only one of the subpopulations is presently found within a large protected area (Poço das Antas Biological Reserve), and the majority of the remaining populations are on smaller, fragmented parcels with limited or no protections and are vulnerable to extirpation. The fluminense swallowtail was the first invertebrate to be officially noted on the list of Brazilian animals threatened with extinction in 1973. The species is currently categorized by Brazil as endangered. It has been classified as vulnerable by the IUCN Red List since 1983, and it is not included in the Appendices to CITES. However, the European Commission listed the species on Annex B of the European Union Wildlife Trade Regulations; species listed on Annex B require a permit for import.

In the October 10, 2019, CNOR, the fluminense swallowtail was assigned an LPN of 2. After reevaluating the stressors to this species, we have determined that no change to the LPN is warranted. The fluminense swallowtail does not represent a monotypic genus. The overall number of subpopulations recorded for the species has declined from previous records of fewer than 20 colonies to approximately 8 to 12, and the species continues to decline. Threats are high in magnitude and imminent because of ongong habitat loss and fragmentation, catastrophic events of wildfire, and illegal collection. Only one of the known subpopulations is presently found within a large protected area. The majority of the remaining subpopulations are on small, fragmented parcels with limited or no protections and are vulnerable to extirpation. Despite the conservation measures in place, the species continues to face stressors ( e.g., habitat loss and destruction, and illegal collection and trade). Therefore, an LPN of 2 remains valid for this species to reflect imminent threats of high magnitude.

Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail ( Parides hahneli ) is a large black and yellow butterfly endemic to Brazil. It is known from three remote locations along the tributaries of the middle and lower Amazon River basin in the states of Amazonas and Pará. Its preferred habitat is on old sand strips (stranded beaches) that are overgrown with dense scrub vegetation or forest. Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail is described as very scarce and extremely localized in association with its specialized habitat and its larval host plant. Population size and trends are not known for this species.

Loss of habitat from deforestation is the primary threat to the species. Brazil reported the greatest loss of primary forest from 1990 to 2015, and the states of Pará and Amazonas experienced high rates of deforestation in the last decade. Habitat loss and destruction will likely continue in the future. Additionally, habitat alteration and destruction for dam construction, agriculture, and cattle grazing, as well as crop transportation, are ongoing in Pará and Amazonas. Collection is also a potential threat for Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail. The species has been collected for commercial trade and also may be reared for trade. Locations in the wild have been kept secret given the high value of this butterfly to collectors. Multiple specimens of Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail were noted for sale or sold from locations in the United States for $70 to $500 USD and from Germany (approximately $166 USD).

Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail is classified as data deficient on the IUCN Red List. The species is listed as endangered on the State of Pará's list of threatened species, but it is not listed by the State of Amazonas or by Brazil. Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail is not included in the Appendices to CITES. It is listed on Annex B of the European Union Wildlife Trade Regulations; species listed on Annex B require a permit for import.

In the October 10, 2019, CNOR, the Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail was assigned an LPN of 2. After reevaluating the threats to the Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail, we have determined that no change in the LPN is warranted. This swallowtail does not represent a monotypic genus. It faces threats that are high in magnitude and imminent due to its small endemic population and the limited and decreasing availability of its highly specialized habitat. Habitat alteration and destruction are ongoing in Pará and Amazonas where the butterfly is found and are likely to continue. Potential impacts from collection are unknown but could, in combination with other stressors, contribute to local extirpations. Therefore, an LPN of 2 remains valid for this species to reflect imminent threats of high magnitude.

Harris' mimic swallowtail ( Mimoides lysithous harrisianus ) is a medium-sized black, white, and red swallowtail butterfly that inhabits the mixed dense and open scrubby restinga (sand forest) habitats within the coastal Atlantic Forest of Brazil. The Harris' mimic swallowtail butterfly mimics three butterfly species in the Parides genus, primarily the Flumenense swallowtail ( Parides ascanius ). The butterflies it mimics sequester toxins from host plants, rendering them toxic to most predators. The subspecies historically occurred in southern Espírito Santo State and along the coast of the State of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Records indicated that there are a total of five sites occupied by the butterfly in the State of Rio de Janeiro. Two areas are within protected national parks, and the other sites appear to be under municipal conservation with uncertain protected status, including sites in the City of Rio de Janeiro that are located in small patches of vegetation and are possibly at risk of extirpation. The best-studied site at Barra de São João has maintained a stable and viable size for nearly two decades, but there is limited information on its status since 2004. The best available data do not indicate recent population numbers in any of the other colonies or locations.

Habitat destruction has been the main threat and is ongoing. Based on a number of estimates, 88 to 95 percent of the area historically covered by tropical forests within the Atlantic Forest biome has been converted or severely degraded as the result of human activities. In addition to the overall loss and degradation of its habitat, the remaining tracts of its habitat are severely fragmented. Fire, either wildfire or human-caused, is a stressor for Harris' mimic swallowtail due to its potential to destroy the few remaining occupied habitats. Sea-level rise may result in habitat loss, and this loss from sea-level rise may be compounded by an increased demand by humans to use remaining land for housing and infrastructure. Collection may also affect this butterfly. Although Harris' mimic swallowtail is categorized as endangered on the list of Brazilian fauna threatened with extinction, and collection and trade of the subspecies is prohibited, it has been offered for sale on the internet. Specimens of Harris' mimic swallowtail are routinely advertised online ranging from $1,000 to $2,200 U.S. dollars (USD), indicating that illegal collection and trade may be occurring and demand for this butterfly is high. Harris' mimic swallowtail is not currently on the IUCN Red list, although it was identified as a threatened or extinct subspecies in the family Papilionidae in the 1994 IUCN Red List. The subspecies is not included in the Appendices to CITES. It is also not regulated on the annexes to European Union Wildlife Trade Regulations.

In the October 10, 2019, CNOR, Harris' mimic swallowtail was assigned an LPN of 3. After reevaluating the threats to this subspecies, we have determined that no change in the LPN is warranted. Harris' mimic swallowtail is a subspecies that is not within a monotypic genus. Threats are high in magnitude and imminent because the butterfly only occurs in a few small, fragmented colonies, habitat loss and degradation is ongoing, and the potential for catastrophic events such as fire remains. Additionally, although the subspecies is protected by Brazilian law and several of the colonies are located within protected areas, the high price advertised online for specimens indicates that there is demand for the subspecies, likely from illegal collection. Despite the conservation measures in place, the species continues to face stressors ( e.g., habitat loss and destruction, and illegal collection and trade). Therefore, an LPN of 3 remains valid for this subspecies to reflect imminent threats of high magnitude.

Jamaican kite swallowtail ( Protographium marcellinus, syn. Eurytides marcellinus ) is a small blue-green and black butterfly endemic to Jamaica. This butterfly is regarded as Jamaica's most endangered butterfly. The species occurs in three limestone forest habitats containing dense stands of its only known larval host plant, Oxandra lanceolata, known as black lancewood or West Indian lancewood, and these stands are rare. There are five known sites that support colonies of the Jamaican kite swallowtail, although there is no known estimate of population size. Two of the sites may be recently extirpated, one is thought to be tenuous, and two are viable with strong numbers in some years.

Habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation are considered the primary factors affecting the Jamaican kite swallowtail. Historical habitat loss and destruction occurred when forests were cleared for agriculture and timber extraction. Only 8 percent of the total land area of Jamaica is natural forest with minimal human disturbance. More recent habitat destruction is occurring primarily from sapling cutting for yam sticks, fish pots, or charcoal. Charcoal-making also carries the risk of fire, which may destroy pupae in the leaf litter. Additionally, mining for limestone that is used for roadbuilding and bauxite production that is an important economic activity pose threats to remaining forested tracts. The two strongest subpopulations occur in protected areas, although habitat destruction within these areas continues. Additionally, Jamaica's Forest Act of 1996 and Forest Regulations Act of 2001 have increased the power of Jamaican authorities to protect the species' habitat; the Jamaican kite swallowtail is included in Jamaica's National Strategy and Action Plan on Biological Diversity. This strategy established specific plans for protecting sites that support two subpopulations of the swallowtail, but, to date, they have not been initiated due to funding and capacity constraints.

Illegal collection and trade of the species may be occurring. Three specimens of the Jamaican kite swallowtail were noted for sale on the internet as recently as 2017, for as much as $120 USD, and one specimen sold in 2015 for $178 USD. Specimens of the Homerus swallowtail ( Papilio homerus, another rare Jamaican butterfly) have also been illegally traded, indicating that there is a market for Jamaican butterflies despite heavy fines under the Jamaican Wildlife Protection Act. Predation from native predators, including spiders, the Jamaican tody ( Todus todus ), and praying mantis ( Mantis religiosa ), may be adversely affecting the Jamaican kite swallowtail, especially in the smaller subpopulations. In years where large numbers of spiders were observed, very few Jamaican kite swallowtail larvae survived. Additionally, this species may be at greater risk of extinction due to natural events such as hurricanes, and small fragmented subpopulations are generally at greater risk of extinction from habitat loss, predation, and stochastic environmental events.

Since 1985, the Jamaican kite swallowtail has been categorized on IUCN's Red List as vulnerable, but the assessment is marked as needs updating. This species is not included in the Appendices to CITES or the European Union Wildlife Trade Regulations, although some level of illegal trade is likely occurring.

In the October 10, 2019, CNOR, the Jamaican kite swallowtail was assigned an LPN of 2. After reevaluating the factors affecting the Jamaican kite swallowtail, we have determined that no change in LPN is warranted because the threats are high in magnitude and imminent. The Jamaican kite swallowtail does not represent a monotypic genus. The Jamaican kite swallowtail is known from only five small subpopulations, and as few as two of these subpopulations may presently be viable. Although Jamaica has taken regulatory steps to preserve native swallowtail habitat, plans for conservation of vital areas for the butterfly have not been implemented. Thus, an LPN of 2 remains valid for this species to reflect imminent threats of high magnitude.

Kaiser-i-Hind swallowtail ( Teinopalpus imperialis ) is a green, black, and orange swallowtail butterfly that is large, ornate, and native to the Himalayan regions of Bhutan, China, India, Laos, Myanmar, Nepal, Thailand, and Vietnam. The species occurs in the foothills of the Himalayan Mountains and other mountainous regions at altitudes of 1,500-3,050 m (4,921-10,000 ft) above sea level, in undisturbed (primary) broad-leaved evergreen forests or montane deciduous forests. Although it has a relatively large range, it is restricted to higher elevations and occurs only locally within this range, and populations are described as being very local and never abundant. Even early accounts of the species described it as being a very rare occurrence. Larval host plants are limited to Magnolia and Daphne species, and in some regions the Kaiser-i-Hind swallowtail is strictly monophagous, only using a single species of Magnolia as a host plant.

Habitat destruction negatively affects this species, which prefers undisturbed, high-altitude forests. In China and India, the Kaiser-i-Hind swallowtail populations are affected by habitat modification and destruction due to commercial and illegal logging, as well as clearing for agriculture in India. In Nepal, the species is affected by habitat disturbance and destruction resulting from mining, wood collection for use as fuel, deforestation, collection of fodders and fiber plants, forest fires, invasion of bamboo species into the oak forests, agriculture, and grazing animals. In Vietnam, the forest habitat is reportedly declining. Comprehensive information on the rate of degradation of Himalayan forests containing the Kaiser-i-Hind swallowtail is not available, but habitat loss is consistently reported as one of the primary ongoing threats to the species. Collection for commercial trade is also regarded as a threat to the species. The Kaiser-i-Hind swallowtail is highly valued and has been collected and traded despite various prohibitions. Although it is difficult to assess the potential impacts from collection, it is possible that collection in combination with other stressors contribute to local extirpations.

In China, the species is protected by the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Protection of Wildlife. In India, the Kaiser-i-Hind swallowtail is listed on Schedule II of the Indian Wildlife Protection Act. In Thailand, all butterflies in the genus Teinopalpus, including the Kaiser-i-Hind swallowtail, are listed under Thailand's Wild Animal Reservation and Protection Act. In Vietnam, the species is listed as “Vulnerable” in the 2007 Vietnam Red Data Book and is reported to be the most valuable of all butterflies in Vietnam. In 2006, the species was listed on Vietnam's Schedule IIB of Decree No. 32 on management of endangered, precious, and rare forest plants and animals. Since 1996, the Kaiser-i-Hind swallowtail has been categorized on the IUCN Red List as lower risk/near threatened, but IUCN indicates that this assessment needs updating. The Kaiser-i-Hind swallowtail has been included in CITES Appendix II since 1987. Additionally, the Kaiser-i-Hind swallowtail is listed on Annex B of the European Union Wildlife Trade Regulations; species listed on Annex B require an import permit.

In the October 10, 2019, CNOR, the Kaiser-i-Hind swallowtail was assigned an LPN of 8. After reevaluating the threats to this species, we have determined that no change in its LPN of 8 is warranted because threats to the species are moderate in magnitude and imminent. The Kaiser-i-Hind swallowtail does not represent a monotypic genus. Threats from habitat destruction and illegal collection are moderate in magnitude due to the species' wide distribution and to various protections in place within each country. The threats are imminent due to ongoing habitat destruction and high market value for specimens. Therefore, an LPN of 8 remains valid for this species to reflect imminent threats of moderate magnitude.

We gather data on plants and animals foreign to the United States that appear to merit consideration for addition to the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists). This document identifies those species that we currently regard as candidates for addition to the Lists. These candidates include species and subspecies of fish, wildlife, or plants, and DPSs of vertebrate animals. This compilation relies on information from status surveys and information from foreign countries, other Federal agencies, knowledgeable scientists, public and private natural resource interests, and comments received in response to previous CNORs.

Table 4, below, list animals arranged alphabetically by common names under the major group headings. Animals are grouped by class or order. Useful synonyms and subgeneric scientific names appear in parentheses with the synonyms preceded by an “equals” sign. We incorporate standardized common names in these CNORs as they become available.

Table 4 lists all candidate species, plus species currently proposed for listing under the Act. We emphasize that in this document we are not proposing to list any of the candidate species; rather, we will develop and publish proposed listing rules for these species in the future. We encourage foreign countries where a candidate species occurs, other Federal agencies, and other parties to consider these species in environmental planning.

In Table 4, the “Category” column on the left side of the table identifies the status of each species according to the following codes:

PE—Species proposed for listing as endangered. This category does not include species for which we have withdrawn or finalized the proposed rule.

C—Candidates: Species for which we have on file sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threats to support proposals to list them as endangered or threatened. Issuance of proposed rules for these species is precluded at present by other higher priority listing actions. This category includes species for which we made a 12-month warranted-but-precluded finding on a petition to list. Our analysis for this document included making new findings on all petitions for which we previously made “warranted-but-precluded” findings. We identify the species for which we made a continued warranted-but-precluded finding on a resubmitted petition by the code “C*” in the category column (see Findings for Petitioned Candidate Species, above, for additional information).

The “Priority” column indicates the LPN for each candidate species, which we use to determine the most appropriate use of our available resources. The lowest numbers have the highest priority. We assign LPNs based on the immediacy and magnitude of threats, as well as on taxonomic status. We published a complete description of our listing priority system in the Federal Register (48 FR 43098; September 21, 1983).

Following the scientific name (third column) and the family designation (fourth column) is the common name (fifth column). The sixth column provides the known historical range for the species or vertebrate population (for vertebrate populations, this is the historical range for the entire species or subspecies and not just the historical range for the DPS), indicated by country. Many species no longer occur in all of the areas indicated in the historical range column.

We request additional status information that may be available for any of the candidate species identified in this CNOR. We will consider this information to monitor changes in the status or LPN of candidate species and to manage candidates as we prepare listing documents and future revisions to the CNOR. We also request information on additional species to consider including as candidates as we prepare future updates of this CNOR.

We request you submit any further information on the species named in this document as soon as possible or whenever it becomes available. We are particularly interested in information:

(1) Indicating that we should add a species to the list of candidate species;

(2) Indicating that we should remove a species from candidate status;

(3) Documenting threats to any of the included species;

(4) Describing the immediacy or magnitude of threats facing candidate species;

(5) Pointing out taxonomic or nomenclature changes for any of the species;

(6) Suggesting appropriate common names; and

(7) Noting any mistakes, such as errors in the indicated historical ranges.

We will consider all information provided in response to this CNOR in deciding whether to propose species for listing and when to undertake necessary listing actions (including whether emergency listing under section 4(b)(7) of the Act is appropriate).

Submit information, materials, or comments regarding foreign species to the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , above. We will maintain information we receive for each candidate species mentioned in the submission, and information and comments we receive will become part of the administrative record for the species.

Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your submission, be advised that your entire submission—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. Although you can ask us in your submission to withhold from public review your personal identifying information, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

The Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Martha Williams, Principal Deputy Director Exercising the Delegated Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, approved this document on August 4, 2021, for publication.

This document is published under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ).

Section 118 of the MMPA requires NMFS to place all U.S. commercial fisheries into one of three categories based on the level of incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals occurring in each fishery (16 U.S.C. 1387(c)(1)). The classification of a fishery on the LOF determines whether participants in that fishery may be required to comply with certain provisions of the MMPA, such as registration, observer coverage, and take reduction plan requirements. NMFS must reexamine the LOF annually, considering new information in the Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Reports (SARs) and other relevant sources, and publish in the Federal Register any necessary changes to the LOF after notice and opportunity for public comment (16 U.S.C. 1387 (c)(1)(C)).

The definitions for the fishery classification criteria can be found in the implementing regulations for section 118 of the MMPA (50 CFR 229.2). The criteria are also summarized here.

The fishery classification criteria consist of a two-tiered, stock-specific approach that first addresses the total impact of all fisheries on each marine mammal stock and then addresses the impact of individual fisheries on each stock. This approach is based on consideration of the rate, in numbers of animals per year, of incidental mortalities and serious injuries of marine mammals due to commercial fishing operations relative to the potential biological removal (PBR) level for each marine mammal stock. The MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1362 (20)) defines the PBR level as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population. This definition can also be found in the implementing regulations for section 118 of the MMPA (50 CFR 229.2).

Tier 1: Tier 1 considers the cumulative fishery mortality and serious injury for a particular stock. If the total annual mortality and serious injury of a marine mammal stock, across all fisheries, is less than or equal to 10 percent of the PBR level of the stock, all fisheries interacting with the stock will be placed in Category III (unless those fisheries interact with other stock(s) for which total annual mortality and serious injury is greater than 10 percent of PBR). Otherwise, these fisheries are subject to the next tier (Tier 2) of analysis to determine their classification.

Tier 2: Tier 2 considers fishery-specific mortality and serious injury for a particular stock.

Category I: Annual mortality and serious injury of a stock in a given fishery is greater than or equal to 50 percent of the PBR level ( i.e., frequent incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals).

Category II: Annual mortality and serious injury of a stock in a given fishery is greater than 1 percent and less than 50 percent of the PBR level ( i.e., occasional incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals).

Category III: Annual mortality and serious injury of a stock in a given fishery is less than or equal to 1 percent of the PBR level ( i.e., a remote likelihood of or no known incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals).

Additional details regarding how the categories were determined are provided in the preamble to the final rule implementing section 118 of the MMPA (60 FR 45086; August 30, 1995).

Because fisheries are classified on a per-stock basis, a fishery may qualify as one category for one marine mammal stock and another category for a different marine mammal stock. A fishery is typically classified on the LOF at its highest level of classification ( e.g., a fishery qualifying for Category III for one marine mammal stock and for Category II for another marine mammal stock will be listed under Category II). Stocks driving a fishery's classification are denoted with a superscript “1” in Tables 1 and 2.

The tier analysis requires a minimum amount of data, and NMFS does not have sufficient data to perform a tier analysis on certain fisheries. Therefore, NMFS has classified certain fisheries by analogy to other fisheries that use similar fishing techniques or gear that are known to cause mortality or serious injury of marine mammals, or according to factors discussed in the final LOF for 1996 (60 FR 67063; December 28, 1995) and listed in the regulatory definition of a Category II fishery. In the absence of reliable information indicating the frequency of incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals by a commercial fishery, NMFS will determine whether the incidental mortality or serious injury is “occasional” by evaluating other factors such as fishing techniques, gear used, methods used to deter marine mammals, target species, seasons and areas fished, qualitative data from logbooks or fishermen reports, stranding data, and the species and distribution of marine mammals in the area, or at the discretion of the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries (50 CFR 229.2).

Further, eligible commercial fisheries not specifically identified on the LOF are deemed to be Category II fisheries until the next LOF is published (50 CFR 229.2).

The LOF includes a list of marine mammal species and/or stocks incidentally killed or injured in each commercial fishery. The list of species and/or stocks incidentally killed or injured includes “serious” and “non-serious” documented injuries as described later in the List of Species and/or Stocks Incidentally Killed or Injured in the Pacific Ocean and List of Species and/or Stocks Incidentally Killed or Injured in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean sections. To determine which species or stocks are included as incidentally killed or injured in a fishery, NMFS annually reviews the information presented in the current SARs and injury determination reports. SARs are brief reports summarizing the status of each stock of marine mammals occurring in waters under U.S. jurisdiction, including information on the identity and geographic range of the stock, population statistics related to abundance, trend, and annual productivity, notable habitat concerns, and estimates of human-caused mortality and serious injury (M/SI) by source. The SARs are based upon the best available scientific information and provide the most current and inclusive information on each stock's PBR level and level of interaction with commercial fishing operations. The best available scientific information used in the SARs and reviewed for the 2022 LOF generally summarizes data from 2014-2018. NMFS also reviews other sources of new information, including injury determination reports, bycatch estimation reports, observer data, logbook data, stranding data, disentanglement network data, fishermen self-reports ( i.e., MMPA mortality/injury reports), and anecdotal reports from that time period. In some cases, more recent information may be available and used in the LOF.

For fisheries with observer coverage, species or stocks are generally removed from the list of marine mammal species and/or stocks incidentally killed or injured if no interactions are documented in the 5-year timeframe summarized in that year's LOF. For fisheries with no observer coverage and for observed fisheries with evidence indicating that undocumented interactions may be occurring ( e.g., fishery has low observer coverage and stranding network data include evidence of fisheries interactions that cannot be attributed to a specific fishery) species and stocks may be retained for longer than 5 years. For these fisheries, NMFS will review the other sources of information listed above and use its discretion to decide when it is appropriate to remove a species or stock.

The best available information on the level of observer coverage and the spatial and temporal distribution of observed marine mammal interactions is presented in the SARs. Data obtained from the observer program and observer coverage levels are important tools in estimating the level of marine mammal mortality and serious injury in commercial fishing operations. Starting with the 2005 SARs, each Pacific and Alaska SAR includes an appendix with detailed descriptions of each Category I and II fishery on the LOF, including the observer coverage in those fisheries. For Atlantic fisheries, this information can be found in the LOF Fishery Fact Sheets. The SARs do not provide detailed information on observer coverage in Category III fisheries because, under the MMPA, Category III fisheries are not required to accommodate observers aboard vessels due to the remote likelihood of mortality and serious injury of marine mammals. Fishery information presented in the SARs' appendices and other resources referenced during the tier analysis may include: Level of observer coverage; target species; levels of fishing effort; spatial and temporal distribution of fishing effort; characteristics of fishing gear and operations; management and regulations; and interactions with marine mammals. Copies of the SARs are available on the NMFS Office of Protected Resources website at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports-region. Information on observer coverage levels in Category I, II, and III fisheries can be found in the fishery fact sheets on the NMFS Office of Protected Resources' website: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/list-fisheries-summary-tables. Additional information on observer programs in commercial fisheries can be found on the NMFS National Observer Program's website: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/fisheries-observers/national-observer-program.

The LOF includes three tables that list all U.S. commercial fisheries by Category. Table 1 lists all of the commercial fisheries in the Pacific Ocean (including Alaska); Table 2 lists all of the commercial fisheries in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean; and Table 3 lists all U.S. authorized commercial fisheries on the high seas. A fourth table, Table 4, lists all commercial fisheries managed under applicable TRPs or take reduction teams (TRT).

Beginning with the 2009 LOF, NMFS includes high seas fisheries in Table 3 of the LOF, along with the number of valid High Seas Fishing Compliance Act (HSFCA) permits in each fishery. As of 2004, NMFS issues HSFCA permits only for high seas fisheries analyzed in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The authorized high seas fisheries are broad in scope and encompass multiple specific fisheries identified by gear type. For the purposes of the LOF, the high seas fisheries are subdivided based on gear type ( e.g., trawl, longline, purse seine, gillnet, troll, etc.) to provide more detail on composition of effort within these fisheries. Many fisheries operate in both U.S. waters and on the high seas, creating some overlap between the fisheries listed in Tables 1 and 2 and those in Table 3. In these cases, the high seas component of the fishery is not considered a separate fishery, but an extension of a fishery operating within U.S. waters (listed in Table 1 or 2). NMFS designates those fisheries in Tables 1, 2, and 3 with an asterisk (*) after the fishery's name. The number of HSFCA permits listed in Table 3 for the high seas components of these fisheries operating in U.S. waters does not necessarily represent additional effort that is not accounted for in Tables 1 and 2. Many vessels/participants holding HSFCA permits also fish within U.S. waters and are included in the number of vessels and participants operating within those fisheries in Tables 1 and 2.

HSFCA permits are valid for 5 years, during which time Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) can change. Therefore, some vessels/participants may possess valid HSFCA permits without the ability to fish under the permit because it was issued for a gear type that is no longer authorized under the most current FMP. For this reason, the number of HSFCA permits displayed in Table 3 is likely higher than the actual U.S. fishing effort on the high seas. For more information on how NMFS classifies high seas fisheries on the LOF, see the preamble text in the final 2009 LOF (73 FR 73032; December 1, 2008). Additional information about HSFCA permits can be found at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/high-seas-fishing-permits.

Starting with the 2010 LOF, NMFS developed summary documents, or fishery fact sheets, for each Category I and II fishery on the LOF. These fishery fact sheets provide the full history of each Category I and II fishery, including: When the fishery was added to the LOF; the basis for the fishery's initial classification; classification changes to the fishery; changes to the list of species and/or stocks incidentally killed or injured in the fishery; fishery gear and methods used; observer coverage levels; fishery management and regulation; and applicable TRPs or TRTs, if any. These fishery fact sheets are updated after each final LOF and can be found under “How Do I Find Out if a Specific Fishery is in Category I, II, or III?” on the NMFS Office of Protected Resources' website: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-protection-act-list-fisheries, linked to the “List of Fisheries Summary” table. NMFS is developing similar fishery fact sheets for each Category III fishery on the LOF. However, due to the large number of Category III fisheries on the LOF and the lack of accessible and detailed information on many of these fisheries, the development of these fishery fact sheets is taking significant time to complete. NMFS began posting Category III fishery fact sheets online with the LOF for 2016.

Owners of vessels or gear engaging in a Category I or II fishery are required under the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1387(c)(2)), as described in 50 CFR 229.4, to register with NMFS and obtain a marine mammal authorization to lawfully take non-endangered and non-threatened marine mammals incidental to commercial fishing operations. Owners of vessels or gear engaged in a Category III fishery are not required to register with NMFS or obtain a marine mammal authorization.

NMFS has integrated the MMPA registration process, implemented through the Marine Mammal Authorization Program (MMAP), with existing state and Federal fishery license, registration, or permit systems for Category I and II fisheries on the LOF. Participants in these fisheries are automatically registered under the MMAP and are not required to submit registration or renewal materials.

In the Pacific Islands, West Coast, and Alaska regions, NMFS will issue vessel or gear owners an authorization certificate via U.S. mail or with their state or Federal license or permit at the time of issuance or renewal. In the Greater Atlantic and Southeast Regions, NMFS will issue vessel or gear owners an authorization certificate via U.S. mail automatically at the beginning of each calendar year.

Vessel or gear owners who participate in fisheries in these regions and have not received authorization certificates by the beginning of the calendar year, or with renewed fishing licenses, must contact the appropriate NMFS Regional Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ). Authorization certificates may also be obtained by visiting the MMAP website https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-authorization-program#obtaining-a-marine-mammal-authorization-certificate.

The authorization certificate, or a copy, must be on board the vessel while it is operating in a Category I or II fishery, or for non-vessel fisheries, in the possession of the person in charge of the fishing operation (50 CFR 229.4(e)). Although efforts are made to limit the issuance of authorization certificates to only those vessel or gear owners that participate in Category I or II fisheries, not all state and Federal license or permit systems distinguish between fisheries as classified by the LOF. Therefore, some vessel or gear owners in Category III fisheries may receive authorization certificates even though they are not required for Category III fisheries.

Individuals fishing in Category I and II fisheries for which no state or Federal license or permit is required must register with NMFS by contacting their appropriate Regional Office (see ADDRESSES ).

In accordance with the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1387(e)) and 50 CFR 229.6, any vessel owner or operator, or gear owner or operator (in the case of non-vessel fisheries), participating in a fishery listed on the LOF must report to NMFS all incidental mortalities and injuries of marine mammals that occur during commercial fishing operations, regardless of the category in which the fishery is placed (I, II, or III) within 48 hours of the end of the fishing trip or, in the case of non-vessel fisheries, fishing activity. “Injury” is defined in 50 CFR 229.2 as a wound or other physical harm. In addition, any animal that ingests fishing gear or any animal that is released with fishing gear entangling, trailing, or perforating any part of the body is considered injured, regardless of the presence of any wound or other evidence of injury, and must be reported.

Mortality/injury reporting forms and instructions for submitting forms to NMFS can be found at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-authorization-program#reporting-a-death-or-injury-of-a-marine-mammal-during-commercial-fishing-operations or by contacting the appropriate regional office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ). Forms may be submitted via any of the following means: (1) Online using the electronic form; (2) emailed as an attachment to nmfs.mireport@noaa.gov; (3) faxed to the NMFS Office of Protected Resources at 301-713-0376; or (4) mailed to the NMFS Office of Protected Resources (mailing address is provided on the postage-paid form that can be printed from the web address listed above). Reporting requirements and procedures are found in 50 CFR 229.6.

Individuals participating in a Category I or II fishery are required to accommodate an observer aboard their vessel(s) upon request from NMFS. MMPA section 118 states that the Secretary is not required to place an observer on a vessel if the facilities for quartering an observer or performing observer functions are so inadequate or unsafe that the health or safety of the observer or the safe operation of the vessel would be jeopardized; thereby authorizing the exemption of vessels too small to safely accommodate an observer from this requirement. However, U.S. Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean, or Gulf of Mexico large pelagics longline vessels operating in special areas designated by the Pelagic Longline Take Reduction Plan implementing regulations (50 CFR 229.36(d)) will not be exempted from observer requirements, regardless of their size. Observer requirements are found in 50 CFR 229.7.

Table 4 provides a list of fisheries affected by TRPs and TRTs. TRP regulations are found at 50 CFR 229.30 through 229.37. A description of each TRT and copies of each TRP can be found at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-take-reduction-plans-and-teams. It is the responsibility of fishery participants to comply with applicable take reduction regulations.

Information regarding the LOF and the MMAP, including registration procedures and forms; current and past LOFs; descriptions of each Category I and II fishery and some Category III fisheries; observer requirements; and marine mammal mortality/injury reporting forms and submittal procedures; may be obtained at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-protection-act-list-fisheries, or from any NMFS Regional Office at the addresses listed below:

NMFS, Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2298, Attn: Allison Rosner;

NMFS, Southeast Region, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701, Attn: Jessica Powell;

NMFS, West Coast Region, Long Beach Office, 501 W Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213, Attn: Dan Lawson;

NMFS, Alaska Region, Protected Resources, P.O. Box 22668, 709 West 9th Street, Juneau, AK 99802, Attn: Suzie Teerlink; or

NMFS, Pacific Islands Regional Office, Protected Resources Division, 1845 Wasp Blvd., Building 176, Honolulu, HI 96818, Attn: Diana Kramer.

NMFS reviewed the marine mammal incidental mortality and serious injury information presented in the SARs for all fisheries to determine whether changes in fishery classification are warranted. The SARs are based on the best scientific information available at the time of preparation, including the level of mortality and serious injury of marine mammals that occurs incidental to commercial fishery operations and the PBR levels of marine mammal stocks. The information contained in the SARs is reviewed by regional Scientific Review Groups (SRGs) representing Alaska, the Pacific (including Hawaii), and the U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean. The SRGs were established by the MMPA to review the science that informs the SARs, and to advise NMFS on marine mammal population status, trends, and stock structure, uncertainties in the science, research needs, and other issues.

NMFS also reviewed other sources of new information, including marine mammal stranding and entanglement data, observer program data, fishermen self-reports, reports to the SRGs, conference papers, FMPs, and ESA documents.

The LOF for 2022 was based on, among other things, stranding data; fishermen self-reports; and SARs, primarily the 2020 SARs, which are based on data from 2014-2018. The SARs referenced in this LOF include: 2018 (84 FR 28489; June 19, 2019), 2019 (84 FR 65353; November 27, 2019), and draft 2020 (85 FR 78307; December 4, 2020). The SARs are available at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports-region.

The following summarizes changes to the LOF for 2022, including the classification of fisheries, fisheries listed, the estimated number of vessels/persons in a particular fishery, and the species and/or stocks that are incidentally killed or injured in a particular fishery. NMFS re-classifies one fishery in the LOF for 2022. Additionally, NMFS adds four fisheries to the LOF. NMFS also makes changes to the estimated number of vessels/persons and list of species and/or stocks killed or injured in certain fisheries. Many Category III fisheries on the LOF have never been described in the LOF. While detailed information describing each fishery on the LOF has been included within the SARs for some fisheries, a FMP, TRP, or by state agencies, general descriptive information is also included here to clearly define each fishery that is on the LOF. Since the 2016 LOF (80 FR 58427; September 29, 2015), NMFS has been developing Category III fishery fact sheets that are available online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/list-fisheries-summary-tables. NMFS is requesting public comment on the fisheries descriptions below to include as fact sheet content. The classifications and definitions of U.S. commercial fisheries for 2022 are identical to those provided in the LOF for 2021 with the changes discussed below. State and regional abbreviations used in the following paragraphs include: AK (Alaska), BSAI (Bering Sea, Aleutian Island), CA (California), Gulf of Alaska (GOA), HI (Hawaii), Maine Hawaiian Islands (MHI), OR (Oregon), WA (Washington), and WNA (Western North Atlantic).

NMFS proposes to reclassify the Category II AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Island (BSAI) rockfish trawl fishery to a Category III fishery. One killer whale (Gulf of Alaska, BSAI transient stock) mortality in 2012 was driving the Category II classification of this fishery. From 2014-2018, this fishery had 100 percent observer coverage, and no additional killer whale M/SI have been observed or reported in this timeframe for this fishery (Muto et al., 2021). Therefore, NMFS proposes to reclassify the AK BSAI rockfish trawl fishery from a Category II to a Category III fishery.

NMFS proposes to add the WA/OR/CA other groundfish pot fishery as a Category III fishery. This new Category III fishery includes pot fishing effort from the previously named Category III CA nearshore finfish live trap/hook-and-line fishery and other groundfish pot fishing effort (separate from the sablefish pot fishery) that is not currently included on the LOF.

The groundfish pot fishery (other than sablefish) in WA/OR/CA targets close to 100 different species that generally live on or near the bottom. There are over 60 different rockfish species, which includes widow, yellowtail, canary, chilipepper, yelloweye, and vermilion rockfish. Important species of flatfish include Dover sole, petrale sole, starry and arrowtooth flounder, and Pacific sanddab. Other target species include boccaccio, cowcod, thornyheads, and Pacific Ocean perch. Due to the variety of species, there is significant variation in the areas and depths where the gear is fished. Depths can range from 11-722 fathoms (20-1,300 meters). The locations where fishermen are allowed to fish are limited by federal and state-designated conservation areas ( e.g., the Rockfish Conservation Area). The fishery operates year-round.

The traps can be either rectangular, conical or trapezoidal in shape. Conical traps are typically 36-72 inches (91-182 centimeters) in diameter. In California, the diameter limit is 92 inches (233 centimeters) maximum. All traps are between 28-32 inches (71-81 centimeters) in height. A destructive device capable of leaving an 8-inch (20 centimeter) in diameter opening is required. Line consists of a nylon or nylon poly-blend material of 3/8 - 5/8 inch diameter, attached to a string of pots/traps on one end, and a large polyball at the surface. The open access fishery uses 1-8 strings of 3-4 pots; the limited entry fishery uses 20-30 of these strings. Whether traps are used individually or in a string, it is mandatory that the surface end or terminal end be marked with a pole, flag, radar reflector, and a buoy. In California, the license number of the fisher is displayed on the polyball with an accompanying “B”. The gear must be attended to at least once every 7 days.

There are over 100 species managed under the Pacific Fishery Management Council's (PFMC) Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP. It outlines the areas, species, regulations, and the process that is used to make changes to the fishery. The plan also creates guidelines for the biennial process of setting harvest levels. The fishery is managed under two sectors; limited entry and open access. Both sectors generally share regulations applied to other groundfish fisheries such as, quotas, harvest guidelines, trip and landing limits, area restrictions, seasonal closures, and gear restrictions.

Access to the limited entry fishery requires a limited entry permit, in addition to gear endorsements required by the individual states. Specifically, there is a limited entry permit with a non-sablefish fixed gear endorsement. Individual vessel landing limits are enforced. Open access privileges are currently available to any fishermen with the required state gear endorsements, but catch quotas and area closures are more restrictive than the primary limited entry permit. Open access quotas vary based upon the area fished.

There are currently 68 participants in this fishery. In the Open Access fixed gear fishery, observer coverage rates during 2009-2018 ranged from 2-12 percent. Historically, there have been no documented marine mammal mortalities or injuries incidental to the components of this fishery. Therefore, NMFS proposes to add this fishery as a Category III fishery.

NMFS proposes to add the CA other crab/shellfish pot fishery as a Category III fishery. This new Category III fishery targets several species of crab ( e.g., spider or sheep, Tanner crab) and other shellfish species ( e.g., Kellet's whelk) using trap/pot gear.

The majority of effort for Tanner crabs occurs in northern California out of Eureka and Crescent City. Otherwise, most of the components of this fishery are primarily active south of Point Conception from Santa Barbara to San Diego.

Tanner crab pots/traps are larger (up to 10 ft (3 m) x 10 ft (3 m)) than those used to target other species, with a depth of no more than 42 inches (107 centimeters). The traps consist either of 3 mm polyethylene web or vinyl-coated steel wire with at least three openings of 4.5 inches (11 centimeters) inside diameter on the sides and upper panel of the trap, to allow undersized crabs to escape. Up to 480 traps can be used per permitted vessel, with a maximum of 80 traps used per a single string. Every string of traps is marked with a buoy on each end, and each buoy is marked with the vessel's commercial boat registration number preceded by the letters “TC”.

The gear used to target other species in this fishery are generally similar to pots/traps used to catch other prominent shellfish species that include Dungeness crab, rock crab, and spiny lobster. Destructive devices that create an unobstructed opening anywhere in the top or upper half of the trap when the material corrodes or fails are required. Most traps are fished singularly, but strings of 5-25 traps may be used to target some species.

A Tanner crab trap vessel permit is required by the state of California. There is a 5-inch (12.7 centimeters) minimum carapace size limit, and measuring devices should be present on the vessel at all times. Only males are allowed to be retained. The cumulative trip limits for each permitted vessel are 250,000 pounds (113,398 kilograms) of whole crab over each 2-month period. There is an annual catch limit of 2 million pounds for the period from April 1 to March 31 of the following year. When the limit is close to being reached, the State can give notice of at least 10 days before the closure. No finfish other than sablefish are allowed to be retained under the Tanner crab permit. Observers and logbooks are required for the Tanner crab fishery.

Spider crab and other species can be landed under a general trap permit from the State of California. The total allowable catch of spider crab for the entire state is 95,000 pounds (43,091 kilograms) landed during a calendar year.

There are currently 40 participants in this fishery. There is partial observer coverage for this fishery, there have been no documented marine mammal mortalities or injuries from stranding or other data. Therefore, NMFS proposes to add this fishery as a Category III fishery.

NMFS proposes to add the CA/OR/WA non-albacore Highly Migratory Species (HMS) hook and line fishery as a Category III fishery. This new Category III fishery includes hook and line fishing gear not covered by fisheries currently included on the LOF. Fishing effort using troll and other surface hook and line gear targeting HMS are not captured in the two currently named HMS hook and line fisheries on the LOF (Category III WA/OR/CA albacore surface hook and line/troll fishery and Category III CA pelagic longline fishery).

Hook and line fisheries for non-albacore HMS species occur in Federal waters (3-200 nm), mostly in the Southern California Bight with very little effort occurring north of Point Conception. The species targeted include swordfish, tuna (bluefin and yellowfin), thresher shark (common, bigeye, and pelagic), shortfin mako shark, dorado, and opah.

The fisheries operate year-round. Fishing effort generally starts during late spring/early summer and starts dropping off towards late fall/early winter, depending on the availability and movement patterns of HMS. The presence of large scale ocean/climate conditions such as El Niño and La Niña can influence the movement of HMS species considerably. A wide variety of depths within the water column may be targeted depending on species and other factors.

The main type of hook and line gear used for non-albacore HMS is troll gear, although other surface hook and line gear such as rod-and-reel and hand lines may be used. Troll gear typically includes one or more lines with lures or baited hooks attached that are drawn (“trolled”) through the water column at various depths, depending on species targeted.

All HMS require a Federal HMS permit, and additional state permits may apply. All West Coast non-albacore hook and line fisheries are open access. There are no limits to the number of species that can be landed, with the exception of bluefin tuna trip limits specified through the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission. Logbooks are required for all fisheries targeting HMS, and some HMS fisheries are required to carry observers.

There are currently 124 participants in this fishery. Historically, there have been no documented marine mammal mortalities or injuries incidental to the components of this fishery. Therefore, this fishery is being proposed as a Category III fishery.

NMFS proposes to remove the superscript “1” from the Main Hawaiian Islands (MHI) insular stock of false killer whale to indicate the stock is no longer driving the Category I classification of the HI deep-set longline fishery. The total estimated annual M/SI of the MHI insular stock of false killer whale in the HI deep-set longline fishery for the 5-year period of 2014-2018 is 0.03 animals, which represents 10 percent of PBR (0.3) (Carretta et al., 2021).

NMFS corrects an administrative error in Table 1. NMFS adds the superscript “1” CA/OR/WA stock of humpback whales to indicate the stock is driving the Category II classification of the CA coonstripe shrimp pot fishery. This fishery was reclassified in the 2020 LOF (85 FR 21079; April 16, 2020) based on one entangled humpback whale, but Table 1 did not indicate that the stock is driving the Category II classification.

NMFS proposes to rename the Category III WA/OR herring, smelt, squid purse seine or lampara fishery to the WA/OR herring, anchovy, smelt, squid purse seine or lampara fishery to indicate anchovy is a target species of this fishery. This fishery includes fishing for herring, anchovy, smelt, market squid, and other baitfish that occur in inland and coastal waters of Oregon and Washington, including bays and estuaries. Some portions of the fishery are generally open year round, but there are other variations depending on target species and gear type.

Fishermen use a variety of gear types in this fishery including: Purse seine, lampara net, drag seine, and dip bag net gear. A purse seine is a large wall of netting deployed around an entire school of fish. When a school of target species is located, a skiff will encircle the school with one end of the seine attached to it while the other end is attached to the fishing vessel itself. Once the skiff circles back around to the vessel, the lead line at the bottom of the seine is pulled in “pursing” the net closed on the bottom preventing the fish from escaping when swimming downward.

Purse seine, drag seine, and lampara nets have a minimum mesh size of a 1/2 -inch (12.7 mm) stretched. In Puget Sound, lampara nets are allowed to be up to 200 feet (60.96 m) in length. The maximum length of purse seine nets varies by location with the smallest maximum length of 300 feet (91.44 m) in inland Oregon to the largest allowable length of 1,400 feet in the offshore and coastal waters of Washington. Drag seines used in Willapa Bay, Grays Harbor, and the Lower Columbia River can be a maximum of 350 feet (106.68 m) long with a 1 1/4 inch (31.75 mm) minimum stretch measure net mesh size. Squid fishing in Washington's waters involves dip net bags with a maximum diameter of 10 feet (3.05 m) and maximum size of 18 feet (5.47 m), and a minimum mesh size of 1-inch (25.4 mm).

There is some overlap of the management of this fishery with the PFMC's Coastal Pelagic Species FMP in coastal and offshore waters. There are additional state regulations that govern the harvest of some species. State permits are generally required to fish for each species type and/or gear used within Washington's coastal and inland waters ( e.g., Puget Sound herring lampara fishery license, smelt dip bag license). Many of the permits are open access, with some exceptions that include limited entry permits for herring fisheries on the Washington coast, and the Yaquina Bay herring roe purse seine fishery in Oregon.

Logbooks are required for some species/gear used in each state. Catch limits for individual landings or total fleet catch may apply. For example, both states limit the landing of anchovy to 5 metric tons (mt) daily, and to 10 mt weekly (in Oregon this applies to anchovy caught within inland waters). Other examples include that the Puget Sound herring fishery is closed by emergency regulation if the harvest exceeds 10 percent of the adult spawning biomass. There are limits on how much catch can be converted into fish meal or other products. Incidental bycatch of non-target species (not including protected species) may be allowed up to certain limits depending on the fishery type and the species incidentally caught.

NMFS proposes to rename the Category III WA salmon purse seine fishery to the WA salmon seine fishery to clarify that both purse seine and beach seine gear are used to target salmon in the Washington state salmon fishery. The fishery targets sockeye, Chinook, pink, coho, and chum salmon within Puget Sound, Washington. The purse seine fishery occurs in central Puget Sound, the San Juan Islands, and Hood Canal. The fishery usually begins around mid-July and extends until early December, with individual regions opening and closing at different times within the overall fishing season. The beach seine salmon fishery is an experimental fishery targeting Chinook and coho that is only authorized in Hood Canal. The season runs from late July to late September, depending upon the region within the Hood Canal.

Purse seines may have a maximum length of 1,800 feet (548 m) along the cork line, and the net and lead line combined cannot exceed 2,200 feet (670 m). The minimum mesh size of purse seine nets is 3.5 inches (88.9 mm) and cannot be made of a twine-size smaller than 210/30d nylon, 12-thread cotton, or an equivalent diameter material. There are also specific requirements for the configuration of the cork line in the bunt. In some areas, a brailer and recovery box may be required.

Beach seining involves a net that is able to encircle a group of fish adjacent to a beach with one end of the net attached to a designated boat. The beach seine net cannot be longer than 990 feet (301 m), or more than 200 meshes in depth. The mesh must be between 3 (76.2 mm) and 4 (101.6 mm) inches and made of twine no smaller than 210/30d nylon, 12 thread cotton, or an equivalent material.

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), Puget Sound Treaty Tribes, and NMFS jointly manage salmon harvest in Washington. The salmon purse seine fishery requires a limited entry permit, which is transferable. The fishery is managed through season openings, mesh size limits, and limits regarding the amount of time and effort allowed each day or night within the various areas. A portion of the fishery is managed by the Fraser River Panel, which is composed of representatives from the U.S. and Canada. A “Fish Friendly” best fishing practices workshop has to be attended by fishermen in order to fish in certain areas. The take of certain salmon species is prohibited in specific areas, and they have to be released immediately if captured.

Participation in the beach seine fishery involves acquiring a beach seine permit from WDFW (available since 2009). The permit holder must participate on the designated vessel in the open fishery. WDFW may require a logbook to be submitted to prove participation. Only a few permits are issued each year. All non-target fish must be released. WDFW deploys observers for this fishery.

For both the purse seine and beach seine fisheries, every fisherman is required to report lost netting to the WDFW. For these fisheries, emergency regulations and in-season changes can occur based on stock allocations and conservation objectives.

NMFS proposes to combine the Category III CA halibut hook and line/handline fishery and Category III CA white seabass hook and line/handline fishery, and name it the Category III CA halibut, white seabass, and yellowtail hook and line/handline fishery. This combination is based on considerable overlap in spatial distribution of target species, participants, landings and gear used in the fisheries. There are 388 participants in the fishery.

This fishery targets California halibut, white seabass, and yellowtail, although a mix of other species are also taken simultaneously including groundfish and pelagic species. Effort generally takes place in less than 55 fathoms (100 m) of water, and within 3 nm of the shoreline. The fishery is active all along the coast of California, although much of the effort for certain species occurs in the Southern California Bight.

The hook and line gear used includes several types of gear configurations: Troll, pole and line and longline. There are two types of longline gear that may be used in this fishery. The first one being a bottom longline with a main line extending horizontally along the seafloor with short lines attached to it at intervals, each culminating into a baited hook. The second type is called a vertical longline with a line that is weighted on the bottom end that is anchored to the seafloor, attached to a buoy (or buoys) on the top end at the sea surface that suspends the line vertically. Attached to the main vertical line are short lines at intervals, each culminating into baited hooks.

This is an open access fishery requiring a Resident Commercial Fishing License. A Commercial Ocean Enhancement Stamp is required for commercial fishermen who take, possess, or land any white sea bass south of Point Arguello. Other Federal and state regulations can be applicable depending on which species are caught and landed. Any gear that is not attached to the vessel must be attached to buoys floating on the surface and marked on the upper half with a commercial fishing license identification number at least 2 inches (50.8 mm) in height. Only a certain number of lines and hooks per line, and different types of hook and line gear configurations, are allowed in each of the districts especially where effort may occur less than 1 nm from shore ( e.g., troll lines, longline gear cannot be fished in waters less than 1 nm from shore).

Troll and hand lines are limited to 900 feet (274 m) or less; only longlines can exceed this limit. All hooks present have to be below the upper one third of any vertical longline gear used. There are exemptions within certain districts to the number hooks that may be used in conjunction with certain gear types if the target species consists of at least 80 percent of the total catch.

NMFS proposes to rename the Category III WA/OR Pacific halibut longline fishery to the WA/OR/CA Pacific halibut longline fishery to clarify there is also Pacific halibut longline fishing effort in California. The Pacific halibut commercial fishery occurs within 10 regulatory areas (3 major areas (2, 3, and 4) divided further into subareas) throughout the North Pacific Ocean within the exclusive economic zone (EEZ), established by the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC). The use of longlines to target Pacific halibut occurs along the Continental U.S. West Coast (excluding Alaska) in what is known as Area 2A, which includes the entire EEZ off of Washington, Oregon, and California.

Fishermen usually target Pacific halibut at depths of 15-150 fathoms (27-274 meters) where they prefer to hang out in current calming “hydraulic relief zones” such as depressions, valleys, and rock formations at the bottom of the sea. Fishing may occur anytime between IPHC's season dates from mid-March through mid-November. The Area 2A non-tribal directed commercial fishery usually occurs in summer, generally from June-July, although in some years it could be extended until August. Landing Pacific halibut as incidental catch during the sablefish longline fishery is allowed, but only for vessels participating in the sablefish Limited Entry fixed gear fishery from April 1 to October 31 with a valid license from the IPHC.

A long main line is used that consists of a lead core that allows it to sink to the ocean floor. The main line is made of nylon or a polyurethane-blend roughly 5/16 inch (7.9 mm) in width. The main line (or ground line) can be up to 1.5 nautical miles long and set on the bottom with an anchor (25-50 pounds (11-22 kg) at each end. Hooks are attached to the main line every 3-4 feet (91-121 cm) with a “gangion” made of nylon or monofilament line connected with a snap or tied on. The most common hooks used are size 16/0 circle hooks baited with live squid, mackerel heads, or artificial bait resembling sardine or anchovy. Pacific halibut is also incidentally caught with fixed gear (longline) in the sablefish fishery, which uses similar gear.

Pacific halibut fishing off the U.S. West Coast used to be managed solely by the IPHC through the PFMC Pacific Halibut Catch Sharing Plan (CSP). The routine management of the non-tribal commercial directed Pacific halibut fishery is being transitioned from the IPHC to the PFMC and NMFS. The IPHC will continue to set the total allowable catch for Pacific halibut, and the PFMC will continue to develop a CSP.

This is an open access fishery requiring permits obtained from the IPHC whether targeted or caught incidentally in fixed gear (longline) sablefish fisheries, with strict size and catch limits. Logbooks are required for vessels that have an overall length of 26 feet (7.9 m) or more. If catch limits are reached before the official closure dates, the fishery will be closed. There are no individual fishing quotas in this fishery, but there are landing ratios for the incidental catch fisheries and vessel limits per opener for the directed commercial fishery. In 2017 and 2018, observer coverage of the directed derby fishery was 8 percent and 25 percent, respectively.

NMFS proposes to rename the Category III WA/CA kelp fishery to the CA/WA kelp, seaweed, and algae fishery to clarify that in addition to kelp, other species of edible marine plants are commercially harvested in waters off the U.S. West Coast. The two species of kelp that are predominantly harvested are giant kelp and bull kelp. Giant kelp is the most common kelp species found along the southern and central California coast, whereas bull kelp becomes more abundant farther north. There are 87 geographical kelp beds along the California coast and Channel Islands. As of December 2020, each of the 87 kelp beds are designated as either: Open (33 beds), closed (18 beds), lease only (3 beds), and leasable (28 beds). California state marine parks and reserves are completely off limits to kelp harvesting, but there is limited kelp harvesting allowed in state marine conservation areas.

There is a herring roe-on-kelp fishery in Washington where kelp is harvested by hand from small vessels. The herring roe-on-kelp fishery occurs every year during the herring spawning season from late January until early June. The fishery takes place within Puget Sound, with regulated area closures.

There are various harvesting methods used for kelp, edible seaweed, or agar algae. Gear used for commercial harvest of kelp generally consists of a specially designed vessel with cutting mechanisms on the stern, and a conveyor system that places the cut kelp into a harvest bin. The blades are mounted at the base of the conveyor and lowered three feet into the kelp bed while the vessel moves slowly stern-first through the bed.

In the herring roe-on-kelp fishery, Macrocystis kelp is gathered and carefully placed in floating net pens or impoundments (pounds) in anticipation of a herring spawning event. Herring are seined, introduced to the pounds to spawn for about a week, and then released. The eggs stick to the kelp blades which are collected and layered with salt in totes.

The commercial harvesting of kelp, marine algae, and agar algae in California is managed by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). A kelp harvest license is valid for 1 year at a time. Although the license includes edible seaweed and agar algae as well, the license applicant must choose which type of harvest they will be participating in. Harvesters must submit a harvest plan that must be approved prior to harvesting. A monthly harvest report has to be submitted to the CDFW on or before the 10th day of each month of harvest, even if harvest did not occur.

Harvesters are not allowed to cut attached kelp at a depth greater than 4 feet (1.2 m), but can collect unattached kelp. Vessels can collect up to 600 tons of kelp a day. Agar algae are cut no closer than 2 inches to the holdfast, and removal of the holdfast is prohibited. Harvesters are not allowed to repetitively harvest from individual giant or bull kelp specimens, and the harvesting of kelp near sea otter rafting sites must be avoided.

Seaweed species of the genus Macrocystis is only allowed for harvesting for the herring spawn-on-kelp fishery, if approved by the WDFW. The herring spawn-on-kelp fishery is a limited entry fishery.

NMFS proposes to combine the Category III WA groundfish, bottomfish jig fishery and the hook and line component of the Category III CA nearshore finfish live trap/hook-and-line fishery, and name it the Category III WA/OR/CA groundfish/finfish hook and line fishery. This proposed combined fishery will also include other groundfish/finfish hook and line fishing effort of fisheries not currently included on the LOF. The two currently named Category III fisheries do not account for a large amount of non-longline hook and line fishing effort, which includes numerous combinations of target species, gear, and spatial distribution along the West Coast. This fishery has 689 participants.

The groundfish/finfish hook and line fishery (other than bottom longline) targets close to 100 different species that generally live on or near the bottom. There are over 60 different rockfish species with the primary species targeted in this fishery being black, vermilion, brown, and gopher rockfish. Other important targeted species include lingcod, cabazon, greenling, and sablefish. Numerous other finfish/groundfish are also landed.

Due to the variety of species, there is significant variation in the areas and depths where the gear is fished. Depths can range anywhere from 11-722 fathoms (20-1,300 m). The locations where fishermen are allowed to fish for these species groups can be limited by conservation areas ( e.g., the Rockfish Conservation Area). The fishery operates year-round.

Hook and line gear includes several types of gear configurations including: Troll, pole and line and vertical longline. There are Federal and state regulations which must be adhered to including various area and time closures ( e.g., Rockfish Critical Habitat). In some places, fishing is not allowed in certain districts over weekends and legal holidays. In California, troll lines cannot be fished in waters less than 1 nm from shore. Landing limits for different species over various time periods also typically apply. Other management restrictions regarding the number and configuration of lines and hooks that are allowed in different areas may also apply. Portions of this fishery are observed under the nearshore groundfish fixed gear fishery. Annual coverage from 2009-2018 for the entire nearshore groundfish fishery ranged from 4 to 8 percent.

NMFS proposes to combine and rename the Category III WA/OR bait shrimp, clam, hand, dive, or mechanical collection fishery and the Category III OR/CA sea urchin, sea cucumber hand, dive, or mechanical collection fishery into two distinct gear-based Category III fisheries: (1) The CA/OR/WA dive collection fishery and (2) the WA/OR/CA hand/mechanical collection fishery. As currently included on the LOF, there is overlap of fishing effort and target species between the two fisheries along the West Coast. Therefore, NMFS is proposing to combine these fisheries based on the harvesting methodologies' potential risk to marine mammals. NMFS proposes to aggregate the California, Oregon and Washington commercial dive fisheries into one Category III fishery, and aggregate the California, Oregon and Washington hand/mechanical collection fisheries into a separate Category III fishery.

The CA/OR/WA dive collection fisheries target primarily sea urchins, sea cucumbers, and other mollusks such as geoduck clams and occur in all three West Coast states. This fishery has 186 participants.

In California, the commercial take for red sea urchin is open for most of the year, but there are restrictions regarding certain areas or days of the week at times during the year. There are no seasonal restrictions on harvest of other sea urchin species. California sea cucumber may be collected year round; warty sea cucumbers are not allowed to be collected from March 1 to June 15.

In Oregon, most of the state is open year round for sea urchin harvest. However, the largest harvest area (Orford Reef) is open only November through April. The sea cucumber fishery occurs in various areas along the coast, but harvest from Orford Reef is prohibited May 1 through October 31.

Harvest of geoducks in Washington occurs exclusively within the inland waters of WA. The sea urchin fishery occurs October through February throughout the state, based mostly on gonad (roe or uni) condition and quality. There are numerous protected areas designated by the state of Washington where sea urchin fishing is prohibited. Specific sea cucumber harvest districts exist in the state, each with clearly defined open seasons.

SCUBA gear or a “hookah rig” are allowed in all three states where dive gear is used for commercial harvesting. The “hookah rig” consists of an air compressor with supply hoses that distribute air to divers. Divers use SCUBA for picking and scouting, but when a harvest area is identified the Hookah method is predominantly used. California and Washington allow divers to use nitrox and scooters, although Oregon prohibits the use of mixed gas.

The sea urchin commercial dive fishery is a limited entry permit fishery in all three U.S. West Coast states. In Washington there are catch limits, but none in Oregon or California. However, there are size limits in Oregon and Washington, but none in California. In Oregon, there are depth restrictions where harvest can occur. The Washington sea urchin permits are distributed almost equally between state and tribal commercial fishermen.

The sea cucumber dive fishery is a limited entry fishery in California and Oregon, but is open access requiring a shellfish dive permit in Washington. In California, there are no landing or size limits. In California, sea cucumber trawl permits allow for trawling or diving for sea cucumber, whereas a sea cucumber dive permit only allows for diving for sea cucumbers. In Oregon, harvest of sea cucumbers is allowed under a sea urchin permit. In Washington, a quota system exists for sea cucumbers. If the quota for the season is reached, the fishery is closed. The quota for each year changes and is based on stock assessments for each district. Submissions of logbooks are required in all three states.

To obtain a commercial geoduck permit, a competitive bid process is used to sell harvest contracts to the highest responsible bidder. Successful bidders are required to obtain a WDFW fishery license prior to commercial harvest.

The WA/OR/CA hand/mechanical collection fishery employs hand or mechanical collection methods within the intertidal or nearshore areas in all three West Coast states. Collection of clams and other mollusks in intertidal and subtidal areas, including razor, cockle, and butter clams, represent a substantial level of commercial harvest, especially in Oregon and Washington. Harvest of various bait fish or aquaria collection species in nearshore waters also occurs, particularly in California. This fishery has 320 participants.

The methods used for hand collection of targeted species can include shovels, hand pumps (especially for most clams), rakes, trowels, and hands (bare or protected). Hand powered tools are generally used in intertidal areas only. Methods for mechanical collection, especially for baitfish and aquaria species in nearshore or intertidal waters, include dip nets, hand pumps (for bait shrimp), and small trawl nets, along with numerous other devices. Management of hand and mechanical collection fisheries occurs with varying degrees within each state.

In Washington, specific permits are needed to harvest important target species such as razor clams or burrowing shrimp. Commercial harvest of razor clams is allowed only on the detached Willapa Spits, located at the mouth of Willapa Bay. Fishermen must either register with a Department of Health certified razor clam dealer or become certified by the Department of Health individually.

In Oregon, harvest of intertidal clam and shrimp species require a commercial shellfish or intertidal animal harvest permit. Seasonal restrictions that can vary by area may apply. Subtidal harvest of clams requires a separate permit.

In California, permits that are relevant, depending on the specific target and gear used, include: Tidal invertebrates, ghost shrimp, bay shrimp, and marine aquaria species. There are time and area restrictions that include marine conservation areas and state marine reserves.

NMFS proposes to update the estimated number of vessels/persons in the Pacific Ocean (Table 1) as follows:

• CA thresher shark/swordfish drift gillnet (≥14 in mesh) fishery from 14 to 21 vessels/persons;

• CA halibut/white seabass and other species set gillnet (>3.5 in mesh) fishery from 37 to 39 vessels/persons;

• CA yellowtail, barracuda, and white seabass drift gillnet (mesh size ≥3.5 in and <14 in) fishery from 22 to 20 vessels/persons;

• WA Puget Sound Region salmon drift gillnet fishery from 154 to 136 vessels/persons;

• CA coonstripe shrimp pot fishery from 14 to 9 vessels/persons;

• CA spiny lobster fishery from 186 to 189 vessels/persons;

• CA spot prawn pot fishery from 23 to 22 vessels/persons;

• CA Dungeness crab pot fishery from 501 to 471 vessels/persons;

• OR Dungeness crab pot fishery from 342 to 323 vessels/persons;

• WA/OR/CA sablefish pot fishery from 155 to 144 vessels/persons;

• WA coastal Dungeness crab pot fishery from 197 to 204 vessels/persons;

• HI shortline fishery from 9 to 5 vessels/persons;

• CA set gillnet (mesh size <3.5 in) fishery from 296 to 11 vessels/persons;

• HI inshore gillnet fishery from 36 to 29 vessels/persons;

• WA Grays Harbor salmon drift gillnet fishery from 24 to 19 vessels/persons;

• WA/OR Mainstem Columbia River eulachon gillnet fishery from 5 to 10 vessels/persons;

• WA Willapa Bay drift gillnet fishery from 82 to 57 vessels/persons;

• WA/OR sardine purse seine fishery from 42 to 6 vessels/persons;

• CA anchovy, mackerel, sardine purse seine fishery from 65 to 53 vessels/persons;

• CA squid purse seine fishery from 80 to 68 persons/vessels;

• CA tuna purse seine fishery from 10 to 14 vessels/persons;

• WA/OR Lower Columbia River salmon seine fishery from 10 to 1 person/vessel;

• WA/OR herring, anchovy, smelt, squid purse seine or lampara fishery from 130 to 41 vessels/persons;

• WA salmon seine fishery from 75 to 81 vessels/persons;

• HI lift net fishery from 17 to 15 vessels/persons;

• HI inshore purse seine fishery from <3 to none recorded vessels/persons;

• HI throw net, cast net fishery from 23 to 15 vessels/persons;

• HI seine net fishery from 24 to 17 vessels/persons;

• CA squid dip net fishery from 115 to 19 vessels/persons;

• HI offshore pen culture fishery from 2 to 1 vessels/persons;

• WA/OR/CA albacore surface hook and line/troll fishery from 705 to 556 vessels/persons;

• CA/OR/WA salmon troll fishery from 4,300 to 1,030 vessels/persons;

• HI troll fishery from 2,117 to 1,380 vessels/persons;

• HI rod and reel fishery from 322 to 237 vessels/persons;

• Guam tuna troll fishery from 432 to 398 vessels/persons;

• WA/OR/CA groundfish, bottomfish longline/set line fishery from 367 to 314 vessels/persons;

• WA/OR/CA Pacific halibut longline fishery from 350 to 130 vessels/persons;

• CA pelagic longline fishery from 1 to 4 vessels/persons;

• HI kaka line fishery from 15 to 5 vessels/persons;

• HI vertical line fishery from 3 to none recorded vessels/persons;

• CA halibut bottom trawl fishery from 47 to 23 vessels/persons;

• CA sea cucumber trawl fishery from 16 to 11 vessels/persons;

• WA/OR/CA shrimp trawl fishery from 300 to 130 vessels/persons;

• WA/OR/CA groundfish trawl fishery from 160-180 to 118 vessels/persons;

• CA rock crab pot fishery from 124 to 113 vessels/persons;

• WA/OR/CA hagfish pot fishery from 54 to 63 vessels/persons;

• WA/OR shrimp pot/trap fishery from 54 to 28 vessels/persons;

• WA Puget Sound Dungeness crab pot/trap fishery from 249 to 145 vessels/persons;

• HI crab trap fishery from 5 to 4 vessels/persons;

• HI fish trap fishery from 9 to 4 vessels/persons;

• HI lobster trap fishery from <3 to none recorded vessels/persons;

• HI shrimp trap fishery from 10 to 3 vessels/persons;

• HI crab net fishery from 4 to none recorded vessels/persons;

• HI kona crab loop net fishery from 33 to 20 vessels/persons;

• American Samoa bottomfish handline fishery from fewer than 20 to 9 vessels/persons;

• Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands bottomfish fishery from 28 to 11 vessels/persons;

• Guam bottomfish fishery from >300 to 67 vessels/persons;

• HI aku boat, pole and line fishery from <3 to none recorded vessels/persons;

• HI bottomfish handline fishery from 578 to 385 vessels/persons;

• HI inshore handline fishery from 357 to 206 vessels/persons;

• HI pelagic handline fishery from 534 to 300 vessels/persons;

• CA swordfish harpoon fishery from 6 to 21 vessels/persons;

• HI bullpen trap fishery from 3 to none recorded vessels/persons;

• HI black coral diving fishery from <3 to none recorded vessels/persons;

• HI fish pond fishery from 5 to none recorded vessels/persons;

• HI handpick fishery from 46 to 25 vessels/persons;

• HI lobster diving fishery from 19 to 12 vessels/persons;

• HI spearfishing fishery from 163 to 82 vessels/persons; and

• HI aquarium collecting fishery from 90 to 34 vessels/persons.

NMFS proposes to add the Eastern North Pacific stock of gray whale to the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category II AK Prince William Sound salmon drift gillnet fishery based on a self-reported serious injury in 2018 (Carretta et al., 2020).

NMFS proposes to add three stocks to the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category II AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands pollock trawl fishery: (1) Arctic stock of ringed seal, (2) Central North Pacific stock of humpback whale and (3) Western North Pacific stock of humpback whale. In 2017, there was an observed mortality of a ringed seal (Arctic stock) (Muto et al., 2021). In 2018 one humpback whale mortality was observed in the AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands pollock trawl fishery. This mortality occurred in an area of humpback whale stock overlap and consistent with NMFS Guidelines for Assessing Marine Mammal Stocks (GAMMS), the serious injury was assigned to both the Western North Pacific and Central North Pacific stocks (Muto et al., 2021).

NMFS proposes to add the U.S. stock of California sea lion to the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category II CA spiny lobster fishery. In 2019, a California sea lion was reported entangled in 40 kilograms of lobster pot gear near Santa Barbara, CA. The gear was removed after sedating of the animal (Carretta et al., 2021).

NMFS proposes to add the California stock of Northern elephant seal to the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category II AK Gulf of Alaska sablefish longline fishery based on an observed serious injury in 2017 (Carretta et al., 2020).

NMFS proposes to add both the Western U.S. stock of Steller sea lion and North Kodiak stock of harbor seal to the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category III AK Kodiak salmon purse seine fishery. In 2018, a dead stranded Steller sea lion was reported entangled in commercial Kodiak salmon seine net (Muto et al., 2021). Also in 2018, a harbor seal mortality was documented in the barrier net of the salmon purse seine fishery (Young et al., 2020).

NMFS proposes to add the Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Islands, Bering Sea transient stock of killer whale to the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category III AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Greenland turbot longline fishery based on observed mortality in 2015 (Muto et al., 2021).

NMFS proposes to add the Clarence Strait stock of harbor seal to the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category III AK Gulf of Alaska halibut longline fishery based on an observed mortality in 2018 (Young et al., 2020).

NMFS proposes to add the Cook Inlet/Shelikof Strait stock of harbor seal to the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category III AK Gulf of Alaska Pacific cod longline fishery based on an observed mortality in 2018 (Young et al., 2020).

NMFS proposes to add the California stock of Northern elephant seal to the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category III AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands Atka mackerel trawl fishery based on an observed serious injury in 2018 (Carretta et al., 2020).

NMFS proposes to add three stocks to the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category III AK Gulf of Alaska flatfish trawl fishery. The three stocks are: (1) Cook Inlet/Shelikof Strait stock of harbor seal, (2) North Kodiak stock of harbor seal, and (3) South Kodiak stock of harbor seal. In 2017, there were three observed mortalities of harbor seals (one from the North Kodiak stock and two from the Cook Inlet/Shelikof Strait stock) in the Gulf of Alaska flatfish trawl fishery. In 2018, there was one observed mortality of a harbor seal from South Kodiak stock (Young et al., 2020).

NMFS proposes to add the North Pacific stock of sperm whale to the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category III AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands sablefish pot fishery based on an observed mortality in 2018 (Muto et al., 2021).

NMFS proposes to add the U.S. stock of California sea lion to the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category III WA/OR/CA groundfish/finfish hook and line fishery. In 2017, a California sea lion depredated gear from the nearshore hook and line fishery and in the process carried the away the gear with seven hooks attached (Carretta et al., 2021).

NMFS proposes to add the Central North Pacific stock of humpback whale to the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category III AK/WA/OR/CA commercial passenger fishing vessel fishery based on an observed vessel strike that was determined to be a serious injury in 2017 (Young et al., 2020).

NMFS proposes to add the unknown stock of striped dolphin to the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category II American Samoa longline fishery based on an observed serious injury in 2018.

NMFS proposes to remove the Alaska resident stock of killer whale from the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category III AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands Greenland turbot longline fishery based on no recently observed mortalities or injuries.

NMFS proposes to remove the Alaska stock of spotted seal from the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category III AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands Pacific cod longline fishery based on no recently observed mortalities or injuries.

NMFS proposes to remove the six stocks from the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category II AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands pollock trawl fishery: (1) Alaska stock of bearded seal, (2), Bristol Bay stock of beluga whale, (3) Eastern Bering Sea stock of beluga whale, (4) Eastern Chukchi Sea stock of beluga whale, (5) Eastern Pacific stock of Northern fur seal and (6) Alaska stock of spotted seal. There have been no recently observed mortalities and injures of these six stocks in the AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands pollock trawl fishery.

NMFS proposes to remove the Alaska stock of bearded seal from the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category III AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands Atka mackerel trawl fishery based on no recently observed mortalities or injuries.

NMFS proposes to remove both the Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Islands, Bering Sea transient stock and Eastern North Pacific Alaska resident stock of killer whale from the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category III AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands rockfish trawl fishery based on no recently observed mortalities or injuries. NMFS proposes to remove the North Pacific stock of Northern elephant seal from the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category III AK Gulf of Alaska flatfish trawl fishery based on no recently observed mortalities or injuries.

NMFS proposes to remove the Alaska stock of harbor seal from the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category III AK Gulf of Alaska Pacific cod trawl fishery based on no recently observed mortalities or injuries.

NMFS proposes to remove three stocks from the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category III AK Gulf of Alaska pollock trawl fishery: (1) Alaska stock of Dall's porpoise, (2) Northeast Pacific stock of fin whale and (3) North Pacific stock of Northern elephant seal. There have been no recently observed mortalities and injuries of these three stocks in the AK Gulf of Alaska pollock trawl fishery.

NMFS proposes to remove the Gulf of Alaska stock of harbor seal from the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category III AK Gulf of Alaska Pacific cod pot fishery based on no recently observed mortalities or injuries. The list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in this fishery is updated to state none documented in the most recent 5 years of data.

NMFS proposes to remove the Northeast Pacific stock of fin whale from the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category III AK Gulf of Alaska groundfish jig fishery based on no recently observed mortalities or injuries. The list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in this fishery is updated to state none documented in the most recent 5 years of data.

NMFS proposes to remove five stocks from the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category I HI deep-set longline fishery: (1) Pelagic stock of bottlenose dolphin, (2) Hawaii stock of Kogia spp., (3) Hawaii stock of pygmy killer whale, (4) Hawaii stock of Risso's dolphin and (5) Hawaii stock of striped dolphin. There have been no recently reported or observed mortalities or injuries of these five stocks within the EEZ in the HI deep-set longline fishery (Carretta et al., 2021).

NMFS proposes to remove six stocks from the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category II HI shallow-set longline fishery: (1) Hawaii stock of Blainville's beaked whale, (2) Hawaii pelagic stock of bottlenose dolphin, (3) Central North Pacific stock of humpback whale, (4) Hawaii stock of Risso's dolphin, (5) Hawaii stock of rough-toothed dolphin and (6) Hawaii stock of striped dolphin. From 2014-2018, there have been no reported or observed M/SI of these six stocks within the EEZ in the HI shallow-set longline fishery (Carretta et al., 2021).

NMFS proposes to revise marine mammal stock names on the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured for consistency with the current stock names in the SARs as follows:

• Harbor seal, GOA to harbor seal, Cook Inlet/Shelikof Strait;

• Bearded seal, AK to bearded seal, Beringia;

• Harbor seal, Bering Sea to harbor seal, Bristol Bay;

• Killer whale, AK resident to killer whale, Eastern North Pacific Alaska resident;

• Killer whale, GOA, AI, BS transient to killer whale, Eastern North Pacific GOA, AI, BS transient;

• Ringed seal, AK to ringed seal, Arctic;

• Ribbon seal, AK to ribbon seal;

• Spotted seal, AK to spotted seal, Bering;

• Harbor seal, AK to harbor seal, Bristol Bay;

• Ribbon seal, AK to ribbon seal;

• Harbor seal, GOA to harbor seal, Prince William Sound;

• Ribbon seal, AK to ribbon seal; and

• Ribbon seal, AK to ribbon seal.