[Federal Register: January 25, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 17)]
[Proposed Rules]               
[Page 3675-3679]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]



Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AH50

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Rule To 
Remove the Mariana Mallard and the Guam Broadbill From the Federal List 
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.


SUMMARY: Under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 
(Act), as amended, we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), 
propose to remove the Mariana mallard (Anas platyrynchos oustaleti) and 
the Guam broadbill (Myiagra freycineti) from the Federal List of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. All available information indicates 
that these birds are extinct. The Mariana mallard was endemic to the 
islands of Guam, Tinian, Saipan, and possibly Rota, of the Mariana 
Archipelago in the western Pacific ocean. It was listed as endangered 
on June 2, 1977, because its population was critically low due to 
excessive hunting and loss of wetland habitat. No confirmed sightings 
of the Mariana mallard have been made since 1979. The Guam broadbill, 
endemic to Guam, was listed as endangered on August 27, 1984, because 
its population was critically low. No confirmed sightings or other 
evidence of the Guam broadbill in the Pajon Basin have been made since 
May 15, 1984. This proposal, if made final, would remove Federal 
protection provided by the Act for these species. Removal of the 
Mariana mallard and the Guam broadbill from the Federal list of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife does not alter or supersede their 
designation by the government of Guam as endangered species. The 
Mariana mallard is not a protected wildlife species by the government 
of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI).

[[Page 3676]]

DATES: Comments must be received by March 26, 2002. Public hearing 
requests must be received by March 11, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Send comments and materials concerning this proposal to the 
Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands 
Ecoregion, 300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 3-122, Box 50088, Honolulu, 
Hawaii 96850. Comments and materials received will be available for 
public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the 
above address.

telephone 808/541-2749; facsimile 808/541-2756; e-mail 



    The Mariana mallard (Anas platyrynchos oustaleti) (Salvadori 1894) 
was first described by Salvadori based on six specimens collected from 
Guam in 1887 and 1888 (Reichel and Lemke 1994, Stinson 1994). The 
species is believed to have been a subspecies that originated as a 
hybrid between the common mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) and the grey 
duck (Anas superciliosa) (Reichel and Lemke 1994).
    The Mariana mallard is known only from Guam, Tinian, and Saipan of 
the Marianas Archipelago. There is an unverified sighting of two 
``unidentified ducks'' on Rota on October 20, 1945 (Baker 1948) and one 
specimen of Anas sp. found during a 1990 excavation of a late Holocene 
deposit in Payapai Cave, Rota (Steadman 1992). Other than these 
records, the Mariana mallard has never been reported on Rota. There are 
no records of this species from the more northern islands in the 
    First collected by the early explorers in the late 1800s, only 
sporadic notes and observations have been made on this species. Marche 
(Baker 1951) collected six specimens from Guam in 1888. Collections 
from the time of Marche showed that the Mariana mallard concurrently 
inhabited the islands of Saipan and Tinian. A total of 38 specimens 
were collected from Tinian and Saipan by Japanese collectors between 
1931 and 1940 (Baker 1951). There are probably fewer than 50 specimens 
of the Mariana mallard in collections in France, Japan, the United 
States, and elsewhere. Reichel and Lemke (1994) were able to locate 37 
specimens. Most of these were collected by the Japanese in the 1930s 
and 1940s.
    The Mariana mallard probably was never abundant (Baker 1951) due to 
limited habitat availability. There have never been extensive 
freshwater marshes or swamps in the Mariana Archipelago. The largest 
number of Mariana mallards ever recorded was by Kuroda (1942) who 
reported that his collector saw 2 flocks of 50 to 60 Mariana mallards 
at 2 locations at Lake Hagoi, Tinian. Gleize (1945) estimated a 
population of 12 mallards on Tinian. Marshall (1949) recorded their 
presence at both Lake Susupe, Saipan, and Lake Hagoi, Tinian. However, 
he speculated that they flew between the two islands as he never saw 
them at ``both * * * lakes during any one month.'' The last confirmed 
sighting of this species was in 1979 by Eugene Kridler of the Service 
who estimated that there were probably fewer than a dozen Mariana 
mallards remaining (Kridler 1979). At this time, Mr. Kridler collected 
a pair of birds for captive propagation. Captive breeding was first 
conducted at Pohakuloa, Hawaii, then at Sea World, San Diego, 
California. These attempts failed and the last known Mariana mallard 
died at Sea World, San Diego in 1981 (Stinson 1995).
    On Guam, the last recorded sighting of the Mariana mallard was made 
by G.S.A. Perez on February 25, 1967 (Drahos 1977). Wetland surveys 
were conducted on Guam from the late 1960s through the 1980s; however, 
no Mariana mallards were seen (Engbring et al. 1986, Stinson et al. 
1991, Reichel et al. 1992).
    Small populations persisted on Tinian and Saipan until the late 
1970s (Pratt et al. 1979, Stinson 1995). No confirmed sightings of the 
Mariana mallard have been made since 1979. Extensive surveys were 
conducted intermittently from 1982 through 1984 by us and staff from 
the Division of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) of the Commonwealth of the 
Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). All of the known wetland habitat in 
the CNMI was surveyed. There were no confirmed sightings or 
vocalizations (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1983). A special effort 
was made to search for the Mariana mallard during forest bird surveys 
conducted on the islands of Saipan, Tinian, Rota, and Agiguan in 1982. 
Teams comprising biologists and biotechnicians simultaneously surveyed 
wetlands on Saipan and Tinian from which the most recent (1979) 
sightings of the mallard had been recorded to determine the status and 
distribution of this species. No mallards were observed on either 
island (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1983).
    During the period from May, 1983, through December, 1989, 
biologists from the CNMI's DFW conducted 5 to 79 surveys of each 
permanent wetland and each seasonal wetland greater than 0.5 hectares 
(1.2 acres) in the CNMI (230 surveys). Wetlands that contained better 
mallard habitat were surveyed more often. Surveys occurred year round 
and the greatest frequency occurred from May through September (112 
surveys) to coincide with the historical nesting season of the Mariana 
mallards. No Mariana mallards were seen during these intensive and 
systematic searches. The determination of the investigators at the 
conclusion of these surveys was that the Mariana mallard was extinct 
(Reichel and Lemke 1994). Researchers and managers currently in Guam 
and the CNMI concur that the Mariana mallard is probably extinct, as it 
has not been seen since 1979 despite frequent and intensive surveys of 
wetlands for waterbirds such as the endangered Mariana common moorhen 
(Gallinula chloropus guami) (Evans et al. 1996; Gary Wiles, Guam 
Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources (DAWR), pers. comm. 1998; 
Mike Ritter, Service, pers. comm. 1998).
    The Mariana mallard's reduction in range and eventual extinction 
has been attributed to habitat loss and hunting, especially during, and 
immediately after, World War II (WWII) (Baker 1948, Engbring and Fritts 
1988, Reichel and Lemke 1994). Evolving without predators, the mallard 
was not wary of humans and easily caught (Kuroda 1942, Stott 1947). 
They were hunted and trapped for food (Fritz 1904, Safford 1904). 
Safford (1904) reported that the Mariana mallard was ``the best game 
bird'' and ``very highly esteemed for food.'' Kuroda (1942) reported 
that there was a hunting season on Saipan from July through December, 
but no hunting was allowed on Tinian. However, it is unknown if these 
regulations were enforced. After WWII, islanders were allowed to own 
firearms and hunting of the birds persisted. Even with the designation 
of the species as endangered by the Trust Territories and the Service, 
there was little enforcement of the regulations (Drahos 1977).
    Habitat loss due to draining and fragmentation of wetlands have 
greatly reduced the quantity and quality of wetlands on Guam, Tinian, 
and Saipan (Stinson et al. 1991, Reichel et al. 1992, Reichel and Lemke 
1994). Though early reports on Tinian mention two lakes, Lake Hagoi is 
the only lake currently found on the island. It is probable that the 
second lake referenced is now known as Makpo Swamp. It is currently too 
overgrown with woody vegetation to be mallard habitat. Additionally, 
this wetland has been drained for water for San Jose village and 
converted into farmland (Bowers 1950, Reichel and

[[Page 3677]]

Lemke 1994). During the Japanese occupation of Saipan and Tinian 
between 1914 and 1945, most wetlands were channelized and converted to 
rice paddies. Also during this time, sugarmill wastes were discharged 
into Lake Susupe on Saipan. Since 1945, many wetlands have been drained 
or filled in the course of urban development on all three islands 
(Stinson et al. 1991, Reichel et al. 1992, Reichel and Lemke 1994). The 
Mariana mallard, never great in number, lost most of its limited 
habitat with the decimation of the wetlands, while being hunted with 
little to no restriction.
    The Guam broadbill (Myiagra freycineti), a member of the family 
Muscicapidae, was endemic to the island of Guam in the Mariana 
Archipelago (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1990). First collected by 
explorers in 1820, the specimens were labeled ``kingfisher with a 
russet throat'' and erroneously noted as being from Australia (Oustalet 
1895). Marche collected 23 specimens in 1887 and 1888, from which 
Oustalet described Myiagra freycineti (Oustalet 1895).
    Although the species was probably never abundant, a reduction in 
the range of the Guam broadbill was noted from 1950 into the early 
1980s. Prior to 1950, the species occupied 500 square kilometers (sq 
km) (193 sq miles (mi)) of habitat throughout the island of Guam. By 
1950, broadbill range had been reduced to 312 sq km (120 sq mi) or 62 
percent of its former range (Ernie Kosaka, Service, in litt. 1982). By 
the early 1970s, the species was entirely absent from the southern two-
thirds of the island but still relatively common in northern Guam into 
the mid-1970s. Decline of the Guam broadbill continued with no 
individuals detected on northern roadside counts that were initiated in 
1973 (Drahos 1977). Further losses were attributed to super typhoon 
Pamela in 1976 (Joseph E. Ada, Acting Governor of Guam, in litt. 1979). 
By 1979, the Guam broadbill was restricted to the remaining areas of 
natural vegetation that occurred primarily along the northern cliff 
line in a thin strip from Naval Communication Station (NCS) Beach 
through Catalina Point on the eastern side of Guam (DAWR 1979-1986). At 
that time, the Guam broadbill had the lowest relative abundance and the 
lowest density of any native passerine during station counts. Although 
relative densities of the broadbill were highest at Pati and Ritidian 
Points and Tarague in 1980, the species was recorded only at Ritidian 
and Urunao Points and Anderson Air Force Base in 1981. This represented 
a further reduction of habitat range to 43 sq km (16.6 sq mi) or 9 
percent of its original range (Engbring and Pratt 1985). Combined 
broadbill densities showed a 70 percent decline since 1979 (DAWR 1979-
1986). By 1983, the population had declined 83 percent in the Ritidian 
Basin area (DAWR 1979-1986) and was further restricted to the extreme 
northern end of Guam in the Pajon Basin in 150 hectares (ha) (370 acres 
(ac)) or 1.5 sq km (0.57 sq mi) of habitat (Savidge 1987). Estimates of 
460 birds (Engbring and Ramsey 1984) in 1981 and fewer than 100 
individuals (Engbring and Pratt 1985) in 1983 from the Pajon Basin had 
dwindled to only one sighting of a male in October 1983 (Beck 1984a). 
The last two sightings of the Guam broadbill in the wild were of 
transient males in 1984. Robert E. Beck, Jr. (DAWR) and Dr. Eugene 
Morton (Smithsonian Institution) sighted a male at Northwest Field in 
March 1984, and Philip Bruner (Brigham Young University of Hawaii) 
sighted the other in an area adjacent to the Navy golf course in 
Barrigada in August 1984 (Beck 1984a). The Guam broadbill has not been 
sighted in the Pajon Basin area since May 15, 1984, and the species is 
believed to be extinct (DAWR 1979-1986).
    In September 1983, a male was collected for captive propagation 
(Beck 1984b). This captive breeding attempt failed as other wild 
individuals were not located and the captive male died of unknown 
causes (DAWR 1979-1986). Attempts at captively breeding the Guam 
broadbill were abandoned in 1984 due to its virtual disappearance from 
the wild (Beck 1984a, b).
    Based on the last field sightings, the approximate date of 
extirpation of the Guam broadbill is 1984 (Beck 1984a, Wiles et al. 
1995), and it was presumed to be extinct by 1985 (Beck 1984a, b; 
Savidge 1987; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1990; Reichel and Glass 
1991; Stinson 1994).
    Reduction in the range of the Guam broadbill and its eventual 
extinction have been variously attributed to excessive pesticide 
spraying during and after World War II, the spread of avian diseases, 
and predation by introduced animals including rats (Rattus spp.), the 
monitor lizard (Varanus indicus), and the brown tree snake (Boiga 
irregularis). However, studies conducted by our Patuxtent Wildlife 
Research Center in 1983 indicated that pesticide overuse and avian 
diseases were not responsible for broadbill declines noted in the early 
1980s. Instead, studies conducted by Savidge in 1986 implicated 
predation by the brown tree snake as the single most important factor 
in the decline of Guam's native forest birds, including the Guam 
broadbill (Savidge 1986, 1987; Conry 1988; Wiles et al. 1995; Rodda et 
al. 1997).

Previous Federal Action

    Federal action on the Mariana mallard began on May 22, 1975, when 
the Fund for Animals, Inc., requested that we list 216 taxa of plants 
and animals as endangered species pursuant to the Act. These species 
appeared in Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in 
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), but did not appear 
on the United States List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and 
Plants. On September 26, 1975, we published in the Federal Register (40 
FR 44329), a proposed rule to list 216 species as endangered, including 
the Mariana mallard. The rule that determined 159 of the 216 taxa to be 
endangered species was published on June 14, 1976 (41 FR 24062). The 
Mariana mallard was not included in this rule because the Governors of 
the States (which is defined by the Act to include Guam and the CNMI) 
in which this species was resident, inadvertently were not notified of 
the proposal as required by the Act. These Governors were then notified 
and allowed 90 days for comment. The Mariana mallard was listed as an 
endangered species on June 2, 1977, without critical habitat (42 FR 
    Federal action on the Guam broadbill began on February 27, 1979, 
when the Acting Governor of Guam petitioned us to list the Guam 
broadbill and five other forest bird species as endangered. On May 18, 
1979, we issued a notice of review (44 FR 29128) for 12 petitioned 
animals, including the Guam broadbill. In our December 30, 1982, Review 
of Vertebrate Wildlife (47 FR 58454) the Guam broadbill was considered 
a category 1 candidate for Federal listing. Category 1 species were 
those for which we had substantial information on biological 
vulnerability and threats to support preparation of a listing proposal, 
but for which a listing proposal had not yet been published because it 
was precluded by other listing activities. On November 29, 1983, we 
published a proposed rule (48 FR 53729) to list the Guam broadbill as 
endangered. The final rule determining the Guam broadbill to be an 
endangered species was published on August 27, 1984 (49 FR 33881). 
Critical habitat was not designated.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

    In accordance with the Act and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 
part 424, a species shall be listed if the

[[Page 3678]]

Secretary of the Interior determines that one or more of five factors 
listed in section 4(a)(1) of the Act threatens the continued existence 
of the species. A species may be delisted according to Sec. 424.11(d) 
if the best available scientific and commercial data indicate that the 
species is neither endangered nor threatened because of (1) extinction, 
(2) recovery, or (3) original data for classification of the species 
were in error.

A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment 
of Its Habitat or Range

    Habitat loss was a major factor in the decline and subsequent 
extinction of the Mariana mallard. Since 1945, draining, fragmentation, 
and filling of wetlands for urban development has greatly reduced their 
quantity and quality on Guam, Tinian, and Saipan (Stinson et al. 1991, 
Reichel et al. 1992, Reichel and Lemke 1994). Between 1914 and 1945, 
during the Japanese occupation of Saipan and Tinian, most wetlands were 
converted to rice paddies. In more recent times, wetlands have been 
drained to provide potable water for new villages and converted into 
farmland (Bowers 1950, Reichel and Lemke 1994).
    The Guam broadbill was endemic to the island of Guam and, until the 
mid-1970s, common in the northern half of the island. This species was 
found in woodland areas, forests with brushy undercover, areas 
dominated by the alien shrub, tangantangan (Leucaena leucocephala), 
southern riparian areas, coastal strand, and mangrove swamps. Though 
the island of Guam has undergone massive development and urbanization 
over the last 20 years, habitat destruction or modification is not 
believed to have been a major factor in the decline of this bird 
because population numbers declined in areas with intact habitat over 
this time period.

B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes

    Over-hunting is believed to have been a major factor leading to the 
decline and subsequent extinction of the Mariana mallard, particularly 
during and immediately after WW II (Kuroda 1942, Baker 1948, Engbring 
and Fritts 1988, Reichel and Lemke 1994). Overutilization is not known 
to be a factor in the decline of the Guam broadbill.

C. Disease or Predation

    Disease or predation is not known to have been a factor in the 
decline of the Mariana mallard. While the brown tree snake is believed 
to have been accidentally introduced to Guam between 1945 and 1952 
(Rodda et al. 1992), it is not believed to have been a factor in the 
decline of the mallard because the snake prefers forest habitat. While 
a population of this voracious predator may now be established on 
Saipan, it is not believed to have been present on the island during 
the 1970s, when the last sighting of the Mariana mallard was made. The 
brown tree snake is not known to be established on Tinian.
    The spread of avian disease and predation by introduced animals, 
including the monitor lizard, rats (Rattus spp.), cats (Felis catus), 
dogs (Canis familiaris), pigs (Sus scrofa), and the brown tree snake, 
were suspected as factors in the decline of the Guam broadbill at the 
time of its listing. However, later studies concluded that predation by 
the brown tree snake was probably the single most important factor in 
the drastic decline and subsequent extinction of the Guam broadbill 
(Savidge 1986, 1987; Conry 1988). These studies provided no evidence of 
its decline due to avian disease (Savidge 1986, 1987). By 1986, the 
snake was probably present throughout the island (Savidge 1986, 1987). 
Primarily arboreal, this snake preys upon eggs and hatchlings in nests, 
and roosting young and adults.

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    The Mariana mallard was listed as an endangered species by the 
Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands in 1976 and by us in 1977. It is 
currently protected as endangered under Guam's Endangered Species Act 
(Pub. L. 15-36). The Mariana mallard was not listed as a threatened or 
endangered species by the CNMI government (CNMI 1991).
    The Guam broadbill is presently protected as endangered under 
Guam's Endangered Species Act (Pub. L. 15-36) and is federally 
protected as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 
    Protection as endangered species by the Federal government and 
governments of Guam and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, was 
probably too late to compensate for the earlier effects of unrestricted 
hunting and habitat loss, in the case of the Mariana mallard, and for 
the accidental introduction and subsequent spread of the brown tree 
snake, in the case of the Guam broadbill.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Their Continued Existence

    At the time it was listed, one of the factors believed to have 
contributed to the critically low population levels of the Guam 
broadbill was overuse of pesticides. However, pesticide use has not 
been found to be a major factor in the decline of this species (Grue 
1986, Savidge 1986, 1987).
    In summary, all available information indicates that the Mariana 
mallard and the Guam broadbill are extinct. Previous population 
estimates made on Guam (1944), Tinian (1945), and Saipan (1947) for the 
Mariana mallard reported 12 or fewer individuals on each of these 
islands (Baker 1951). No confirmed sightings or vocalizations have been 
reported for this bird since 1979, and the last captive bird died in 
1981. The Guam broadbill was reported to be on the verge of extinction 
at the time of its listing, and population estimates of 460 and less 
than 100 individuals were reported in 1981 and 1983, respectively. No 
confirmed sightings or vocalizations have been reported for this 
species since May 14, 1984, and the last captive bird died in February 
1984. We propose to remove the Mariana mallard and the Guam broadbill 
from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.

Effects of This Rule

    This rule, if made final, would revise Sec. 17.11(h) to remove the 
Mariana mallard and the Guam broadbill from the Federal list of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife due to extinction. The prohibitions 
and conservation measures provided by the Act, particularly sections 7 
and 9, will no longer apply to these species if this rule is made 
final. There is no designated critical habitat for these species.
    The Mariana mallard and the Guam broadbill are protected by the 
government of Guam (Pub. L. 15-36). Removal of these species from the 
Federal list of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife does not alter or 
supersede their designation by the government of Guam as endangered 

Public Comments Solicited

    We intend for any final action resulting from this proposal to be 
as accurate as possible. Therefore, we solicit data, comments, or 
suggestions from the public, other concerned government agencies, the 
scientific community, industry, or any other interested party 
concerning this proposed rule. We particularly seek comments 
    (1) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning 

[[Page 3679]]

Mariana mallard and the Guam broadbill not included in this document; 
    (2) The location of any individuals or populations of the Mariana 
mallard and the Guam broadbill.
    The final decision on this proposal will take into consideration 
the comments and any additional information we receive, and such 
communications may lead to a final determination that differs from this 
    Our practice is to make comments, including names and home 
addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular 
business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold 
their home address from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to 
the extent allowable by law. In some circumstances, we will withhold a 
respondent's identity from the rulemaking record, as allowable by law. 
If you wish for us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state 
this request prominently at the beginning of your comment. However, we 
will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from 
organizations or businesses available for public inspection in their 

Public Hearings

    You may request a public hearing on this proposal. Your request for 
a hearing must be made in writing and filed within 45 days of the date 
of publication of this proposal in the Federal Register. Address your 
request to the Field Supervisor (see ADDRESSES section).

Clarity of This regulation

    Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations 
that are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to make 
this rule easier to understand including answers to the following: (1) 
Are the requirements of the rule clear? (2) Is the discussion of the 
rule in the Supplementary Information section of the preamble helpful 
to understanding the rule? (3) What else could we do to make the rule 
easier to understand?
    Send a copy of any comments that concern how we could make this 
rule easier to understand to: Office of Regulatory Affairs, Department 
of the Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street NW., Washington, DC 20240. 
You may also e-mail the comments to this address: Exsec@ios.doi.gov.

National Environmental Policy Act

    We have determined that preparation of an environmental assessment 
or environmental impact statement, as defined under the authority of 
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, is not necessary when 
issuing regulations adopted under section 4(a) of the Endangered 
Species Act of 1973, as amended. We published a notice outlining our 
reasons for this decision in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 
(48 FR 49244).

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The OMB regulations at 5 CFR 1320, which implement provisions of 
the Paperwork Reduction Act, require that Federal agencies obtain 
approval from OMB before collecting information from the public. The 
OMB regulations at 5 CFR 1320.3(c) define a collection of information 
as the obtaining of information by or for an agency by means of 
identical questions posed to, or identical reporting, recordkeeping, or 
disclosure requirements imposed on ten or more persons. This rule does 
not include any collections of information that require approval by OMB 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon 
request from the Pacific Islands Ecoregion (see ADDRESSES section).


    The primary authors of this proposed rule are Arlene Pangelinan and 
Lee Ann Woodward, Ecological Services, Pacific Islands Ecoregion, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service (see ADDRESSES section).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Regulation Promulgation

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, we propose to amend part 
17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations, as set forth below:


    1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.

Sec. 17.11  [Amended]

    2. Section 17.11(h) is amended by removing the entries for 
``Mallard, Mariana'' and ``Broadbill, Guam'' under ``BIRDS'' from the 
List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.

    Dated: July 17, 2001,
Marshall P. Jones, Jr.,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 02-1876 Filed 1-24-02; 8:45 am]