Endangered and Threatened Species; 90-Day Finding on Petitions To Delist Coho Salmon Under the Endangered Species Act, 62375-62376 [2011-26017]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 195 / Friday, October 7, 2011 / Notices
Comments submitted in response to
this notice will be summarized and/or
included in the request for OMB
approval of this information collection;
they also will become a matter of public
record.
Dated: October 4, 2011.
Gwellnar Banks,
Management Analyst, Office of the Chief
Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2011–25966 Filed 10–6–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
[Docket No. 110921597–1591–01]
RIN 0648–XA636
Endangered and Threatened Species;
90-Day Finding on Petitions To Delist
Coho Salmon Under the Endangered
Species Act
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition
finding.
AGENCY:
We, NMFS, announce a 90day finding on three petitions to delist
coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch)
under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA). We find that the petitions do not
present substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that
the petitioned action may be warranted.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the petitions and
related materials are available upon
request from the Assistant Regional
Administrator, Protected Resources
Division, NMFS, Southwest Regional
Office, 501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite
4200, Long Beach, CA 90802.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Rosalie del Rosario, NMFS, Southwest
Region Office, (562) 980–4085; or
Dwayne Meadows and Kristy Beard,
NMFS, Office of Protected Resources,
(301) 427–8403.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Background
Section 4 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533)
contains provisions allowing interested
persons to petition the Secretary of
Commerce (Secretary) to add a species
to, or remove a species from, the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and to designate critical habitat. The
Secretary has delegated the authority for
these actions to the NOAA Assistant
Administrator for Fisheries.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:33 Oct 06, 2011
Jkt 226001
On May 9, 2011, we received a
petition from Dr. Richard Gierak
requesting that we delist coho salmon
under the ESA. We also received two
similar petitions from the Siskiyou
County Water Users Association on June
9 and June 28, 2011, requesting that we
delist coho salmon. The June 28 petition
cites Dr. Gierak as a preparer. Both the
June 9th and June 28th petitions include
text that is the same as some of the text
in the May 9th petition. Because we
received three petitions that requested
the same action within a short period of
time, we are considering all three
petitions jointly in making our 90-day
finding.
ESA Statutory and Regulatory
Provisions and Evaluation Framework
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA (16
U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)) requires that we
make a finding as to whether a petition
to list, delist, or reclassify a species
presents substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating the
petitioned action may be warranted.
ESA implementing regulations define
‘‘substantial information’’ as the
‘‘amount of information that would lead
a reasonable person to believe the
measure proposed in the petition may
be warranted’’ (50 CFR 424.14(b)(1)). In
determining whether a petition presents
substantial scientific or commercial
information to list or delist a species, we
take into account information submitted
with, and referenced in, the petition and
all other information readily available in
our files. To the maximum extent
practicable, this finding is to be made
within 90 days of the receipt of the
petition, and the finding is to be
published promptly in the Federal
Register (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)). In
evaluating a petition and making a 90day finding, our regulations require that
we consider whether the petition: (1)
Clearly indicates the administrative
measure recommended and gives the
scientific and any common name of the
species involved; (2) contains detailed
narrative justification for the
recommended measure, describing,
based on available information, past and
present numbers and distribution of the
species involved and any threats faced
by the species; (3) provides information
regarding the status of the species over
all or a significant portion of its range;
and (4) is accompanied by the
appropriate supporting documentation
in the form of bibliographic references,
reprints of pertinent publications,
copies of reports or letters from
authorities, and maps (50 CFR
424.14(b)(2)). If we find that a petition
presents substantial information
indicating that the requested action may
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
62375
be warranted, section 4(b)(3)(A) of the
ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)) requires
the Secretary to conduct a status review
of the species.
The ESA defines an ‘‘endangered
species’’ as ‘‘any species which is in
danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range’’ (16
U.S.C. 1532(6)). A ‘‘threatened species’’
is defined as ‘‘any species which is
likely to become an endangered species
within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range’’
(16 U.S.C. 1532(20)). Under section
4(a)(1) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1)),
a species may be determined to be
threatened or endangered as a result of
any of the following factors: (1) The
present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its
habitat or range; (2) over-utilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (3) disease or
predation; (4) the inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms; or (5) other
natural or manmade factors affecting its
continued existence. Regulations
implementing the ESA instruct us to
consider these same factors when
determining whether to delist a species,
a subspecies, or a distinct population
segment (including Evolutionarily
Significant Units (ESUs)) (50 CFR
424.11(d)). Listing determinations are
made solely on the basis of the best
scientific and commercial data
available, after conducting a review of
the status of the species, and taking into
account efforts made by any state or
foreign nation to protect such species. In
addition to considering the factors listed
above, the ESA implementing
regulations state that a species may be
delisted only if such data substantiate
that it is neither endangered nor
threatened for one or more of the
following reasons: the species is extinct;
the species is recovered; or subsequent
investigations show the best scientific or
commercial data available when the
species was listed, or the interpretation
of such data, were in error (50 CFR
424.11(d)).
Analysis of the Petitions
The contents of the three petitions are
largely similar and our analysis is based
on a consideration of the four regulatory
criteria for the minimum requirements
for determining whether a petition
presents substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that
the petitioned action may be warranted
(50 CFR 424.14(b)). Our analysis of the
petitions with regard to these criteria is
as follows:
(1) The petitions do not clearly
indicate the administrative measure
recommended, and contain
E:\FR\FM\07OCN1.SGM
07OCN1
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
62376
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 195 / Friday, October 7, 2011 / Notices
inconsistencies and errors in the
administrative measure being
recommended (see 50 CFR
424.14(b)(2)(i)). In all three petitions,
the title and a section entitled
‘‘Statement identifying the taxon’’ refer
to the entire species of coho salmon; the
petitions focus much discussion on
coho salmon in the Klamath River, yet
also variously discuss information about
coho salmon in other parts of California
and throughout the Western United
States. It is unclear whether the
petitioners recognize that coho salmon
in the Klamath River basin are part of
the larger Southern Oregon/Northern
California Coast (SONCC) coho salmon
ESU, which is listed as threatened (70
FR 37160; June 28, 2005), and that there
are three other ESUs of coho salmon on
the west coast that are listed as
threatened or endangered under the
ESA. The SONCC coho salmon ESU
includes all naturally spawned
populations of coho salmon in coastal
streams between Cape Blanco, Oregon,
and Punta Gorda, California, and coho
salmon in three artificial propagation
programs: the Cole Rivers Hatchery
(ODFW stock #52), Trinity River
Hatchery, and Iron Gate Hatchery coho
hatchery programs (70 FR 37160; June
28, 2005). It is thus also unclear whether
the petitioners are requesting that we
delist the portion of the SONCC coho
salmon ESU that is in the Klamath River
basin, delist the entire SONCC coho
salmon ESU, or delist coho salmon from
one or more additional ESUs throughout
some wider area. In addition, the
petitions request removing the listing of
coho salmon under the California
Endangered Species Act, which we have
no authority to do, and removing the
proposed Federal ESA listing of coho
salmon, even though the listing of the
SONCC coho salmon ESU is final and
not proposed (nor is there any other
proposed listing of coho salmon by
NMFS at the current time).
(2) The petitions do not contain
detailed narrative justifications for the
recommended measure of delisting,
except as specifically discussed below
regarding the claim that coho salmon
are not native to the Klamath River
basin or to various other parts of
California. This is true regardless of
what ESU or ESUs the petitioners might
have intended to request we delist. The
petitions generally argue the extinction
of coho is unavoidable due to a variety
of threats, the decline of ‘‘coho can be
directly attributed to Nature’s whim,’’
the Marine Mammal Protection Act is
one of the major human activities
destroying the coho population through
allowing increased predation, and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:33 Oct 06, 2011
Jkt 226001
NMFS did not properly consider
hatchery origin coho salmon in listing
the SONCC coho salmon ESU. However,
the information is not presented or
synthesized in a manner to indicate the
petitioned action may be warranted
because of any of the criteria described
in 50 CFR 424.11(c) and (d) (see 50 CFR
424.14(b)(2)(ii)). In fact, the petitioners
describe a number of current threats to
coho salmon that negatively affect the
status of the species. The petitioners’
argument that extinction is unavoidable
is not a consideration in delisting
decisions under the ESA or our
implementing regulations. The
petitioners’ arguments that we did not
properly consider hatchery origin coho
salmon in listing the SONCC coho
salmon ESU are incorrect as we
addressed these issues in a final rule
issued on June 28, 2005 (70 FR 37160).
In that final rule, we concluded that the
SONCC coho salmon ESU includes the
three above mentioned artificial
propagation programs because the
available information indicated they
were no more than slightly divergent
from natural populations in their
respective watersheds. In making these
determinations, we applied our ‘‘Policy
on the Consideration of Hatchery-Origin
Fish in Endangered Species Act Listing
Determinations for Pacific Salmon and
Steelhead’’ (70 FR 37204; June 28,
2005).
One particular claim of the petitions
deserves additional consideration here.
The petitions all make the claim that
coho salmon are not native to the
Klamath River basin or to various other
parts of California. For the Klamath
River Basin, they cite the Karuk Tribal
Council meeting from 2001 and
California Fish and Game documents
from 1913 and 2002. For other parts of
California, specifically south of San
Francisco, they cite a variety of
references. They have a narrative
justification for this claim that discusses
the status of coho salmon in the relevant
areas and include the references
described above. Although the
petitioners do not specifically cite the
portion of our regulations dealing with
an error at the original time of listing,
which would be a factor for
consideration of delisting (see 50 CFR
424.11(d)), we nevertheless consider the
information they present on this claim.
Here we evaluate whether the
information provided by the petitioners
presents substantial scientific or
commercial information that this claim
may be warranted. The petitioners cite
a Web site as the source of the quotes
provided from the Karuk Tribal Council
meeting. The Web site does not contain
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 9990
the minutes of said meeting for us to
evaluate and the quotes themselves do
not provide scientific or anecdotal
information on presence of coho salmon
in the Klamath River Basin. The quotes
that the petitioners provided from the
2002 California Department of Fish and
Game report, taken from the 1913
California Fish and Game Commission
report, are taken out of context. The
2002 report actually concludes the
opposite of the petitioners: that coho
salmon are native to the upper Klamath
River system, and historically occurred
there prior to hatchery stocking. The
petitioners’ arguments regarding coho
salmon not being native to other parts
of California, specifically south of San
Francisco, were addressed in our 12month finding and associated status
review regarding the endangered Central
California Coast ESU of coho salmon (76
FR 6383; February 4, 2011). Based on
this analysis, these petitions fail to
provide substantial scientific or
commercial information that even this
limited claim may be warranted under
the ESA.
(3) The presentation of information
does not provide information regarding
the status of listed coho salmon over all
or a significant portion of their range,
except as specifically discussed above
regarding the claim that coho salmon
are not native to the Klamath River
basin or to various other parts of
California (see 50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)(iii)).
Again this is true no matter what ESU
or ESUs the petitioners intended to
request we delist.
(4) Although the petitioners cite some
published reports and provide links to
some supporting documentation, some
of the citations to referenced materials
are incomplete (see 50 CFR
424.14(b)(2)(iv)).
Petition Finding
After reviewing all three petitions, as
well as information readily available in
our files, we have determined that the
petitions do not present substantial
scientific or commercial information
indicating the petitioned action may be
warranted.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.
Dated: October 3, 2011.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2011–26017 Filed 10–6–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
E:\FR\FM\07OCN1.SGM
07OCN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 195 (Friday, October 7, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62375-62376]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-26017]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[Docket No. 110921597-1591-01]
RIN 0648-XA636
Endangered and Threatened Species; 90-Day Finding on Petitions To
Delist Coho Salmon Under the Endangered Species Act
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, NMFS, announce a 90-day finding on three petitions to
delist coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) under the Endangered Species
Act (ESA). We find that the petitions do not present substantial
scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned
action may be warranted.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the petitions and related materials are available
upon request from the Assistant Regional Administrator, Protected
Resources Division, NMFS, Southwest Regional Office, 501 West Ocean
Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rosalie del Rosario, NMFS, Southwest
Region Office, (562) 980-4085; or Dwayne Meadows and Kristy Beard,
NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, (301) 427-8403.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 4 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533) contains provisions allowing
interested persons to petition the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to
add a species to, or remove a species from, the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and to designate critical habitat. The Secretary
has delegated the authority for these actions to the NOAA Assistant
Administrator for Fisheries.
On May 9, 2011, we received a petition from Dr. Richard Gierak
requesting that we delist coho salmon under the ESA. We also received
two similar petitions from the Siskiyou County Water Users Association
on June 9 and June 28, 2011, requesting that we delist coho salmon. The
June 28 petition cites Dr. Gierak as a preparer. Both the June 9th and
June 28th petitions include text that is the same as some of the text
in the May 9th petition. Because we received three petitions that
requested the same action within a short period of time, we are
considering all three petitions jointly in making our 90-day finding.
ESA Statutory and Regulatory Provisions and Evaluation Framework
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)) requires
that we make a finding as to whether a petition to list, delist, or
reclassify a species presents substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating the petitioned action may be warranted. ESA
implementing regulations define ``substantial information'' as the
``amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe
the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted'' (50 CFR
424.14(b)(1)). In determining whether a petition presents substantial
scientific or commercial information to list or delist a species, we
take into account information submitted with, and referenced in, the
petition and all other information readily available in our files. To
the maximum extent practicable, this finding is to be made within 90
days of the receipt of the petition, and the finding is to be published
promptly in the Federal Register (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)). In
evaluating a petition and making a 90-day finding, our regulations
require that we consider whether the petition: (1) Clearly indicates
the administrative measure recommended and gives the scientific and any
common name of the species involved; (2) contains detailed narrative
justification for the recommended measure, describing, based on
available information, past and present numbers and distribution of the
species involved and any threats faced by the species; (3) provides
information regarding the status of the species over all or a
significant portion of its range; and (4) is accompanied by the
appropriate supporting documentation in the form of bibliographic
references, reprints of pertinent publications, copies of reports or
letters from authorities, and maps (50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)). If we find
that a petition presents substantial information indicating that the
requested action may be warranted, section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA (16
U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)) requires the Secretary to conduct a status review
of the species.
The ESA defines an ``endangered species'' as ``any species which is
in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range'' (16 U.S.C. 1532(6)). A ``threatened species'' is defined as
``any species which is likely to become an endangered species within
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range'' (16 U.S.C. 1532(20)). Under section 4(a)(1) of the ESA (16
U.S.C. 1533(a)(1)), a species may be determined to be threatened or
endangered as a result of any of the following factors: (1) The present
or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat
or range; (2) over-utilization for commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) the
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (5) other natural or
manmade factors affecting its continued existence. Regulations
implementing the ESA instruct us to consider these same factors when
determining whether to delist a species, a subspecies, or a distinct
population segment (including Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs))
(50 CFR 424.11(d)). Listing determinations are made solely on the basis
of the best scientific and commercial data available, after conducting
a review of the status of the species, and taking into account efforts
made by any state or foreign nation to protect such species. In
addition to considering the factors listed above, the ESA implementing
regulations state that a species may be delisted only if such data
substantiate that it is neither endangered nor threatened for one or
more of the following reasons: the species is extinct; the species is
recovered; or subsequent investigations show the best scientific or
commercial data available when the species was listed, or the
interpretation of such data, were in error (50 CFR 424.11(d)).
Analysis of the Petitions
The contents of the three petitions are largely similar and our
analysis is based on a consideration of the four regulatory criteria
for the minimum requirements for determining whether a petition
presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating
that the petitioned action may be warranted (50 CFR 424.14(b)). Our
analysis of the petitions with regard to these criteria is as follows:
(1) The petitions do not clearly indicate the administrative
measure recommended, and contain
[[Page 62376]]
inconsistencies and errors in the administrative measure being
recommended (see 50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)(i)). In all three petitions, the
title and a section entitled ``Statement identifying the taxon'' refer
to the entire species of coho salmon; the petitions focus much
discussion on coho salmon in the Klamath River, yet also variously
discuss information about coho salmon in other parts of California and
throughout the Western United States. It is unclear whether the
petitioners recognize that coho salmon in the Klamath River basin are
part of the larger Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast (SONCC)
coho salmon ESU, which is listed as threatened (70 FR 37160; June 28,
2005), and that there are three other ESUs of coho salmon on the west
coast that are listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA. The
SONCC coho salmon ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of
coho salmon in coastal streams between Cape Blanco, Oregon, and Punta
Gorda, California, and coho salmon in three artificial propagation
programs: the Cole Rivers Hatchery (ODFW stock 52), Trinity
River Hatchery, and Iron Gate Hatchery coho hatchery programs (70 FR
37160; June 28, 2005). It is thus also unclear whether the petitioners
are requesting that we delist the portion of the SONCC coho salmon ESU
that is in the Klamath River basin, delist the entire SONCC coho salmon
ESU, or delist coho salmon from one or more additional ESUs throughout
some wider area. In addition, the petitions request removing the
listing of coho salmon under the California Endangered Species Act,
which we have no authority to do, and removing the proposed Federal ESA
listing of coho salmon, even though the listing of the SONCC coho
salmon ESU is final and not proposed (nor is there any other proposed
listing of coho salmon by NMFS at the current time).
(2) The petitions do not contain detailed narrative justifications
for the recommended measure of delisting, except as specifically
discussed below regarding the claim that coho salmon are not native to
the Klamath River basin or to various other parts of California. This
is true regardless of what ESU or ESUs the petitioners might have
intended to request we delist. The petitions generally argue the
extinction of coho is unavoidable due to a variety of threats, the
decline of ``coho can be directly attributed to Nature's whim,'' the
Marine Mammal Protection Act is one of the major human activities
destroying the coho population through allowing increased predation,
and NMFS did not properly consider hatchery origin coho salmon in
listing the SONCC coho salmon ESU. However, the information is not
presented or synthesized in a manner to indicate the petitioned action
may be warranted because of any of the criteria described in 50 CFR
424.11(c) and (d) (see 50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)(ii)). In fact, the
petitioners describe a number of current threats to coho salmon that
negatively affect the status of the species. The petitioners' argument
that extinction is unavoidable is not a consideration in delisting
decisions under the ESA or our implementing regulations. The
petitioners' arguments that we did not properly consider hatchery
origin coho salmon in listing the SONCC coho salmon ESU are incorrect
as we addressed these issues in a final rule issued on June 28, 2005
(70 FR 37160). In that final rule, we concluded that the SONCC coho
salmon ESU includes the three above mentioned artificial propagation
programs because the available information indicated they were no more
than slightly divergent from natural populations in their respective
watersheds. In making these determinations, we applied our ``Policy on
the Consideration of Hatchery-Origin Fish in Endangered Species Act
Listing Determinations for Pacific Salmon and Steelhead'' (70 FR 37204;
June 28, 2005).
One particular claim of the petitions deserves additional
consideration here. The petitions all make the claim that coho salmon
are not native to the Klamath River basin or to various other parts of
California. For the Klamath River Basin, they cite the Karuk Tribal
Council meeting from 2001 and California Fish and Game documents from
1913 and 2002. For other parts of California, specifically south of San
Francisco, they cite a variety of references. They have a narrative
justification for this claim that discusses the status of coho salmon
in the relevant areas and include the references described above.
Although the petitioners do not specifically cite the portion of our
regulations dealing with an error at the original time of listing,
which would be a factor for consideration of delisting (see 50 CFR
424.11(d)), we nevertheless consider the information they present on
this claim. Here we evaluate whether the information provided by the
petitioners presents substantial scientific or commercial information
that this claim may be warranted. The petitioners cite a Web site as
the source of the quotes provided from the Karuk Tribal Council
meeting. The Web site does not contain the minutes of said meeting for
us to evaluate and the quotes themselves do not provide scientific or
anecdotal information on presence of coho salmon in the Klamath River
Basin. The quotes that the petitioners provided from the 2002
California Department of Fish and Game report, taken from the 1913
California Fish and Game Commission report, are taken out of context.
The 2002 report actually concludes the opposite of the petitioners:
that coho salmon are native to the upper Klamath River system, and
historically occurred there prior to hatchery stocking. The
petitioners' arguments regarding coho salmon not being native to other
parts of California, specifically south of San Francisco, were
addressed in our 12-month finding and associated status review
regarding the endangered Central California Coast ESU of coho salmon
(76 FR 6383; February 4, 2011). Based on this analysis, these petitions
fail to provide substantial scientific or commercial information that
even this limited claim may be warranted under the ESA.
(3) The presentation of information does not provide information
regarding the status of listed coho salmon over all or a significant
portion of their range, except as specifically discussed above
regarding the claim that coho salmon are not native to the Klamath
River basin or to various other parts of California (see 50 CFR
424.14(b)(2)(iii)). Again this is true no matter what ESU or ESUs the
petitioners intended to request we delist.
(4) Although the petitioners cite some published reports and
provide links to some supporting documentation, some of the citations
to referenced materials are incomplete (see 50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)(iv)).
Petition Finding
After reviewing all three petitions, as well as information readily
available in our files, we have determined that the petitions do not
present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating the
petitioned action may be warranted.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.
Dated: October 3, 2011.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-26017 Filed 10-6-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P