43470 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 150 / Monday, August 9, 2021 / Proposed Rules

How can I get copies of the proposed digital television service, including Federal Communications Commission. action and other related information? propagation characteristics that allow Thomas Horan, EPA has established a docket for this undesired signals and noise to be Chief of Staff, Media Bureau. receivable at relatively far distances and action under Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– Proposed Rule OAR–2021–0208. EPA has also nearby electrical devices to cause developed a website for this proposal, interference. According to the For the reasons discussed in the which is available at https:// Petitioner, it has received numerous preamble, the Federal Communications www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions- complaints of poor or no reception from Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR vehicles-and-engines/proposed-rule- viewers, and explains the importance of part 73 as follows: revise-existing-national-ghg-emissions. a strong over-the-air signal in the Portland area during emergencies, PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST Please refer to the notice of proposed SERVICES rulemaking for detailed information on when, it states, cable and satellite accessing information related to the service may go out of operation. Finally, ■ 1. The authority citation for part 73 proposal. the Petitioner demonstrated that the continues to read as follows: channel 21 noise limited contour would Dated: July 29, 2021. fully encompass the existing channel 12 Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 155, 301, 303, William Charmley, contour, and an analysis using the 307, 309, 310, 334, 336, 339. Director, Assessment and Standards Division, Commission’s TVStudy software ■ 2. In § 73.622 in paragraph (i), amend Office of Transportation and Air Quality, indicates that Petitioner’s proposal the Post-Transition Table of DTV Office of Air and Radiation. would result in an increase in Allotments under Oregon by revising [FR Doc. 2021–16598 Filed 8–6–21; 8:45 am] population served. the entry for Portland to read as follows: BILLING CODE 6560–50–P This is a synopsis of the § 73.622 Digital television table of Commission’s Notice of Proposed allotments. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS Rulemaking, MB Docket No. 21–130; * * * * * COMMISSION RM–11897; DA 21–843, adopted July 15, (i) * * * 2021, and released July 16, 2021. The 47 CFR Part 73 full text of this document is available for Community Channel No. download at https://www.fcc.gov/edocs. [MB Docket No. 21–130; RM–11897; DA 21– To request materials in accessible 843; FR ID 40086] formats (braille, large print, computer ***** diskettes, or audio recordings), please Television Broadcasting Services OREGON Portland, Oregon send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer & Government Affairs AGENCY: Federal Communications Bureau at (202) 418–0530 (VOICE), (202) ***** Commission. 418–0432 (TTY). Portland ...... 8, *10, 21, 40, 43, 45 ACTION: Proposed rule. This document does not contain ***** SUMMARY: The Commission has before it information collection requirements a petition for rulemaking filed by subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act [FR Doc. 2021–16449 Filed 8–6–21; 8:45 am] KPTV–KPDX Broadcasting Corporation of 1995, Public Law 104–13. In addition, BILLING CODE 6712–01–P (Petitioner), the licensee of KPTV (FOX), therefore, it does not contain any channel 12, Portland, Oregon. The proposed information collection burden Petitioner requests the substitution of ‘‘for small business concerns with fewer DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR channel 21 for channel 12 at in the DTV than 25 employees,’’ pursuant to the Table of Allotments. Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of Fish and Wildlife Service DATES: Comments must be filed on or 2002, Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. before September 8, 2021 and reply 3506(c)(4). Provisions of the Regulatory 50 CFR Part 17 comments on or before September 23, Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601– 612, do not apply to this proceeding. [Docket No. FWS–HQ–ES–2020–0146; 2021. FF09E22000 FXES11180900000 212] Members of the public should note ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Office of the Secretary, 45 that all ex parte contacts are prohibited Endangered and Threatened Wildlife L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554. In from the time a Notice of Proposed and Plants; Review of Foreign Species addition to filing comments with the Rulemaking is issued to the time the That Are Candidates for Listing as FCC, interested parties should serve matter is no longer subject to Endangered or Threatened; Annual counsel for the Petitioner as follows: Commission consideration or court Description of Progress on Listing Christina Burrow, Esq., Cooley LLP, review, see 47 CFR 1.1208. There are, Actions however, exceptions to this prohibition, 1299 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 700, Washington, DC 20004. which can be found in Section 1.1204(a) of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR Interior. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 1.1204(a). ACTION: Notification of review. Joyce Bernstein, Media Bureau, at (202) 418–1647 or [email protected]. See Sections 1.415 and 1.420 of the SUMMARY: In this candidate notice of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In support Commission’s rules for information review (CNOR), we, the U.S. Fish and of its channel substitution request, the regarding the proper filing procedures Wildlife Service (Service), present an Petitioner states that the Commission for comments, 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420. updated list of foreign plant and animal has recognized that VHF channels have List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 species that we regard as candidates for certain characteristics that pose or have proposed for addition to the challenges for their use in providing Television. Lists of Endangered and Threatened

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:39 Aug 06, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09AUP1.SGM 09AUP1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 150 / Monday, August 9, 2021 / Proposed Rules 43471

Wildlife and Plants (Lists) under the seq.), requires that we identify species Previous CNORs Endangered Species Act of 1973, as of wildlife and plants that are We have been publishing CNORs amended. This document also includes endangered or threatened based solely since 1975. The most recent CNOR that our findings on resubmitted petitions on the best scientific and commercial included foreign species was published and describes our progress in revising data available. As defined in section 3 on October 10, 2019 (84 FR 54732), and the Lists during the period October 1, of the Act, an endangered species is any covered the period October 1, 2016, 2018, through September 30, 2020. species that is in danger of extinction through September 30, 2018. CNORs Combined with other decisions for throughout all or a significant portion of published since 1994 are available on individual species that were published its range, and a threatened species is our website at http://www.fws.gov/ separately from this CNOR in the past any species that is likely to become an endangered/what-we-do/cnor.html. For 2 years, the current number of foreign endangered species within the copies of CNORs published prior to species that are candidates for listing is foreseeable future throughout all or a 1994, please contact the person listed 19. Identification of candidate species significant portion of its range. Through under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION can assist environmental planning the Federal rulemaking process, we add CONTACT, above. efforts by providing advance notice of species that meet these definitions to On September 21, 1983, we published potential listings, and by allowing the List of Endangered and Threatened guidance for assigning a listing priority landowners, resource managers, range Wildlife in title 50 of the Code of number (LPN) for each candidate countries, and other stakeholders to take Federal Regulations (CFR) at § 17.11 (50 species (48 FR 43098). Using this actions to alleviate threats and thereby CFR 17.11) or the List of Endangered guidance, we assign each candidate an possibly remove the need to list species and Threatened Plants at 50 CFR 17.12. LPN of 1 to 12, depending on the as endangered or threatened. Even if we As part of this program, we maintain a magnitude of threats, immediacy of subsequently list a candidate species, list of species that we regard as threats, and taxonomic status; the lower the early notification provided here candidates for listing. A candidate the LPN, the higher the listing priority could result in more options for species species is one for which we have on file (that is, a species with an LPN of 1 management and recovery by prompting sufficient information on biological would have the highest listing priority). earlier candidate conservation measures vulnerability and threats to support a Section 4(h)(3) of the Act (16 U.S.C. to alleviate threats to the species. proposal for listing as endangered or 1533(h)(3)) requires the Secretary to DATES: We will accept information on threatened, but for which preparation establish guidelines for such a priority- any of the species in this document at and publication of a proposal is ranking system. As explained below, in any time. precluded by higher priority listing using this system, we first categorize ADDRESSES: This document is available actions. We may identify a species as a based on the magnitude of the threat(s), on the internet at http:// candidate for listing after we have then by the immediacy of the threat(s), www.regulations.gov and http:// conducted an evaluation of its status— and finally by taxonomic status. www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/ either on our own initiative, or in Under this priority-ranking system, cnor.html. response to a petition we have received. magnitude of threat can be either ‘‘high’’ Species assessment forms with If we have made a finding on a petition or ‘‘moderate to low.’’ This criterion information and references on a to list a species, and have found that helps ensure that the species facing the particular candidate species’ range, listing is warranted, but precluded by greatest threats to their continued status, habitat needs, and listing priority other higher priority listing actions, we existence receive the highest listing assignment are available for review at will add the species to our list of priority. All candidate species face the office listed below in FOR FURTHER candidates. threats to their continued existence, so INFORMATION CONTACT, or on our website We maintain this list of candidates for the magnitude of threats is in relative (https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/ a variety of reasons: (1) To notify the terms. For all candidate species, the candidate-species). Please submit any public that these species are facing threats are of sufficiently high new information, materials, comments, threats to their survival; (2) to provide magnitude to put them in danger of or questions of a general nature on this advance knowledge of potential listings extinction or make them likely to document or pertaining to a particular that could affect decisions of become in danger of extinction in the species to the address listed under FOR environmental planners and developers; foreseeable future. However, for species FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Species- (3) to provide information that may with higher magnitude threats, the specific information and materials we stimulate and guide conservation efforts threats have a greater likelihood of receive will be available on the internet that will remove or reduce threats to bringing about extinction or are at http://www.regulations.gov under these species and possibly make listing expected to bring about extinction on a Docket No. FWS–HQ–ES–2020–0146. unnecessary; (4) to request input from shorter timescale (once the threats are FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: interested parties to help us identify imminent) than for species with lower- Elizabeth Maclin, Chief, Branch of those candidate species that may not magnitude threats. Because we do not Delisting and Foreign Species, require protection under the Act, as well routinely quantify how likely or how Ecological Services Program, U.S. Fish as additional species that may require soon extinction would be expected to and Wildlife Service, MS: ES, 5275 the Act’s protections; and (5) to request occur absent listing, we must evaluate Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041– necessary information for setting factors that contribute to the likelihood 3803 (telephone 703–358–2171). priorities for preparing listing proposals. and time scale for extinction. We Persons who use a telecommunications We encourage collaborative therefore consider information such as: device for the deaf may call the Federal conservation efforts for candidate (1) The number of populations or extent Relay Service at 800–877–8339. species and offer technical and financial of range of the species affected by the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: assistance to facilitate such efforts. For threat(s), or both; (2) the biological additional information regarding such significance of the affected Background assistance, please contact the person population(s), taking into consideration The Endangered Species Act of 1973, listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION the life-history characteristics of the as amended (Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et CONTACT, above. species and its current abundance and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:39 Aug 06, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09AUP1.SGM 09AUP1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 43472 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 150 / Monday, August 9, 2021 / Proposed Rules

distribution; (3) whether the threats species assessment for each candidate finding, it serves as a ‘‘resubmitted’’ affect the species in only a portion of its contains the LPN chart and a more- petition finding that the Act requires the range, and, if so, the likelihood of detailed explanation—including Service to make each year; and (3) it persistence of the species in the citations to, and more-detailed analyses documents the Service’s compliance unaffected portions; (4) the severity of of, the best scientific and commercial with the statutory requirement to the effects and the rapidity with which data available—for our determination of monitor the status of species for which they have caused or are likely to cause the magnitude and immediacy of listing is warranted but precluded, and mortality to individuals and threat(s) and assignment of the LPN. to ascertain if they need emergency accompanying declines in population listing. Summary of This CNOR levels; (5) whether the effects are likely First, the CNOR serves as an initial to be permanent; and (6) the extent to Since publication of the last CNOR petition finding in some instances. which any ongoing conservation efforts that included foreign species on October Under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, reduce the severity of the threat(s). 10, 2019 (84 FR 54732), we reviewed the when we receive a petition to list a As used in our priority-ranking available information on candidate species, we must determine within 90 system, immediacy of threat is species to ensure that a proposed listing days, to the maximum extent categorized as either ‘‘imminent’’ or is justified for each species, and practicable, whether the petition ‘‘nonimminent,’’ and is based on when reevaluated the relative LPN assigned to presents substantial information the threats will begin. If a threat is each species. We also evaluated the indicating that listing may be warranted currently occurring or likely to occur in need to emergency list any of these (a ‘‘90-day finding’’). If we make a the very near future, we classify the species, particularly species with higher positive 90-day finding, we must threat as imminent. Determining the priorities (i.e., species with LPNs of 1, promptly commence a status review of immediacy of threats helps ensure that 2, or 3). This review and reevaluation the species under section 4(b)(3)(A); we species facing actual, identifiable threats ensures that we focus conservation must then make, within 12 months of are given priority for listing proposals efforts on those species at greatest risk. the receipt of the petition, one of the over species for which threats are only We are not identifying any new following three possible findings (a ‘‘12- potential or species that are intrinsically candidates or removing any candidates month finding’’): vulnerable to certain types of threats but through this document. However, we (1) The petitioned action is not are not known to be presently facing are changing the listing priority number warranted, in which case we must such threats. for one existing candidate. promptly publish the finding in the Our priority-ranking system has three In addition to reviewing candidate Federal Register; categories for taxonomic status: Species species since publication of the last (2) The petitioned action is warranted that are the sole members of a genus; CNOR that included foreign species, we (in which case we are required to full species (in genera that have more have worked on findings in response to promptly publish a proposed regulation than one species); and subspecies and petitions to list species, on proposed to implement the petitioned action; distinct population segments of rules to list species under the Act, and once we publish a proposed rule for a vertebrate species (DPS). on final listing determinations. Some of species, sections 4(b)(5) and 4(b)(6) of The result of the ranking system is these findings and determinations have the Act govern further procedures, that we assign each candidate an LPN of been completed and published in the regardless of whether or not we issued 1 to 12. For example, if the threats are Federal Register, while work on others the proposal in response to a petition); of high magnitude, with immediacy is still under way (see Preclusion and or classified as imminent, the listable Expeditious Progress, below, for (3) The petitioned action is warranted, entity is assigned an LPN of 1, 2, or 3 details). but (a) the immediate proposal of a based on its taxonomic status (i.e., a Combined with other findings and regulation and final promulgation of a species that is the only member of its determinations published separately regulation implementing the petitioned genus would be assigned to the LPN 1 from this CNOR, 19 foreign species are action is precluded by pending category, a full species to LPN 2, and a candidates awaiting preparation of a proposals to determine whether any subspecies or DPS would be assigned to proposed listing rule or ‘‘not-warranted’’ species is endangered or threatened, and LPN 3). In summary, the LPN ranking finding. Table 4 identifies these 19 (b) expeditious progress is being made system provides a basis for making species. to add qualified species to the Lists. We decisions about the relative priority for refer to this third option as a preparing a proposed rule to list a given Petition Findings ‘‘warranted-but-precluded finding,’’ and species. No matter which LPN we assign The Act provides two mechanisms for after making such a finding, we must to a species, each species included in considering species for listing. One promptly publish it in the Federal this document as a candidate is one for method allows the Secretary, on the Register. which we have concluded that we have Secretary’s own initiative, to identify We define ‘‘candidate species’’ to sufficient information to prepare a species for listing under the standards of mean those species for which the proposed rule for listing because it is in section 4(a)(1). The second method Service has on file sufficient danger of extinction or likely to become provides a mechanism for the public to information on biological vulnerability endangered within the foreseeable petition us to add a species to the Lists. and threats to support issuance of a future throughout all or a significant As described further in the paragraphs proposed rule to list, but for which portion of its range. that follow, the CNOR serves several issuance of the proposed rule is For more information on the process purposes as part of the petition process: precluded (61 FR 64481; December 5, and standards used in assigning LPNs, (1) In some instances (in particular, for 1996). The standard for making a a copy of the 1983 guidance is available petitions to list species that the Service species a candidate through our own on our website at: https://www.fws.gov/ has already identified as candidates on initiative is identical to the standard for endangered/esa-library/pdf/48fr43098- its own initiative), it serves as the initial making a warranted-but-precluded 12- 43105.pdf. Information on the LPN petition finding; (2) for candidate month petition finding on a petition to assigned to a particular species is species for which the Service has made list, and we add all petitioned species summarized in this CNOR, and the a warranted-but-precluded petition for which we have made a warranted-

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:39 Aug 06, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09AUP1.SGM 09AUP1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 150 / Monday, August 9, 2021 / Proposed Rules 43473

but-precluded 12-month finding to the actively seeking information regarding The immediate publication of candidate list. the status of those species. We review proposed rules to list these species was Therefore, all candidate species all new information on candidate precluded by our work on higher identified through our own initiative species as it becomes available, prepare priority listing actions, listed below, already have received the equivalent of an annual species assessment form that during the period from October 1, 2018, substantial 90-day and warranted-but- reflects monitoring results and other through September 30, 2020. Below we precluded 12-month findings. new information, and identify any describe the actions that continue to Nevertheless, if we receive a petition to species for which emergency listing may preclude the immediate proposal and list a species that we have already be appropriate. If we determine that final promulgation of a regulation identified as a candidate, we review the emergency listing is appropriate for any implementing each of the petitioned status of the newly petitioned candidate candidate, we will make prompt use of actions for which we have made a species and through this CNOR publish the emergency listing authority under warranted-but-precluded finding, and specific section 4(b)(3) findings (i.e., section 4(b)(7) of the Act. For example, we describe the expeditious progress we substantial 90-day and warranted-but- on August 10, 2011, we emergency are making to add qualified species to, precluded 12-month findings) in listed the Miami blue butterfly (76 FR and remove species from, the Lists. We response to the petitions to list these 49542). We have been reviewing and will continue to monitor the status of all candidate species. We publish these will continue to review, at least candidate species, including petitioned findings as part of the first CNOR annually, the status of every candidate, species, as new information becomes following receipt of the petition. We whether or not we have received a available to determine if a change in have identified the candidate species for petition to list it. Thus, the CNOR and status is warranted, including the need which we received petitions and made accompanying species assessment forms to emergency list a species under a continued warranted-but-precluded constitute the Service’s system for section 4(b)(7) of the Act. As described finding on a resubmitted petition by the monitoring and making annual findings above, under section 4 of the Act, we code ‘‘C*’’ in the category column on on the status of petitioned species under identify and propose species for listing the left side of Table 4, below. sections 4(b)(3)(C)(i) and 4(b)(3)(C)(iii) based on the factors identified in section Second, the CNOR serves as a of the Act. ‘‘resubmitted’’ petition finding. Section 4(a)(1)—either on our own initiative or A number of court decisions have 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Act requires that through the mechanism that section 4 elaborated on the nature and specificity when we make a warranted-but- provides for the public to petition us to of information that we must consider in precluded finding on a petition, we treat add species to the Lists of Endangered making and describing the petition the petition as one that is resubmitted or Threatened Wildlife and Plants. findings in the CNOR. The CNOR that on the date of the finding. Thus, we Preclusion and Expeditious Progress must make a 12-month petition finding published on November 9, 2009 (74 FR 57804), describes these court decisions for each such species at least once a year To make a finding that a particular in further detail. As with previous in compliance with section 4(b)(3)(B) of action is warranted but precluded, the CNORs, we continue to incorporate the Act, until we publish a proposal to Service must make two determinations: information of the nature and specificity list the species or make a final not- (1) That the immediate proposal and required by the courts. For example, we warranted finding. We make these timely promulgation of a final include a description of the reasons why annual resubmitted petition findings regulation is precluded by pending the listing of every petitioned candidate through the CNOR. To the extent these proposals to determine whether any species is both warranted and precluded annual findings differ from the initial species is endangered or threatened; and 12-month warranted-but-precluded at this time. We make our determinations of preclusion on a (2) that expeditious progress is being finding or any of the resubmitted made to add qualified species to either petition findings in previous CNORs, nationwide basis to ensure that the species most in need of listing will be of the Lists and to remove species from they supersede the earlier findings, the Lists (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(B)(iii)). although all previous findings are part addressed first and also because we of the administrative record for the new allocate our listing budget on a Preclusion finding, and in the new finding, we may nationwide basis (see below). Our rely upon them or incorporate them by preclusion determinations are further A listing proposal is precluded if the reference as appropriate, in addition to based upon our budget for listing Service does not have sufficient explaining why the finding has activities for unlisted species only, and resources available to complete the changed. we explain the priority system and why proposal, because there are competing Third, through undertaking the the work we have accomplished has demands for those resources, and the analysis required to complete the precluded action on listing candidate relative priority of those competing CNOR, the Service determines if any species. demands is higher. Thus, in any given candidate species needs emergency In preparing this CNOR, we reviewed fiscal year (FY), multiple factors dictate listing. Section 4(b)(3)(C)(iii) of the Act the current status of, and threats to, the whether it will be possible to undertake requires us to implement a system to 19 foreign species candidates for which work on a proposed listing regulation or monitor effectively the status of all we have received a petition to list. We whether promulgation of such a species for which we have made a find that the immediate issuance of a proposal is precluded by higher priority warranted-but-precluded 12-month proposed rule and timely promulgation listing actions—(1) the amount of finding, and to make prompt use of the of a final rule for each of these species resources available for completing the emergency listing authority under has been, for the preceding months, and listing function, (2) the estimated cost of section 4(b)(7) of the Act to prevent a continues to be, precluded by higher completing the proposed listing significant risk to the well being of any priority listing actions. Additional regulation, and (3) the Service’s such species. The CNOR plays a crucial information that is the basis for this workload, along with the Service’s role in the monitoring system that we finding is found in the species prioritization of the proposed listing have implemented for all candidate assessments and our administrative regulation, in relation to other actions in species by providing notice that we are record for each species. its workload.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:39 Aug 06, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09AUP1.SGM 09AUP1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 43474 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 150 / Monday, August 9, 2021 / Proposed Rules

Available Resources court orders or court-approved multiple petitions to list numerous The resources available for listing settlement agreements—set the species—in one example, a single actions are determined through the framework within which we make our petition sought to list 404 domestic annual Congressional appropriations determinations of preclusion and species. The emphasis that petitioners process. In FY 1998 and for each fiscal expeditious progress. placed on seeking listing for hundreds year since then, Congress has placed a In FY 2019, through the Consolidated of species at a time through the petition statutory cap on funds that may be Appropriations Act of 2019 (Pub. L. process significantly increased the expended for the Listing Program 116–6, February 15, 2019), Congress number of actions within the third (spending cap). This spending cap was appropriated the Service $18,318,000 category of our workload—actions that designed to prevent the listing function under a consolidated cap for all have absolute statutory deadlines for domestic and foreign listing work, from depleting funds needed for other making findings on those petitions. In including status assessments, listing functions under the Act (for example, addition, the necessity of dedicating all determinations, domestic critical habitat recovery functions, such as removing of the Listing Program funding towards designations, and related activities. In species from the Lists), or for other determining the status of 251 candidate FY 2020, through the Further Service programs (see House Report species and complying with other court- Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 105–163, 105th Congress, 1st Session, ordered requirements between 2011 and (Pub. L. 116–94, December 20, 2019), July 1, 1997). The funds within the 2016 added to the number of petition Congress appropriated $20,318,000 for spending cap are available to support findings awaiting action. Because we are all domestic and foreign listing work. work involving the following listing not able to work on all of these at once, The amount of funding Congress will the Service’s most recent effort to actions: Proposed and final rules to add appropriate in future years is uncertain. species to the Lists or to change the prioritize its workload focuses on status of species from threatened to Costs of Listing Actions addressing the backlog in petition findings that has resulted from the endangered; 90-day and 12-month The work involved in preparing influx of large multi-species petitions findings on petitions to add species to various listing documents can be and the 5-year period in which the the Lists or to change the status of a extensive, and may include, but is not Service was compelled to suspend species from threatened to endangered; limited to: Gathering and assessing the making 12-month findings for most of annual ‘‘resubmitted’’ petition findings best scientific and commercial data those petitions. The number of petitions on prior warranted-but-precluded available and conducting analyses used that are awaiting status reviews and petition findings as required under as the basis for our decisions; writing accompanying 12-month findings section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Act; critical and publishing documents; and illustrates the considerable extent of this habitat petition findings; proposed rules obtaining, reviewing, and evaluating backlog. As a result of the outstanding designating critical habitat or final public comments and peer-review petitions to list hundreds of species, and critical habitat determinations; and comments on proposed rules and our efforts to make initial petition litigation-related, administrative, and incorporating relevant information from findings within 90 days of receiving the program-management functions those comments into final rules. The petition to the maximum extent (including preparing and allocating number of listing actions that we can practicable, at the beginning of FY 2020, budgets, responding to Congressional undertake in a given year also is we had 36 12-month petition findings and public inquiries, and conducting influenced by the complexity of those for foreign species yet to be initiated public outreach regarding listing and listing actions; that is, more complex and completed and 422 12-month critical habitat). actions generally are more costly. The petition findings for domestic species For more than two decades, the size Service has developed several ways to yet to be initiated and completed. and cost of the workload in these determine the relative priorities of the categories of actions have far exceeded actions within its workload to identify To determine the relative priorities of the amount of funding available to the the work it can complete with the the outstanding 12-month petition Service under the spending cap for funding it has available under the findings, the Service developed a completing listing and critical habitat spending cap for listing and critical prioritization methodology actions under the Act. Since we cannot habitat actions each year. (methodology) (81 FR 49248; July 27, exceed the spending cap without 2016) after providing the public with violating the Anti-Deficiency Act (31 Prioritizing Listing Actions notice and an opportunity to comment U.S.C. 1341(a)(1)(A)), each year we have The Service’s Listing Program on the draft methodology (81 FR 2229; been compelled to determine that work workload is broadly composed of four January 15, 2016). Under the on at least some actions was precluded types of actions, which the Service methodology, we assign outstanding 12- by work on higher-priority actions. We prioritizes as follows: (1) Compliance month petition findings to one of five make our determinations of preclusion with court orders and court-approved priority bins. (1) The species is critically on a nationwide basis to ensure that the settlement agreements requiring that imperiled; (2) strong data are already species most in need of listing will be petition findings or listing available about the status of the species; addressed first, and because we allocate determinations or critical habitat (3) new science is underway that would our listing budget on a nationwide basis. designations be completed by a specific inform key uncertainties about the Through the listing cap and the amount date; (2) essential litigation-related, status of the species; (4) conservation of funds needed to complete court- administrative, and listing program- efforts are in development or underway mandated actions within the cap, management functions; (3) section 4 (of and likely to address the status of the Congress and the courts have in effect the Act) listing and critical habitat species; or (5) the available data on the determined the amount of money actions with absolute statutory species are limited. As a general matter, remaining (after completing court- deadlines; and (4) section 4 listing 12-month findings with a lower bin mandated actions) for listing activities actions that do not have absolute number have a higher priority than, and nationwide. Therefore, the funds that statutory deadlines. are scheduled before, 12-month findings remain within the listing cap—after In previous years, the Service with a higher bin number. However, we paying for work needed to comply with received many new petitions, including make some limited exceptions—for

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:39 Aug 06, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09AUP1.SGM 09AUP1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 150 / Monday, August 9, 2021 / Proposed Rules 43475

example, we may schedule a lower- to track, regulate, and enforce this species than for the Appendix-I species priority finding earlier if batching it activity is greater than for species in that are comparatively more tightly with a higher-priority finding would trade outside the United States. controlled under CITES. generate efficiencies. We may also 4. Within the United States, interstate • Appendix III species: Appendix III consider where there are any special trade—We prioritize timing of actions includes species listed unilaterally by a circumstances whereby an action for species traded between States within range country to obtain international should be moved up (or down) in the United States (interstate activity) cooperation in controlling trade. scheduling. Since before Congress first over those not traded between States International trade in Appendix-III established the spending cap for the within the United States (intrastate species exported from a country that has Listing Program in 1998, the Listing activity). The Act prohibits certain included the species in Appendix III Program workload has required activities with listed species in requires an export permit, while other considerably more resources than the interstate commerce. FWS regulation of exports and re-exports require amount of funds Congress has allowed this interstate activity can result in documentation. Appendix-III species for the Listing Program. Therefore, it is incentivizing and permitting activities— have fewer substantive conservation important that we be as efficient as including requirement of an controls for trade than for Appendix-I or possible in our listing process. enhancement finding or for scientific -II species. However, we generally Consistent with our methodology, purposes—that benefit the conservation prioritize the timing for Appendix-II within the five priority bins we of the species, and deterring and species over Appendix-III species determine the relative timing of foreign prohibiting activities that do not. As because the CITES Parties having species actions using sub-ranking noted above, such violations of the Act collectively identified Appendix-II considerations, i.e., as tie-breakers for can also be one component of a Lacey species as requiring trade regulation to determining relative timing within each Act violation. avoid threatening their survival. of the five bins. We consider the extent 5. CITES status—We use Convention 6. IUCN Red List status—We to which the protections of the Act on International Trade in Endangered prioritize timing of actions for species would be able to improve conditions for Species of Wild Fauna and Flora considered at greater risk by the that species and its habitat relative to (CITES) status to prioritize timing of International Union for Conservation of the other species within the same bin, listing actions under the Act for species Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) and in doing so, we give weight to the as follows: Appendix II (highest priority over those that are considered at lesser following considerations, in order from for listing actions under the Act relative risk. Per IUCN categories, Critically greater weight to lesser weight. to other CITES-listed species) > endangered (highest priority) > 1. FWS Office of Law Enforcement Appendix III > Appendix I (lowest Endangered > Vulnerable > Near- (OLE) enforcement capacity—We priority for listing actions under the Act threatened > Least concern > Data prioritize species actions where OLE relative to other CITES-listed species). deficient > Not assessed > Extinct currently has the expertise and • Appendix I species: Appendix I (lowest priority). We use this criterion workforce capacity to identify taxa (e.g., includes species threatened with to identify species for which listing some invertebrates require time- extinction that are or may be affected by would likely have greater positive intensive inspection and expertise to trade, and trade in Appendix-I impacts on their conservation because differentiate listed from non-listed specimens may take place only in they are more likely in greater need of species). The capacity to identify taxa to exceptional circumstances. With narrow conservation. Although IUCN’s rating effectively enforce a listing greatly exceptions, CITES does not allow system is not directly comparable to the increases the impact of the listing. primarily commercial international definitions for an endangered species 2. Species in trade to and/or from the trade in Appendix-I species, and and threatened species under the Act United States—We prioritize actions for commercial use of Appendix-I (which is why this is considered low in these species over those that are neither specimens is also prohibited after our prioritization scheme), and does not imported to nor exported from the import. Allowed international trade in establish any legal status, IUCN’s Red United States because we can regulate these species is subject to a dual List provides a readily-accessible, import, export, and other activities with permitting process that requires both expert-validated assessment of these species through permitting and importing and exporting countries to conservation threat. incentivizing activities—including find that the trade will not be We applied the methodology and tie- requirement of an enhancement finding detrimental to the species’ survival. breakers described above to develop a or for scientific purposes—that benefit Thus, a listing under the Act would multi-year Foreign Species Workplan the conservation of the species, and by generally provide comparatively less (Workplan) for completing the deterring and prohibiting activities that additional conservation of these species outstanding status assessments and do not. In addition, the Lacey Act, in than for CITES species that are not accompanying 12-month findings. The part, makes it illegal to import, export, subject to this level of regulation. purpose of the Workplan is to provide transport, sell, receive, acquire, or • Appendix II species: Appendix II transparency and predictability to the purchase species taken, possessed, includes species that may become public about when the Service transported, or sold in violation of any threatened with extinction if their trade anticipates completing specific 12- U.S. law, treaty, or regulation. Thus, is not regulated or because they need to month findings while allowing for violations of the Act and its be regulated so that trade in certain flexibility to update the Workplan when implementing regulations can be one other Appendix-I or -II species may be new information changes the priorities. component of a Lacey Act violation, effectively controlled. CITES allows In June 2020, the Service released its further adding to the impact of the Act’s international trade in Appendix-II Foreign Species Workplan for listing. species for primarily commercial addressing the Act’s foreign listing 3. Species in trade through U.S. ports purposes, and does not require the dual- decisions over the subsequent 5 years. (i.e., in-transit or transshipment)—We permitting process established for The Workplan identified the Service’s prioritize timing of actions for these Appendix-I species. Listing under the schedule for addressing all foreign species over those in trade outside of Act is more likely to improve species on the candidate list and 45 the United States because the capacity conservation capacity for Appendix-II status reviews and accompanying 12-

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:39 Aug 06, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09AUP1.SGM 09AUP1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 43476 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 150 / Monday, August 9, 2021 / Proposed Rules

month findings, and identified which For FY 2020, our Foreign Species petition findings); (2) undertaking an 12-month findings we would complete Workplan includes nine 12-month evaluation of the best available by FY 2025 for foreign species that have findings or proposed listing actions that scientific data about those species and been petitioned for Federal protections are at various stages of completion at the the threats they face to determine under the Act. As we implement our time of this finding. In addition to the whether or not listing is warranted (a Workplan and work on proposed rules actions scheduled in the Foreign status review and accompanying 12- for the highest-priority species, we Species Workplan, the overall Listing month finding); and (3) adding qualified increase efficiency by preparing multi- Program workload also includes the species to the Lists (by publishing species proposals when appropriate, National Listing Workplan that includes proposed and final listing rules). We and these may include species with 74 12-month findings or proposed explain in more detail how we are lower priority if they overlap listing actions, development and making expeditious progress in all three geographically or have the same threats revision of regulations required by new of the steps necessary for adding as one of the highest-priority species. court orders or settlement agreements to qualified species to the Lists The Foreign Species Workplan is address the repercussions of any new (identifying, evaluating, and adding available online at: https:// court decisions, and proposed and final species). Subsequent to discussing our www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/ critical habitat designations or revisions expeditious progress in adding qualified foreign-listing-workplan.html. for species that have already been listed. species to the Lists, we explain our As noted above, an additional way in The Service’s highest priorities for expeditious progress in removing from which we determine relative priorities spending its funding in FY 2019 and FY the Lists species that no longer require of outstanding actions in the section 4 2020 were actions included in the the protections of the Act. program is application of the listing Workplan and actions required to Generally, we first make expeditious priority guidelines (48 FR 43098; address court decisions. progress in identifying species that may September 21, 1983). Under those Expeditious Progress warrant listing. In FY 2019 and FY 2020 guidelines, which apply primarily to (as of September 30, 2020), we As explained above, a determination candidate species, we assign each completed 90-day findings on petitions that listing is warranted but precluded candidate an LPN of 1 to 12, depending to list 14 species. However, for foreign must also demonstrate that expeditious on the magnitude of threats (high or species, we have not received petitions progress is being made to add and moderate to low), immediacy of threats to list species in FY 2019 or FY 2020 (as remove qualified species to and from (imminent or nonimminent), and of September 30, 2020). taxonomic status of the species (in order the Lists. Please note that in the Code Second, we are making expeditious of priority: monotypic genus (a species of Federal Regulations, the ‘‘Lists’’ are progress in evaluating the best scientific that is the sole member of a genus), a grouped as one list of endangered and and commercial data available about species, or a part of a species threatened wildlife (50 CFR 17.11(h)) species and threats they face (status (subspecies or distinct population and one list of endangered and reviews) to determine whether or not segment)). The lower the LPN, the threatened plants (50 CFR 17.12(h)). higher the listing priority (that is, a However, the ‘‘Lists’’ referred to in the listing is warranted. In FY 2019 and FY species with an LPN of 1 would have Act mean one list of endangered species 2020 (as of September 30, 2020), we the highest listing priority). A species (wildlife and plants) and one list of completed 12-month findings for 69 with a higher LPN would generally be threatened species (wildlife and plants). domestic species. In addition, we precluded from listing by species with For the purposes of evaluating our funded and worked on the development lower LPNs, unless work on a proposed expeditious progress, when we refer to of 12-month findings for 34 domestic rule for the species with the higher LPN the ‘‘Lists,’’ we mean this latter species and proposed listing can be combined for efficiency with grouping of one list of endangered determinations for 9 candidates, and we work on a proposed rule for other high- species and one list of threatened initiated 12-month findings for nine priority species. species. foreign species. Although we did not Finally, proposed rules for As with our ‘‘precluded’’ finding, the complete those actions during FY 2019 reclassification of threatened species evaluation of whether expeditious or FY 2020 (as of September 30, 2020), status to endangered species status progress is being made is a function of we made expeditious progress towards (‘‘uplistings’’) are generally lower in the resources available and the doing so by initiating and making priority because, as listed species, they competing demands for those funds. As progress on the status reviews to are already afforded the protections of discussed earlier, the FY 2020 determine whether adding the species to the Act and implementing regulations. appropriations law included a spending the Lists is warranted. However, for efficiency reasons, we may cap of $20,318,000 for listing activities, Third, we are making expeditious choose to work on a proposed rule to and the FY 2019 appropriations law progress in adding qualified species to reclassify a species to endangered included a spending cap of $18,318,000 the Lists. In FY 2019 and FY 2020 (as species status if we can combine this for listing activities. of September 30, 2020), we published a with higher-priority work. As discussed below, given the limited final listing rule for 1 foreign species resources available for listing, the and 7 domestic species, including final Listing Program Workload competing demands for those funds, critical habitat designations for 1 of The Foreign Species Workplan that and the completed work catalogued in those domestic species and final the Service released in 2020 outlined the tables below, we find that we are protective regulations under the Act’s work for foreign species over the period making expeditious progress in adding section 4(d) for 2 of those domestic from FY 2020 to FY 2025. Tables 1 and qualified species to the Lists. species. In addition, we published 2 under Expeditious Progress, below, The work of the Service’s foreign proposed rules to list an additional 20 identify the higher-priority listing listing program in FY 2019 and FY 2020 domestic species (including concurrent actions that we completed through the (as of September 30, 2020) includes all proposed critical habitat designations end of FY 2020 (September 30, 2020), as three of the steps necessary for adding for 13 species and concurrent protective well as those we have been working on species to the Lists: (1) Identifying regulations under the Act’s section 4(d) in FY 2020 but have not yet completed. species that may warrant listing (90-day for 14 species).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:39 Aug 06, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09AUP1.SGM 09AUP1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 150 / Monday, August 9, 2021 / Proposed Rules 43477

The Act also requires that we make actions does count towards our higher than any point in the history of expeditious progress in removing assessment of making expeditious the Act, which underscores the species from the Lists that no longer progress because the Act states that expeditious progress we are making. require the protections of the Act. expeditious progress includes both The tables below catalog the Service’s Specifically, we are making expeditious adding qualified species to, and progress in FY 2019 and FY 2020 (as of progress in removing (delisting) species, removing qualified species from, the September 30, 2020) as it pertains to our as well as reclassifying endangered Lists of Endangered and Threatened species to threatened species status Wildlife and Plants. In FY 2019 and FY evaluation of making expeditious (downlisting). Delisting and downlisting 2020 (as of September 30, 2020), we progress. Table 1 includes completed actions are funded through the recovery finalized downlisting of 2 species (one and published foreign listing actions; line item in the budget of the of which is a foreign species), finalized Table 2 includes foreign listing actions Endangered Species Program. Thus, delisting rules for 7 domestic species, funded and initiated in previous fiscal delisting and downlisting actions do not proposed downlisting for 7 domestic years and in FY 2020 that are not yet factor into our assessment of preclusion; species, and proposed delisting of 11 complete as of September 30, 2020; and that is, work on recovery actions does domestic species. The rate at which the Table 3 includes completed and not preclude the availability of Service has completed delisting and published proposed and final resources for completing new listing downlisting actions in FY 2019 and FY downlisting and delisting actions for work. However, work on recovery 2020 (as of September 30, 2020) is foreign species.

TABLE 1—LISTING ACTIONS COMPLETED BY THE SERVICE IN FY 2019 AND FY 2020 [As of September 30, 2020]

Federal Register Publication date Title Action(s) citation

10/9/2018 ...... Threatened Species Status for Coastal Distinct Proposed Listing—Threatened with Section 4(d) 83 FR 50574–50582 Population Segment of the Pacific Marten. Rule and 12-Month Petition Finding. 10/9/2018 ...... Threatened Species Status for Black-Capped Pe- Proposed Listing—Threatened with Section 4(d) 83 FR 50560–50574 trel With a Section 4(d) Rule. Rule and 12-Month Petition Finding. 10/9/2018 ...... 12-Month Petition Finding and Threatened Spe- Proposed Listing—Threatened with Section 4(d) 83 FR 50610–50630 cies Status for Eastern Black Rail With a Sec- Rule and 12-Month Petition Finding. tion 4(d) Rule. 10/9/2018 ...... Threatened Species Status With Section 4(d) Proposed Listing—Threatened with Section 4(d) 83 FR 50582–50610 Rule and Critical Habitat Designation for Rule and Critical Habitat and 12-Month Finding. Slenderclaw Crayfish. 10/11/2018 ...... Threatened Species Status With Section 4(d) Proposed Listing—Threatened with Section 4(d) 83 FR 51570–51609 Rule and Critical Habitat Designation for Atlan- Rule and Critical Habitat and 12-Month Finding. tic Pigtoe. 11/21/2018 ...... Endangered Species Status for the Candy Darter Final Listing—Endangered ...... 83 FR 58747–58754 12/19/2018 ...... 12-Month Findings on Petitions to List 13 Spe- 12-Month Petition Findings ...... 83 FR 65127–65134 cies as Endangered or Threatened Species. 12/28/2018 ...... Threatened Species Status for Trispot Darter ...... Final Listing—Threatened ...... 83 FR 67131–67140 2/26/2019 ...... Listing the Scarlet Macaw ...... Final Listing—Endangered northern subspecies; 84 FR 6278–6311 Threatened northern DPS of southern sub- species; and Threatened status for southern DPS and subspecies crosses based on simi- larity of appearance. 4/4/2019 ...... 12-Month Findings on Petitions to List Eight Spe- 12-Month Petition Findings. cies as Endangered or Threatened Species. 4/4/2019 ...... 12-Month Petition Finding and Endangered Spe- Proposed Listing—Endangered and 12-Month cies Status for the Missouri Distinct Population Petition Finding. Segment of Eastern Hellbender. 4/26/2019 ...... 90-Day Findings for Four Species (3 domestic 90-Day Petition Findings. species and 1 foreign species) *. 5/22/2019 ...... Threatened Species Status with Section 4(d) Proposed Listings—Threatened Status with Sec- Rule for Neuse River Waterdog and Endan- tion 4(d) Rule with Critical Habitat; Endangered gered Species Status for Carolina Madtom and Status with Critical Habitat and 12-Month Peti- Proposed Designations of Critical Habitat. tion Findings. 8/13/2019 ...... Endangered Species Status for Franklin’s Bum- Proposed Listing—Endangered and 12-Month ble Bee. Petition Finding. 8/15/2019 ...... 12-Month Findings on Petitions to List Eight Spe- 12-Month Petition Findings. cies as Endangered or Threatened Species. 8/15/2019 ...... 90-Day Findings for Three Species ...... 90-Day Petition Findings. 9/6/2019 ...... 90-Day Findings for Three Species ...... 90-Day Petition Findings. 10/07/2019 ...... Twelve Species Not Warranted for Listing as En- 12-Month Petition Findings. dangered or Threatened Species. 10/21/2019 ...... Endangered Species Status for Barrens Final Listing—Endangered. Topminnow. 11/08/2019 ...... 12-Month Finding for the California Spotted Owl 12-Month Petition Finding. 11/21/2019 ...... Threatened Species Status for Meltwater Final Listing—Threatened with Section 4(d) Rule. Lednian Stonefly and Western Glacier Stonefly With a Section 4(d) Rule.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:39 Aug 06, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09AUP1.SGM 09AUP1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 43478 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 150 / Monday, August 9, 2021 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 1—LISTING ACTIONS COMPLETED BY THE SERVICE IN FY 2019 AND FY 2020—Continued [As of September 30, 2020]

Federal Register Publication date Title Action(s) citation

12/06/2019 ...... Endangered Species Status for Beardless Proposed Listings—Endangered with Critical Chinchweed With Designation of Critical Habi- Habitat; Threatened with Section 4(d) Rule and tat, and Threatened Species Status for Bar- 12-Month Petition Findings. tram’s Stonecrop With Section 4(d) Rule. 12/19/2019 ...... Five Species Not Warranted for Listing as En- 12-Month Petition Findings. dangered or Threatened Species. 12/19/2019 ...... 90-Day Findings for Two Species ...... 90-Day Petition Findings. 01/08/2020 ...... Threatened Species Status for the Hermes Cop- Proposed Listing—Threatened with Section 4(d) per Butterfly With 4(d) Rule and Designation of Rule and Critical Habitat. Critical Habitat. 01/08/2020 ...... Endangered Status for the Sierra Nevada Dis- Proposed Listing—Endangered. tinct Population Segment of the Sierra Nevada Red Fox. 05/05/2020 ...... Endangered Status for the Island Marble But- Final Listing—Endangered with Critical Habitat. terfly and Designation of Critical Habitat. 05/15/2020 ...... Endangered Species Status for Southern Sierra Final Listing—Endangered. Nevada Distinct Population Segment of Fisher. 7/16/2020 ...... 90-Day Finding for the Dunes Sagebrush Lizard 90-Day Petition Finding. 7/22/2020 ...... 90-Day Findings for Two Species ...... 90-Day Petition Findings. 7/23/2020 ...... Four Species Not Warranted for Listing as En- 12-Month Petition Findings. dangered or Threatened Species. 8/26/2020 ...... Endangered Species Status for Marron Bacora Proposed Listing-Endangered with Critical Habi- and Designation of Critical Habitat. tat and 12-Month Petition Finding. 9/1/2020 ...... Two Species Not Warranted for Listing as En- 12-Month Petition Findings. dangered or Threatened Species. 9/16/2020 ...... Findings on a Petition To Delist the Distinct Pop- 12-Month Petition Finding. ulation Segment of the Western Yellow-Billed Cuckoo and a Petition To List the U.S. Popu- lation of Northwestern Moose **. 9/17/2020 ...... Threatened Species Status for Chapin Mesa Proposed Listing-Threatened With Section 4(d) milkvetch and Section 4(d) Rule with Designa- Rule and Critical Habitat. tion of Critical Habitat. 9/17/2020 ...... Threatened Species Status for Big Creek cray- Proposed Listings-Threatened With Section 4(d) fish and St. Francis River Crayfish and With Rule and Critical Habitat. Section 4(d) Rule with Designation of Critical Habitat. 9/29/2020 ...... Threatened Species Status for longsolid and Proposed Listings-Threatened With Section 4(d) round hickorynut mussel and Section 4(d) Rule Rule and Critical Habitat; 12-Month Petition With Designation of Critical Habitat, Not War- Findings. ranted 12-Month Finding for purple Lilliput. 9/29/2020 ...... Threatened Species Status for Wright’s Marsh Proposed Listing-Threatened With Section (4) Thistle and Section 4(d) Rule With Designation Rule and Critical Habitat. of Critical Habitat.

TABLE 2—LISTING ACTIONS FUNDED AND INITIATED BY THE SERVICE IN PREVIOUS FYS AND IN FY 2020 THAT WERE NOT COMPLETE AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2020 [Species denoted with an asterisk were subsequently completed.]

Species Action

Canadian caribou—Dolphin/Union caribou ...... 12-month finding. Canadian caribou—Peary Island caribou ...... 12-month finding. Yangtze sturgeon * ...... Final listing determination. Egyptian tortoise ...... 12-month finding. Amur sturgeon ...... 12-month finding. Emperor penguin ...... 12-month finding. Russian sturgeon ...... 12-month finding. Stellate sturgeon ...... 12-month finding. Ship sturgeon ...... 12-month finding. Persian sturgeon ...... 12-month finding. northern spotted owl ...... 12-month finding. false spike ...... 12-month finding. Guadalupe fatmucket ...... 12-month finding. Guadalupe orb ...... 12-month finding. Texas fatmucket ...... Proposed listing determination or not warranted finding. Texas fawnsfoot ...... Proposed listing determination or not warranted finding. Texas pimpleback ...... Proposed listing determination or not warranted finding. South Llano Springs moss ...... 12-month finding.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:39 Aug 06, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09AUP1.SGM 09AUP1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 150 / Monday, August 9, 2021 / Proposed Rules 43479

TABLE 2—LISTING ACTIONS FUNDED AND INITIATED BY THE SERVICE IN PREVIOUS FYS AND IN FY 2020 THAT WERE NOT COMPLETE AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2020—Continued [Species denoted with an asterisk were subsequently completed.]

Species Action

peppered chub * ...... 12-month finding. whitebark pine * ...... Proposed listing determination or not warranted finding. Key ringneck snake ...... 12-month finding. Rimrock crowned snake ...... 12-month finding. Euphilotes ancilla cryptica ...... 12-month finding. Euphilotes ancilla purpura ...... 12-month finding. Hamlin Valley pyrg * ...... 12-month finding. longitudinal gland pyrg ...... 12-month finding. sub-globose snake pyrg * ...... 12-month finding. Louisiana pigtoe ...... 12-month finding. Texas heelsplitter ...... 12-month finding. triangle pigtoe ...... 12-month finding. prostrate milkweed ...... 12-month finding. alligator snapping turtle ...... 12-month finding. Black Creek crayfish ...... 12-month finding. bracted twistflower ...... Proposed listing determination or not warranted finding. Canoe Creek clubshell * ...... 12-month finding. Clear Lake hitch * ...... 12-month finding. Doll’s daisy * ...... 12-month finding. frecklebelly madtom * ...... 12-month finding. longfin smelt (San Francisco Bay-Delta DPS) ...... Proposed listing determination or not warranted finding. magnificent Ramshorn ...... Proposed listing determination or not warranted finding. Mt. Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan ...... 12-month finding. Ocmulgee skullcap ...... 12-month finding. Penasco least chipmunk ...... Proposed listing determination or not warranted finding. Puerto Rico harlequin butterfly * ...... Proposed listing determination. Puget oregonian snail * ...... 12-month finding. relict dace * ...... 12-month finding. Rocky Mountain monkeyflower * ...... 12-month finding. sickle darter * ...... 12-month finding. southern elktoe ...... 12-month finding. southern white-tailed ptarmigan * ...... 12-month finding. tidewater amphipod * ...... 12-month finding. tufted puffin * ...... 12-month finding. western spadefoot ...... 12-month finding.

TABLE 3—COMPLETED DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN RECOVERY ACTIONS (PROPOSED AND FINAL DOWNLISTINGS AND DELISTINGS) IN FY 2019 AND FY 2020 [As of September 30, 2020]

Federal Register Publication date Title Action(s) citation

10/18/2018 ...... Removing Deseret Milkvetch (Astragalus Final Rule—Delisting ...... 83 FR 52775–52786 desereticus) From the Federal List of Endan- gered and Threatened Plants. 02/26/2019 ...... Removing the Borax Lake Chub From the List of Proposed Rule—Delisting ...... 84 FR 6110–6126 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. 03/15/2019 ...... Removing the Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) From the Proposed Rule—Delisting ...... 84 FR 9648–9687 List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. 05/03/2019 ...... Reclassifying the American Burying Beetle From Proposed Rule—Downlisting ...... 84 FR 19013–19029 Endangered to Threatened on the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife With a 4(d) Rule. 08/27/2019 ...... Removing Trifolium stoloniferum (Running Buf- Proposed Rule—Delisting ...... 84 FR 44832–44841 falo Clover) From the Federal List of Endan- gered and Threatened Plants. 09/13/2019 ...... Removing the Foskett Speckled Dace From the Final Rule—Delisting ...... 84 FR 48290–48308 List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. 10/03/2019 ...... Removal of the Monito Gecko (Sphaerodactylus Final Rule—Delisting ...... 84 FR 52791–52800 micropithecus) From the Federal List of En- dangered and Threatened Wildlife. 10/07/2019 ...... Removal of Howellia aquatilis (Water Howellia) Proposed Rule—Delisting ...... 84 FR 53380–53397 From the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants. 10/09/2019 ...... Removing the Kirtland’s Warbler From the Fed- Final Rule—Delisting ...... 84 FR 54436–54463 eral List of Endangered and Threatened Wild- life.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:39 Aug 06, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09AUP1.SGM 09AUP1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 43480 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 150 / Monday, August 9, 2021 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 3—COMPLETED DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN RECOVERY ACTIONS (PROPOSED AND FINAL DOWNLISTINGS AND DELISTINGS) IN FY 2019 AND FY 2020—Continued [As of September 30, 2020]

Federal Register Publication date Title Action(s) citation

10/24/2019 ...... Removal of the Interior Least Tern From the Proposed Rule—Delisting ...... 84 FR 56977–56991 Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. 11/05/2019 ...... Removing Oenothera coloradensis (Colorado Final Rule—Delisting ...... 84 FR 59570–59588 Butterfly Plant) From the Federal List of En- dangered and Threatened Plants. 11/26/2019 ...... Removing Bradshaw’s Lomatium From the Fed- Proposed Rule—Delisting ...... 84 FR 65067–65080 eral List of Endangered and Threatened Plants. 11/26/2019 ...... Removal of the Nashville Crayfish From the Fed- Proposed Rule—Delisting ...... 84 FR 65098–65112 eral List of Endangered and Threatened Wild- life. 11/26/2019 ...... Reclassification of the Endangered June Sucker Proposed Rule—Downlisting ...... 84 FR 65080–65098 to Threatened With a Section 4(d) Rule. 12/19/2019 ...... Reclassifying the Hawaiian Goose From Endan- Final Rule—Downlisting ...... 84 FR 69918–69947 gered to Threatened With a Section 4(d) Rule. 01/02/2020 ...... Removing the Hawaiian Hawk From the Federal Final Rule—Delisting ...... 85 FR 164–189 List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. 01/06/2020 ...... Removing the Kanab Ambersnail From the List Proposed Rule—Delisting ...... 85 FR 487–492 of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. 01/22/2020 ...... Reclassification of the Humpback Chub From Proposed Rule—Downlisting ...... 85 FR 3586–3601 Endangered to Threatened With a Section 4(d) Rule. 03/10/2020 ...... Removing Lepanthes eltoroensis From the Fed- Proposed Rule—Delisting ...... 85 FR 13844–13856 eral List of Endangered and Threatened Plants. 4/23/2020 ...... Reclassifying the Golden Conure from Endan- Final Downlisting—Threatened with Section 4(d) 85 FR 22653–22663 gered to Threatened With a Section 4(d) Rule. Rule. 04/27/2020 ...... Removing Arenaria cumberlandensis (Cum- Proposed Rule—Delisting ...... 85 FR 23302–23315 berland Sandwort) From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants. 06/01/2020 ...... Removing San Benito Evening-Primrose Proposed Rule—Delisting ...... 85 FR 33060–33078 (Camissonia benitensis) From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants. 06/11/2020 ...... Removing the Borax Lake Chub From the List of Final Rule—Delisting ...... 85 FR 35574–35594 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. 7/24/2020 ...... Reclassification of Morro Shoulderband Snail Proposed Rule—Downlisting ...... 85 FR 44821–44835 (Helminthoglypta walkeriana) From Endan- gered to Threatened With a 4(d) Rule. 8/19/2020 ...... Reclassification of Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat From Proposed Rule—Downlisting ...... 85 FR 50991–51006 Endangered To Threatened With a Section 4(d) Rule. 9/30/2020 ...... Reclassification of Virgin Islands Tree Boa From Proposed Rule—Downlisting. Endangered To Threatened With a Section 4(d) Rule. 9/30/2020 ...... Reclassficiation of beach layia (Layia carnosa) Proposed Rule—Downlisting. From Endangered To Threatened With a Sec- tion 4(d) Rule.

When a petitioned action is found to are continually seeking ways to Brası´lia Tapaculo be warranted but precluded, the Service streamline processes or achieve Brası´lia tapaculo is a small, shy, is required by the Act to treat the economies of scale, such as batching ground-dwelling bird with limited flight petition as resubmitted on an annual related actions together for publication. ability. The tapaculo is found in dense, basis until a proposal or withdrawal is Given our limited budget for swampy, gallery-forest habitat that is a published. If the petitioned species is implementing section 4 of the Act, these smaller habitat component occurring not already listed under the Act, the efforts also contribute toward our within the wider tropical savanna or species becomes a ‘‘candidate’’ and is expeditious progress in adding and Cerrado of the Central Goia’s Plateau of reviewed annually in the CNOR. removing qualified species to and from Brazil. Gallery forests are narrow fringes Another way that we have been the Lists. of thick streamside vegetation that occur expeditious in making progress in Listing Priority Changes in Candidates on the edges of rivers and streams at adding and removing qualified species elevations of approximately 800–1,000 to and from the Lists is that we have We reviewed the LPNs for all foreign meters (m) (2,625–3,281 feet (ft)). made our actions as efficient and timely candidate species and are changing the The Brası´lia tapaculo is described as as possible, given the requirements of LPN for the Brası´lia tapaculo rare, but the population size is the Act and regulations and constraints (Scytalopus novacapitalis). unknown. Despite a lack of data on relating to workload and personnel. We population trends, the population is

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:39 Aug 06, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09AUP1.SGM 09AUP1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 150 / Monday, August 9, 2021 / Proposed Rules 43481

assumed to be declining because of the Findings for Petitioned Candidate The species is classified as critically continued decline of the tapaculo’s Species endangered on the IUCN Red List. The species is not known to be in gallery-forest habitat. The species is For all 19 candidates, we continue to international trade, and the species is currently known to occur in six find that listing is warranted but not included in the Appendices to protected areas and has been found on precluded as of the date of publication CITES. The species is also not included private land next to protected areas. of this document. In the course of in the European Union Wildlife Trade These protected areas are limited in preparing proposed listing rules or not- extent and size, with few larger than Regulations. warranted petition findings in the In the October 10, 2019, CNOR, the 25,000 hectares (ha) (61,776 acres (ac)). future, we continue to monitor new In the early 2000s, only 1.2 percent of Sira curassow was assigned an LPN of information about these species’ status 2. After reevaluating the threats to the the Cerrado was in protected areas; so that we can make prompt use of our however, more recent estimates are 6.5 species, we have determined that no authority under section 4(b)(7) of the change in the LPN is warranted. The percent. Act in the case of an emergency posing Sira curassow does not represent a The primary threat to the species is a significant risk to any of these species. monotypic genus. It faces threats that ongoing habitat loss and fragmentation. Below are updated summaries for 18 are high in magnitude based on its very The Cerrado is the largest, most diverse, petitioned candidates that we did not small estimated population and limited and possibly most threatened tropical change the LPN, for which we range. The few locations where it exists savanna in the world. Land in the published findings under section continue to face pressure from hunting Cerrado is currently being converted for 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act. In accordance with and habitat loss. The best scientific and intensive grazing and mechanized section 4(b)(3)(C)(i), we treat any commercial data available indicate that agriculture, including soybean and rice petitions for which we made warranted- the population decline will continue in plantations. The tapaculo’s gallery- but-precluded 12-month findings within the future. Because the species is forest habitat has been less affected by the past year as having been resubmitted experiencing significant population clearing for agriculture than the on the date of the warranted-but- declines due to both hunting and habitat surrounding Cerrado. However, effects precluded finding. We are making loss and degradation, we have made no to gallery forest arise from wetland continued warranted-but-precluded 12- change to the LPN of 2, which reflects drainage and the diversion of water for month findings on the petitions for imminent threats of high magnitude. these species. irrigation and from annual burning of Southern Helmeted Curassow adjacent grasslands for agricultural Birds space. Effects from climate change may The southern helmeted curassow (Pauxi unicornis) is a game bird with a also be negatively altering the Cerrado Sira Curassow distinctive pale-blue, horn-like and the tapaculo’s specialized gallery- The Sira curassow (Pauxi koepckeae) appendage (or casque) above its bill. forest habitat within the Cerrado by is a large game bird that is known only The southern helmeted curassow is reducing the amount of available habitat from the Cerros del Sira region of Peru. known only from central Bolivia on the for the species. Size and coloration are similar to the eastern slope of the Andes, where large The IUCN recently changed the status southern helmeted curassow, but their portions of its habitat are in national of the species from near threatened to ranges are separated by approximately parks. The species inhabits dense, endangered, identifying the species’ 2,000 kilometers (1,243 miles), and the humid, foothill and lower montane small and fragmented range as Sira curassow has a shorter and rounder forest and adjacent evergreen forest at justification for the change in status. pale-blue casque (a horn-like bony altitudes between 450 and 1,500 m The Brazilian Red List assessed the appendage above the bill) that is (1,476 and 4,921 ft). species as endangered, noting severe flattened against the head. The total population of southern fragmentation and continuing decline in The Sira curassow inhabits cloud- helmeted curassow is estimated to be area and quality of habitat. International forest habitat (a type of rainforest that between 1,500 and 7,500 individuals trade is not a significant threat to the occurs on high mountains in the tropics) and is declining. Hunting the species is species, and the species is not included at elevations from 1,100–1,450 m estimated to be the primary threat to the in the Appendices to CITES. (3,609–4,757 ft) and above. species, followed by habitat loss and Historical population data are lacking, degradation. Although the national In the October 10, 2019, CNOR, we but the population is currently parks have been important for the ´ assigned the Brasılia tapaculo an LPN of estimated at fewer than 250 mature preservation of the species, financial 8. After reevaluating the available individuals and is declining. The and human resources needed to protect information, we have determined that a primary cause of the decline is ongoing park resources are limited. Within the change to an LPN of 2 is warranted at hunting by local indigenous parks, there are human settlements and this time. The Brası´lia tapaculo does not communities. Additionally, the Sira ongoing encroachment, including illegal represent a monotypic genus. Threats to curassow’s range within the Cerros del logging operations and forest clearing the species are high in magnitude and Sira region is limited (550 square for farming. Rural development and are imminent. Habitat destruction and kilometers (212 square miles)) and road building limit the species’ ability fragmentation and conversion of the declining. Its habitat is being degraded to disperse. Range reductions due to Cerrado, mainly for agriculture and by subsistence agriculture, forest effects from climate change are also livestock, is ongoing and affects the clearing, road building, and associated predicted for the southern helmeted small geographic range of the species. rural development. Although the Sira curassow, when warming temperatures The species only occurs in a handful of curassow is legally protected in a large may cause the species to shift its small protected areas, and even in these portion of its range in El Sira Communal distribution upslope and outside of areas the species is reported as rare. Reserve, illegal hunting still occurs. A protected national parks. Therefore, an LPN of 2 is valid for this majority of the deforestation occurs The southern helmeted curassow is species to reflect imminent threats of outside of the El Sira Communal classified as critically endangered on high magnitude. Reserve. the IUCN Red List. Trade has not been

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:39 Aug 06, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09AUP1.SGM 09AUP1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 43482 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 150 / Monday, August 9, 2021 / Proposed Rules

noted internationally, and the species is The best current population estimate monotypic genus or a full species. It not included in the Appendices to indicates that there are approximately faces threats that are high in magnitude CITES. In 1997, the species was listed 200 individuals. Researchers have due to a combination of factors in Annex B of the European Union determined that most, if not all, including its small population size and Wildlife Trade Regulations as part of a available habitat on Lord Howe Island is risks from nontarget poisoning from genus-level listing of all species in the occupied based on the estimate of 200 rodent control. Aspects of the rodent- genus Pauxi. The European Union individuals and estimates of the extent eradication program carry some risk, Wildlife Trade Regulations are directly of available breeding habitat. such as those associated with trapping applicable in all European Union The potential for the introduction of and holding the birds, and the effects of Member States; species listed on Annex other nonnative rodents to this island a missed breeding cycle. If the rodent- B require a permit for import. In 2008, ecosystem has also been identified as an eradication program is successful, the species was moved from Annex B to issue for this subspecies, although the effects from nontarget poisoning and Annex D (a lower level of protection) subspecies has persisted among invasive any predation by rodents on currawong because it was one of the species that black rats. Because the Lord Howe eggs will cease to be stressors for the are not subject to levels of international Island pied currawong often preys on currawong. However, because trade that might be incompatible with small rodents, it may be subject to significant conservation efforts for the their survival, but warrant monitoring of nontarget poisoning during ongoing rat- currawong have been implemented, and trade levels. The species continues to be baiting programs. In June 2019, the Lord the subspecies is being closely managed listed on Annex D; species listed on Howe Island Rodent Eradication Project and monitored, we find that the threats Annex D require an import notification began by placing poison bait traps are nonimminent. Therefore, based on form completed by the importer for around the island. To ensure the the best information available, an LPN import. currawong’s safety, project evaluators of 6 remains valid to reflect In the October 10, 2019, CNOR, the determined that approximately 50–60 nonimminent threats of high magnitude. percent of the wild population would southern helmeted curassow was need to be held in captive management Chatham Oystercatcher assigned an LPN of 2. After reevaluating during the eradication effort. The Chatham oystercatcher (Haematopus the threats to the species, we have subspecies is known to sometimes eat chathamensis) is the rarest determined that no change in the LPN rodents and feed them to their offspring. oystercatcher in the world, with a recent is warranted because the threats are of It is unlikely currawong targets the population estimate of 300 to 320 high magnitude and are imminent. The poison bait directly. A study is individuals. It is native to the Chatham southern helmeted curassow does not underway focusing on the effects of this Island group located 860 kilometers represent a monotypic genus. It faces project. In addition to its small (534 miles) east of mainland New threats that are high in magnitude based population size, direct persecution (via Zealand. The species breeds along the on its small, limited range. The few shootings) by humans in retaliation for coastline of four islands in the chain: locations where it exists continue to predation on domestic and endemic Chatham, Pitt, South East, and Mangere. face pressure from hunting and from birds has been documented. The The Chatham oystercatcher is found habitat loss and destruction, and the incidence of shootings has declined mainly along rocky shores, including population will likely continue to since the 1970s, when conservation wide volcanic rock platforms and decline. Because the species is efforts on Lord Howe Island began, but occasionally on sandy or gravelly experiencing ongoing population occasional shootings were still beaches. declines and habitat loss, an LPN of 2 occurring as recently as 2006. Another Predation of eggs and chicks, and to remains valid for this species, which potential threat to the currawong is a lesser extent of adults, is thought to be reflects imminent threats of high rising global temperatures associated the main threat to the Chatham magnitude. with climate change that may affect the oystercatcher population. Although the Lord Howe Island Pied Currawong cloud layer on the island’s Mangere and South East nature reserves mountaintops—resulting in drying of are free of all mammalian predators, Lord Howe Island pied currawong the forest where the currawong gets nonnative mammalian predators inhabit (Strepera graculina crissalis) is a fairly about half of its food, possibly creating Chatham and Pitt Islands. Feral cats are large, crow-like bird, endemic to Lord a food shortage for the subspecies. the most common predator of eggs. Howe Island, New South Wales, The New South Wales Threatened Other documented predators include Australia. Lord Howe Island is a small Species Conservation Act of 1995 lists gulls (Larus spp.), the native brown skua island northeast of Sydney, Australia, the Lord Howe Island pied currawong as (Catharacta antarctica), weka with 28 smaller islets and rocks. The vulnerable due to its extremely limited (Gallirallus australis hectori), and Lord Howe Island pied currawong range and its small population size, as domestic dogs. Nest destruction and occurs throughout the island but is most does Australia’s Environment Protection disturbance by humans and livestock numerous in the mountainous areas on and Biodiversity Conservation Act List are also noted threats. Habitat loss and the southern end. It has also been of Threatened Fauna. The subspecies is degradation has occurred from recorded to a limited extent on the not listed on the IUCN Red List, is not introductions of nonnative marram grass Admiralty Islands, located 1 kilometer included in the Appendices to CITES, (Ammophila arenaria) in the early (0.6 mile) north of Lord Howe Island. and this subspecies is not known to be 1900s to revegetate destabilized dunes. The Lord Howe Island pied currawong in international trade. The dense marram grass is unsuitable breeds in rainforests and palm forests, In the October 10, 2019, CNOR, the for Chatham oystercatcher nesting. particularly along streams. Lord Howe Island pied currawong was Consequently, the Chatham Approximately 75 percent of Lord Howe assigned an LPN of 6. After reevaluating oystercatcher is forced to nest closer to Island, plus all outlying islets and rocks the threats to the Lord Howe Island pied shore, where nests are vulnerable to within the Lord Howe Island group, is currawong, we have determined that no tides and storm surges; up to 50 percent protected under the Permanent Park change in the LPN for the subspecies is of eggs are lost in some years. Rising sea Preserve, which has similar status to warranted. The Lord Howe Island pied levels associated with climate change that of a national park. currawong does not represent a will likely affect future nesting success.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:39 Aug 06, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09AUP1.SGM 09AUP1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 150 / Monday, August 9, 2021 / Proposed Rules 43483

Additionally, the Chatham oystercatcher indications that both the offshore and captive-breeding, and translocations to may be at risk from loss of genetic mainland populations have declined to offshore islands. The species faces diversity given its small population size. around 100 and 250 birds, respectively, threats (e.g., predation, habitat The species has experienced a three- but these are rough estimates. In 2019, degradation, and competition for food fold increase in its population since the the orange-fronted parakeet had one of and suitable nesting habitat) that are first reliable census was conducted in its best breeding seasons in decades moderate in magnitude because the 1987. Most of this increase occurred with more than three times as many NZDOC continues to take measures to during a period of intensive nests compared to previous years and aid the recovery of the species. We find management, especially predator produced at least 150 wild-born chicks, that the threats to this species are control, from 1998 through 2004. The potentially doubling the population. ongoing and imminent. Therefore, an Chatham oystercatcher is listed as The most prominent factors affecting LPN of 8 remains valid for this species nationally critical by the NZDOC and it the species on the mainland are to reflect imminent threats of moderate is protected under New Zealand’s predation by nonnative mammals such magnitude. Wildlife Act. It is classified as as weasels and rats (Rattus spp.), as well ´ endangered on the IUCN Red List, and as habitat destruction. Trade of this Bogota Rail the species is not included in the species is not known to be a threat. The Bogota´ rail (Rallus Appendices to CITES. Habitat loss and degradation has semiplumbeus) is a medium-sized In the October 10, 2019, CNOR, the historically affected large areas of native nonmigratory bird. The species is found Chatham oystercatcher was assigned an forest on the mainland. The species’ in the East Andes of Colombia, South LPN of 8. After reevaluating the threats habitat is also degraded by introduced America, and is largely restricted to to this species, we have determined no herbivores that alter forest structure in areas at elevation from 2,500–4,000 m change in the LPN for the species is a way that reduces the available feeding (8,202–13,123 ft) in and surrounding warranted. The Chatham oystercatcher habitat for the parakeet. Additionally, Bogota´, Colombia, on the Ubate´-Bogota´ does not represent a monotypic genus. silviculture (care and cultivation) of Plateau. This region formerly supported The current population estimate is very beech forests has removed mature trees vast marshes and swamps, but few lakes small, and the species has a limited with nest cavities needed by the species. with suitable habitat for the rail remain. range. The NZDOC has taken measures The parakeet competes with two other The species is secretive, and wetland to recover and maintain the species, and native parakeets for nest sites and food habitats most frequently used by rail are the population appears to have and with nonnative wasps and finches fringed by dense vegetation-rich stabilized. However, the species for food. Lastly, Psittacine beak and shallows. continues to face moderate threats from feather disease virus is a potential threat The current population size of the predation, trampling, nest disturbance, to this species. The disease was Bogota´ rail is estimated between 1,000 storm surges, and habitat loss due to discovered in wild native birds (e.g., the and 2,500 mature individuals and is nonnative marram grass that are red-fronted parakeet, Cyanoramphus thought to be declining. The primary affecting nesting success and survival. novaezelandiae) in New Zealand in threat to the rail is habitat loss and These threats are ongoing and 2008. Infected birds generally follow degradation of wetlands. Approximately imminent. The LPN remains an 8 to one of three paths: They develop 8 million people live in the City of reflect imminent threats of moderate immunity, die within a couple of weeks, Bogota´, and 11 million in the larger magnitude. or become chronically infected. Chronic metro area. The wetlands have experienced a 97 percent loss in Orange-Fronted Parakeet infections result in feather loss and deformities of beak and feathers. historical extent with few suitably Orange-fronted parakeet However, the disease has not been vegetated marshes remaining. (Cyanoramphus malherbi) is considered documented in the orange-fronted Additionally, road building may result the rarest parakeet in New Zealand. It is parakeet. in further habitat loss and human distributed on the South Island of The species was uplisted from interference, including introduction of mainland New Zealand and a few nationally endangered to nationally nonnative species in previously stable offshore islands. The three remaining critical by the NZDOC, it is protected wetland environments. The Bogota´ rail naturally occurring populations are all under New Zealand’s Wildlife Act, and is listed as endangered by IUCN. The within a 30-kilometer (18.6-mile) radius is listed as critically endangered on the species is not known to be in of one another in fragmented beech tree IUCN’s Red List. The orange-fronted international trade, and is not included forests (Nothofagus spp.) of the upland parakeet is included in Appendix II to in the Appendices to CITES. valleys. Orange-fronted parakeets have CITES. In the October 10, 2019, CNOR, the also been captive-bred and released onto In the October 10, 2019, CNOR, the Bogota´ rail was assigned an LPN of 2. four predator-free islands where orange-fronted parakeet was assigned an After reevaluating the threats to this breeding has been confirmed. LPN of 8. After reevaluating the factors species, we have determined that no The species’ range contracted when affecting the species, we have change in the LPN for the species is its population was severely reduced in determined that no change in the LPN needed. The Bogota´ rail does not the late 1800s and early 1900s for is warranted because NZDOC is actively represent a monotypic genus. It faces unknown reasons. From 1999 to 2000, managing for the species including threats that are high in magnitude due the mainland population crashed from monitoring known populations, to the pressures on the species’ habitat. perhaps 500 to 700 birds to a rough successfully captive-breeding and Its range is very small and is rapidly estimate of 100 to 200 birds as a result releasing birds into the wild, and contracting because of widespread of ship rat or black rat (Rattus rattus) implementing predator control habitat loss and degradation of eruptions. Information on the current programs. The orange-fronted parakeet wetlands. Although portions of the population status is mixed. In 2013, the does not represent a monotypic genus. Bogota´ rail’s range occur in protected total population was estimated between Although the species’ available suitable areas, most of the savanna wetlands are 290 and 690 individuals (130 to 270 on nesting habitat in beech forests is unprotected. The population is small the mainland, and 160 to 420 on the limited, there appears to have been and is estimated to be declining. The islands). More recently, there are some success with predator control, factors affecting the species are ongoing

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:39 Aug 06, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09AUP1.SGM 09AUP1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 43484 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 150 / Monday, August 9, 2021 / Proposed Rules

and imminent. Thus, the LPN remains we have determined that no change in have largely been destroyed, and habitat at 2 to reflect imminent threats of high the classification of the magnitude and loss and degradation will likely increase magnitude. imminence of threats to the species is in the future. Additional habitat loss warranted at this time. The takahe¯ does from sea-level rise associated with Takahe¯ not represent a monotypic genus. global climate change may compound The takahe¯ (Porphyrio hochstetteri) is Limited suitable habitat and the threat an increased demand by humans to the largest extant rail in the world. It is of predation, combined with the develop the remaining land. Small flightless. The takahe¯ was once takahe¯’s small population size and portions of this species’ range occur in widespread in the forest and grassland naturally low reproductive rate, are six protected areas, but intact lowland ecosystems on the South Island of New threats to this species that are moderate forest, restinga, and mangrove habitats Zealand. It was thought to be extinct in magnitude. Although it has a small used by resident black-backed tanagers until it was rediscovered in the population, has limited suitable habitat, on the northern part of Santa Catarina Murchison Mountains on the South and may experience inbreeding Island is unprotected. Island in 1948, inhabiting depression, because the NZDOC is The black-backed tanager is classified approximately 650 square kilometers actively involved in measures to aid the as vulnerable by the IUCN. The species (251 square miles). In addition to its recovery of the species, we find the is also listed as vulnerable in Brazil. It native range on the mainland, the threats are moderate in magnitude. is not included in the Appendices to takahe¯ has been introduced to offshore Despite the conservation efforts, the CITES, although it has infrequently been islands and mainland sanctuaries. When threats are ongoing and imminent. illegally sold in the pet trade. rediscovered in 1948, it was estimated Therefore, the LPN remains at 8 to In the October 10, 2019, CNOR, the that the population consisted of 100 to reflect imminent threats of moderate black-backed tanager was assigned an 300 birds, and the minimum total magnitude. LPN of 8. After reevaluating the population now rests at 306 individuals. available information, we have Several factors have historically led to Black-Backed Tanager determined that no change in the LPN the species’ decline, including hunting, Black-backed tanager (Tangara for this species is warranted at this time. competition from introduced herbivores peruviana) is a small bird endemic to The black-backed tanager does not (animals that feed on plants), and the coastal Atlantic Forest region of represent a monotypic genus. We find predators such as weasels and the weka, southeastern Brazil. It is currently found that the threat from habitat loss is a flightless woodhen that is endemic to in the coastal states of Espirito Santo, moderate in magnitude due to the New Zealand. Currently, weasel Rio de Janeiro, Sa˜o Paulo, Parana´, Santa species’ fairly large range, its existence predation appears to be the most Catarina, and Rio Grande do Sul. The in protected areas, and an indication of significant of these threats. Weasel species is generally restricted to the some flexibility in its diet and habitat trapping is an effective tool at slowly sand-forest restinga habitat, which is a suitability. Threats are imminent increasing survival and reproductive coastal component habitat of the greater because the species is at risk due to output of takahe¯; however, control Atlantic Forest complex. Restingas are ongoing and widespread loss of habitat efforts do not completely eliminate the herbaceous, shrubby, coastal sand-dune due to beachfront and related threat. habitats. The black-backed tanager is development. Therefore, an LPN of 8 Takahe¯ is a long-lived bird, primarily found in undisturbed remains valid for this species to reflect potentially living between 14 and 20 vegetated habitat but has also been imminent threats of moderate years, and has a low reproductive rate, observed in secondary-growth forests. It magnitude. with clutches consisting of one to three has also been observed visiting gardens eggs. Severe weather in the Murchison and orchards of houses close to forested Yellow-Browed Toucanet Mountains (cold winters and high areas. The black-backed tanager is one Yellow-browed toucanet snowfall) may also be a limiting factor of just a few tanagers known to migrate (Aulacorhynchus huallagae) is a rare to the takahe¯. The population of takahe¯ seasonally. Within suitable habitat, the bird in the toucan family. The species remains very small and has low genetic black-backed tanager is generally not has a small range on the eastern slope diversity relative to other species. The considered rare. The population of the Andes of north-central Peru, at New Zealand Department of estimate is between 2,500 to 10,000 elevations of 2,000–2,600 m (6,562– Conservation (NZDOC) is currently mature individuals. Populations 8,530 ft). The yellow-browed toucanet attempting to manage further loss of currently appear to be small, occurs in humid montane forests and genetic diversity through translocations. fragmented, and declining. The occupies four known locations within Additionally, NZDOC has implemented estimated extent of the resident and its small range. Part of the species’ range a captive-breeding and release program breeding range in 2015 was 9,400 square is within national parks. The population to supplement the mainland population kilometers (3,629 square miles). status is not well known because of the and has established several reserve However, estimates have since inaccessibility of its habitat, but is populations on islands and fenced increased to 316,000 square kilometers estimated at 600 to 1,500 mature mainland sites; these actions are having (122,008 square miles) because of individuals. a positive effect on population growth. updated information in the reported Deforestation for livestock, New Zealand considers the takahe¯ a range in coastal areas south of Rio de agriculture, timber, and gold mining nationally vulnerable species and it is Janeiro beyond Florianopolis and into appears to be the primary threat. Habitat protected under New Zealand’s Wildlife the northeast corner of Rio Grande do loss and destruction from deforestation Act. The takahe¯ is listed as endangered Sul. for agriculture have been widespread in on the IUCN Red List. The species is not The primary factor affecting the the region. The yellow-browed toucanet known to be in international trade, and species is rapid and widespread loss is described as scarce wherever found, the species is not included in the and fragmentation of habitat because of and ongoing population and habitat Appendices to CITES. urban expansion and beachfront declines resulting from habitat loss are In the October 10, 2019, CNOR, the development. The black-backed assumed. takahe¯ was assigned an LPN of 8. After tanager’s remaining suitable habitat in The yellow-browed toucanet is reevaluating the threats to the takahe¯, the areas of Rio de Janeiro and Parana´ classified as endangered on the IUCN

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:39 Aug 06, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09AUP1.SGM 09AUP1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 150 / Monday, August 9, 2021 / Proposed Rules 43485

Red List, as well as by the Peruvian in the Appendices to CITES, and this available information, we find that no government. The species is not included species is not known to be in change in the LPN for the helmeted in the Appendices to CITES. international trade. woodpecker is warranted. The helmeted In the October 10, 2019, CNOR, the In the October 10, 2019, CNOR, the woodpecker does not represent a yellow-browed toucanet was assigned Gizo white-eye was assigned an LPN of monotypic genus. The magnitude of an LPN of 2. After reevaluating the 2. After reevaluating the available threats to the species is moderate available information, we find that no information, we find that no change in because the species’ range is fairly large. change in the LPN is warranted at this the LPN is warranted. The Gizo white- The threats are imminent because the time. The yellow-browed toucanet does eye does not represent a monotypic forest habitat upon which the species not represent a monotypic genus. The genus. It faces threats that are high in depends is still being altered and estimated population is small with just magnitude due to declining suitable degraded. Therefore, an LPN of 8 three known locations within a habitat and its small, declining continues to be valid for this species to restricted range. The magnitude of population size. The best information reflect imminent threats of moderate threats to the habitat remains high, and available indicates that forest clearing is magnitude. its population is likely declining. occurring at a pace that is rapidly Therefore, an LPN of 2 remains valied denuding its habitat; secondary-growth Okinawa Woodpecker for this species to reflect imminent forest continues to be converted to Okinawa woodpecker (Dendrocopos threats of high magnitude. agricultural purposes. Additionally, the noguchii syn. Sapheopipo noguchii) is a human population on the small island Gizo White-Eye relatively large woodpecker found on is likely contributing to the reduction in Okinawa Island, Japan, and one of the Gizo white-eye (Zosterops luteirostris) old-growth forest for local uses such as world’s rarest woodpeckers. The species is a small passerine (perching) bird timber and clearing for gardens. These prefers subtropical evergreen broadleaf described as warbler-like. It is endemic threats to the species are ongoing, high forests that are undisturbed and mature. to the small island of Ghizo in the in magnitude, and imminent. Therefore, It currently occurs within the forested Solomon Islands in the South Pacific an LPN of 2 remains valid for this areas in the northern part of the island, Ocean, east of Papua New Guinea. The species to reflect imminent threats of generally in the Yambaru forest, and in total range of the species is estimated to high magnitude. some undisturbed forest in coastal areas. be less than 35 square kilometers (13.5 Most of the older forests that support square miles), of which less than 1 Helmeted Woodpecker the species are within the Jungle square kilometer (0.39 square mile) is Helmeted woodpecker (Dryocopus Warfare Training Center (formerly the old-growth forest that the species galeatus) is a fairly small woodpecker known as the Northern Training Area or seems to prefer. Little information is native to regions of southern Brazil, available about this species and its eastern Paraguay, and northeastern Camp Gonsalves), part of the U.S. habitat. It is locally common in old- Argentina. The helmeted woodpecker is Marine Corps installation on Okinawa growth forest patches and less common nonmigratory, occurring in Island. elsewhere. The species has been subpopulations in suitable habitat Deforestation in the Yambaru region observed in a variety of habitats on the within its range. Characteristic habitat is has been cited as the main cause of the island, but it is unknown whether large tracts of well-preserved southern Okinawa woodpecker’s reduced habitat sustainable populations can exist Atlantic Forest in both lowland and and population. As of the mid 1990s, outside of forested habitats. The montane areas from sea level up to only 40 square kilometers (15 square population is estimated to be between elevations of 1,000 m (3,280 ft). The miles) of suitable habitat was available 250 and 1,000 mature individuals and is species prefers mature (old-growth) for this species. While most of the suspected to be declining. trees in tropical and subtropical semi- activities associated with habitat loss Habitat loss appears to be the main deciduous forests as well as in mixed appear to have ceased, the Okinawa threat. The loss of old-growth forested deciduous coniferous forests. woodpecker still suffers from limited areas and less suitable secondary growth The helmeted woodpecker is one of suitable habitat and a small population forests because of logging, conversion to the rarest woodpeckers in the Americas. size. This situation makes it vulnerable agricultural areas, and local resource Its population declined sharply between to extinction from disease and natural extraction for firewood affect the 1945 and 2000, in conjunction with the disasters such as typhoons. species. Forested areas around Gizo—a clearing of mature forest habitat, and is Additionally, the species is vulnerable town on Ghizo Island and the capital of currently estimated at 400–8,900 to introduced predators such as feral Solomon Islands Western Province— individuals. The principal threat to the dogs and cats, Javan mongoose that previously supported the species helmeted woodpecker is loss, (Herpestes javanicus), and Japanese were degraded by the 2007 tsunami and degradation, and fragmentation of its weasel (Mustela itatsi). were found less likely to support the Atlantic Forest habitat. Forest clearing In 2016, the Japanese Government species even 5 years later in 2012. The has recently slowed, and the species designated Yambaru National Park and dense human population of the occurs in at least 17 protected areas nominated the northern part of Okinawa Solomon Islands may also be adversely throughout its range. However, habitat Island (including Yambaru National affecting the Gizo white-eye and its degradation continues, and the Park) as a United Nations Educational, habitat. There has been prolific growth population is likely declining. Scientific and Cultural Organization in human settlement on Ghizo Island, Competition for nest cavities is also World Heritage Centre. The species is mainly in the form of temporary likely a limiting factor. The helmeted listed as critically endangered in the housing. Small populations of the Gizo woodpecker is listed as endangered in Red List of Threatened Birds in Japan white-eye are likely subject to both Brazil and as vulnerable by the IUCN. It and protected from acquisition and demographic and unpredictable is not included in the Appendices to transfer under Japan’s wildlife environmental events that can CITES. protection system. Okinawa contribute to extirpations. In the October 10, 2019, CNOR, the woodpecker is not included in the The IUCN Red List classifies this helmeted woodpecker was assigned an Appendices to CITES, and is not known species as endangered. It is not included LPN of 8. After reevaluating the to be in international trade.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:39 Aug 06, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09AUP1.SGM 09AUP1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 43486 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 150 / Monday, August 9, 2021 / Proposed Rules

In the October 10, 2019, CNOR, the River dams were built, we are not aware LPN of 8 remains valid for this species Okinawa woodpecker was assigned an of total population estimates covering to reflect imminent threats of moderate LPN of 2. After reevaluating the its full range because benthic surveys of magnitude. available information, we find that no the near-coastal invertebrate macrofauna Fluminense Swallowtail change in the LPN is warranted. The in central and southern Gulf are lacking. Okinawa woodpecker does not The species has not been assessed for Fluminense swallowtail (Parides represent a monotypic genus. Threats to the IUCN Red List. It is not ascanius) is a black, white, and red the species are high in magnitude due commercially harvested or known to be swallowtail butterfly. The species may to the scarcity of its old-growth habitat. in international trade, and is not be confused with the Harris’ mimic The population is very small and is included in the Appendices to CITES. swallowtail, but the Harris’ mimic has a likely declining. Although new Although the specific causes for the red streak on the underside of its wing. protected areas have been established dramatic decline of the clam in the The fluminense swallowtail also that will likely benefit the Okinawa Colorado delta and upper Gulf of inhabits the restinga (sand forest) woodpecker, it is not yet clear that these California region have not definitively habitats of the coastal Atlantic Forest of areas will be fully protected from been identified, several researchers have Brazil within the State of Rio de Janeiro. logging and other anthropogenic indicated that it was a consequence of There are at least eight confirmed development and nonnative predators. decrease in the Colorado River’s inflow subpopulations of fluminense Even though threats from logging have to the estuary since completion of the swallowtail, and several other small, been reduced, it will take many years dams. Environmental changes to the likely ephemeral, subpopulations are for secondary and clear-cut forest estuary associated with the decrease in currently being studied (i.e., 8–12 habitat to mature such that it is suitable river inflow include increased salinity, estimated subpopulations). The overall for the woodpecker. The threats to the decreased sediment load, decreased number of subpopulations reported for species are ongoing, imminent, and high input of naturally derived nutrients, and the species has declined from fewer in magnitude due to its restricted range, elimination of the spring/summer flood. than 20 colonies in 1994, to 8 to 12 in small population size, past habitat loss, Dams and diversions along the Colorado 2017. The butterfly is described as and endemism. Therefore, an LPN of 2 River have greatly affected the estuarine seasonally common, with sightings of remains valid for this species to reflect environment of the Colorado delta and up to 50 individuals at one colony in a imminent threats of high magnitude. have likely caused the localized decline single morning. A study at Biological in abundance of the clam in this region. Reserve of Poc¸o das Antas estimated Invertebrates However, the best available information that the subpopulation ranged from 10 Colorado Delta Clam does not indicate that dams and to 50 individuals. The best available diversions are a stressor for the information does not provide estimates Colorado delta clam (Mulinia Colorado delta clam elsewhere within for butterfly numbers in the remaining modesta) is a relatively large, estuarine its range in the northern and central subpopulations. The best available bivalve that was once very abundant at portions of the Gulf of California. information indicates that there is a the head of the Gulf of California in the Additionally, stressors for the clam decline of subpopulations as well as a Colorado River estuary in Mexico prior throughout its range may arise from decrease in the numbers of individuals to the construction of dams on the other natural or manmade factors within each subpopulation. An estimate Colorado River. Recognizing that the affecting the clam’s continued existence, of the total area occupied by this species clam is M. modesta, we now also such as pollution-related problems and is less than 500 square kilometers (193 recognize that the clam has a broader effects from climate change, which are square miles). distribution into the northern and likely to increase in the future. Habitat loss, degradation, and central portions of the Gulf of In the October 10, 2019, CNOR, the fragmentation are the primary threats to California. Therefore, the species is Colorado delta clam was assigned an this species. The species occupies more widespread and found in the LPN of 8. With the confirmation that the highly specialized habitat and requires upper, northern, and central portions of clam is Mulinia modesta, we recognize large areas to maintain a viable colony. the Gulf of California, and is capable of that it has a broader distribution into the Based on a number of estimates, 88 to living in salinities ranging from brackish northern and central portions of the 95 percent of the area historically (mixture of salt and fresh water) to full Gulf of California and is capable of covered by tropical forests within the seawater. living in full seawater. However, we Atlantic Forest biome has been Information regarding abundance of lack information about the distribution converted or severely degraded as a the Colorado delta clam in the Gulf of and viability of populations of the clam result of human activities. Habitat loss California is limited. The minimum outside of the Colorado delta region. and destruction is caused primarily by average standing population of the Despite the conservation measures in road and building construction, Colorado delta clam in the upper Gulf place (primarily portions of the species’ drainage of swamps, and vegetation was estimated to be at least 5 billion range occurring within two large suppression, and the remaining tracts individuals over the past 1,000 years to protected areas), the species continues are severely fragmented. Fire, either account for the shells accumulated in to face habitat loss and degradation in wildfire or human-caused, has the ridges, with the delta clam accounting the Colorado delta region due to dams potential to destroy the few remaining for 84–95 percent of all bivalve and diversions on the Colorado River, occupied habitats. This coastal butterfly mollusks in the upper Gulf. However, along with other changes associated may also be affected by habitat loss from after decades of dam building on the with decrease in river inflow and sea-level rise, which may be Colorado River and its tributaries, the pollution. Because this threat appears to compounded by human use of the Colorado delta clam is estimated to be be affecting the clam in upper Gulf of remaining land for infrastructure and 6 percent as abundant in the upper Gulf California, and not in the remainder of housing. The species’ life history also as it was before dam construction began. its range, it is moderate in magnitude. contributes to its scarcity. Fluminense While it is clear the clam has declined The threat of habitat loss and swallowtails, whose larvae feed only on dramatically in the upper Gulf where it degradation in the Colorado delta region a single plant species, tend to be more was most abundant before Colorado is ongoing and imminent. Therefore, an affected by habitat degradation than

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:39 Aug 06, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09AUP1.SGM 09AUP1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 150 / Monday, August 9, 2021 / Proposed Rules 43487

species with multiple food sources. Hahnel’s Amazonian Swallowtail continue. Potential impacts from Illegal collection of the fluminense Hahnel’s Amazonian swallowtail collection are unknown but could, in swallowtail is likely occurring and (Parides hahneli) is a large black and combination with other stressors, ongoing. The species is located near yellow butterfly endemic to Brazil. It is contribute to local extirpations. urban areas and is easy to capture. known from three remote locations Therefore, an LPN of 2 remains valid for Recently, multiple specimens of along the tributaries of the middle and this species to reflect imminent threats fluminense swallowtail have been lower Amazon River basin in the states of high magnitude. advertised online with costs ranging of Amazonas and Para´. Its preferred Harris’ Mimic Swallowtail from $220 to $700 USD. The impact of habitat is on old sand strips (stranded Harris’ mimic swallowtail (Mimoides illegal collection to the fluminense beaches) that are overgrown with dense lysithous harrisianus) is a medium-sized swallowtail is difficult to assess, but scrub vegetation or forest. Hahnel’s black, white, and red swallowtail removal of individuals from the Amazonian swallowtail is described as butterfly that inhabits the mixed dense remaining small and fragmented very scarce and extremely localized in and open scrubby restinga (sand forest) populations could, in combination with association with its specialized habitat habitats within the coastal Atlantic other stressors, contribute to local and its larval host plant. Population size Forest of Brazil. The Harris’ mimic extirpations. and trends are not known for this swallowtail butterfly mimics three Only one of the subpopulations is species. butterfly species in the Parides genus, Loss of habitat from deforestation is presently found within a large protected primarily the Flumenense swallowtail the primary threat to the species. Brazil area (Poc¸o das Antas Biological (Parides ascanius). The butterflies it reported the greatest loss of primary mimics sequester toxins from host Reserve), and the majority of the forest from 1990 to 2015, and the states remaining populations are on smaller, plants, rendering them toxic to most of Para´ and Amazonas experienced high predators. The subspecies historically fragmented parcels with limited or no rates of deforestation in the last decade. protections and are vulnerable to occurred in southern Espı´rito Santo Habitat loss and destruction will likely State and along the coast of the State of extirpation. The fluminense swallowtail continue in the future. Additionally, was the first invertebrate to be officially Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Records indicated habitat alteration and destruction for that there are a total of five sites noted on the list of Brazilian animals dam construction, agriculture, and cattle occupied by the butterfly in the State of threatened with extinction in 1973. The grazing, as well as crop transportation, Rio de Janeiro. Two areas are within species is currently categorized by are ongoing in Para´ and Amazonas. protected national parks, and the other Brazil as endangered. It has been Collection is also a potential threat for sites appear to be under municipal classified as vulnerable by the IUCN Hahnel’s Amazonian swallowtail. The conservation with uncertain protected Red List since 1983, and it is not species has been collected for status, including sites in the City of Rio included in the Appendices to CITES. commercial trade and also may be de Janeiro that are located in small However, the European Commission reared for trade. Locations in the wild patches of vegetation and are possibly at listed the species on Annex B of the have been kept secret given the high risk of extirpation. The best-studied site European Union Wildlife Trade value of this butterfly to collectors. at Barra de Sa˜o Joa˜o has maintained a Regulations; species listed on Annex B Multiple specimens of Hahnel’s stable and viable size for nearly two require a permit for import. Amazonian swallowtail were noted for decades, but there is limited In the October 10, 2019, CNOR, the sale or sold from locations in the United information on its status since 2004. fluminense swallowtail was assigned an States for $70 to $500 USD and from The best available data do not indicate LPN of 2. After reevaluating the Germany (approximately $166 USD). recent population numbers in any of the Hahnel’s Amazonian swallowtail is stressors to this species, we have other colonies or locations. classified as data deficient on the IUCN determined that no change to the LPN Habitat destruction has been the main Red List. The species is listed as is warranted. The fluminense threat and is ongoing. Based on a endangered on the State of Para´’s list of number of estimates, 88 to 95 percent of swallowtail does not represent a threatened species, but it is not listed by the area historically covered by tropical monotypic genus. The overall number of the State of Amazonas or by Brazil. forests within the Atlantic Forest biome subpopulations recorded for the species Hahnel’s Amazonian swallowtail is not has been converted or severely degraded has declined from previous records of included in the Appendices to CITES. It as the result of human activities. In fewer than 20 colonies to approximately is listed on Annex B of the European addition to the overall loss and 8 to 12, and the species continues to Union Wildlife Trade Regulations; degradation of its habitat, the remaining decline. Threats are high in magnitude species listed on Annex B require a tracts of its habitat are severely and imminent because of ongong habitat permit for import. fragmented. Fire, either wildfire or loss and fragmentation, catastrophic In the October 10, 2019, CNOR, the human-caused, is a stressor for Harris’ events of wildfire, and illegal collection. Hahnel’s Amazonian swallowtail was mimic swallowtail due to its potential to Only one of the known subpopulations assigned an LPN of 2. After reevaluating destroy the few remaining occupied is presently found within a large the threats to the Hahnel’s Amazonian habitats. Sea-level rise may result in protected area. The majority of the swallowtail, we have determined that habitat loss, and this loss from sea-level remaining subpopulations are on small, no change in the LPN is warranted. This rise may be compounded by an fragmented parcels with limited or no swallowtail does not represent a increased demand by humans to use protections and are vulnerable to monotypic genus. It faces threats that remaining land for housing and extirpation. Despite the conservation are high in magnitude and imminent infrastructure. Collection may also affect measures in place, the species continues due to its small endemic population and this butterfly. Although Harris’ mimic to face stressors (e.g., habitat loss and the limited and decreasing availability swallowtail is categorized as destruction, and illegal collection and of its highly specialized habitat. Habitat endangered on the list of Brazilian fauna trade). Therefore, an LPN of 2 remains alteration and destruction are ongoing threatened with extinction, and valid for this species to reflect imminent in Para´ and Amazonas where the collection and trade of the subspecies is threats of high magnitude. butterfly is found and are likely to prohibited, it has been offered for sale

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:39 Aug 06, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09AUP1.SGM 09AUP1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 43488 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 150 / Monday, August 9, 2021 / Proposed Rules

on the internet. Specimens of Harris’ extraction. Only 8 percent of the total an LPN of 2. After reevaluating the mimic swallowtail are routinely land area of Jamaica is natural forest factors affecting the Jamaican kite advertised online ranging from $1,000 to with minimal human disturbance. More swallowtail, we have determined that $2,200 U.S. dollars (USD), indicating recent habitat destruction is occurring no change in LPN is warranted because that illegal collection and trade may be primarily from sapling cutting for yam the threats are high in magnitude and occurring and demand for this butterfly sticks, fish pots, or charcoal. Charcoal- imminent. The Jamaican kite is high. Harris’ mimic swallowtail is not making also carries the risk of fire, swallowtail does not represent a currently on the IUCN Red list, although which may destroy pupae in the leaf monotypic genus. The Jamaican kite it was identified as a threatened or litter. Additionally, mining for swallowtail is known from only five extinct subspecies in the family limestone that is used for roadbuilding small subpopulations, and as few as two Papilionidae in the 1994 IUCN Red List. and bauxite production that is an of these subpopulations may presently The subspecies is not included in the important economic activity pose be viable. Although Jamaica has taken Appendices to CITES. It is also not threats to remaining forested tracts. The regulatory steps to preserve native regulated on the annexes to European two strongest subpopulations occur in swallowtail habitat, plans for Union Wildlife Trade Regulations. protected areas, although habitat conservation of vital areas for the In the October 10, 2019, CNOR, destruction within these areas butterfly have not been implemented. Harris’ mimic swallowtail was assigned continues. Additionally, Jamaica’s Thus, an LPN of 2 remains valid for this an LPN of 3. After reevaluating the Forest Act of 1996 and Forest species to reflect imminent threats of threats to this subspecies, we have Regulations Act of 2001 have increased high magnitude. determined that no change in the LPN the power of Jamaican authorities to Kaiser-i-Hind Swallowtail is warranted. Harris’ mimic swallowtail protect the species’ habitat; the is a subspecies that is not within a Jamaican kite swallowtail is included in Kaiser-i-Hind swallowtail monotypic genus. Threats are high in Jamaica’s National Strategy and Action (Teinopalpus imperialis) is a green, magnitude and imminent because the Plan on Biological Diversity. This black, and orange swallowtail butterfly butterfly only occurs in a few small, strategy established specific plans for that is large, ornate, and native to the fragmented colonies, habitat loss and protecting sites that support two Himalayan regions of Bhutan, China, degradation is ongoing, and the subpopulations of the swallowtail, but, India, Laos, Myanmar, Nepal, Thailand, potential for catastrophic events such as to date, they have not been initiated due and Vietnam. The species occurs in the fire remains. Additionally, although the to funding and capacity constraints. foothills of the Himalayan Mountains subspecies is protected by Brazilian law Illegal collection and trade of the and other mountainous regions at and several of the colonies are located species may be occurring. Three altitudes of 1,500–3,050 m (4,921– within protected areas, the high price specimens of the Jamaican kite 10,000 ft) above sea level, in advertised online for specimens swallowtail were noted for sale on the undisturbed (primary) broad-leaved indicates that there is demand for the internet as recently as 2017, for as much evergreen forests or montane deciduous subspecies, likely from illegal as $120 USD, and one specimen sold in forests. Although it has a relatively large collection. Despite the conservation 2015 for $178 USD. Specimens of the range, it is restricted to higher measures in place, the species continues Homerus swallowtail (Papilio homerus, elevations and occurs only locally to face stressors (e.g., habitat loss and another rare Jamaican butterfly) have within this range, and populations are destruction, and illegal collection and also been illegally traded, indicating described as being very local and never trade). Therefore, an LPN of 3 remains that there is a market for Jamaican abundant. Even early accounts of the valid for this subspecies to reflect butterflies despite heavy fines under the species described it as being a very rare imminent threats of high magnitude. Jamaican Wildlife Protection Act. occurrence. Larval host plants are Predation from native predators, limited to Magnolia and Daphne Jamaican Kite Swallowtail including spiders, the Jamaican tody species, and in some regions the Kaiser- Jamaican kite swallowtail (Todus todus), and praying mantis i-Hind swallowtail is strictly (Protographium marcellinus, syn. (Mantis religiosa), may be adversely monophagous, only using a single Eurytides marcellinus) is a small blue- affecting the Jamaican kite swallowtail, species of Magnolia as a host plant. green and black butterfly endemic to especially in the smaller Habitat destruction negatively affects Jamaica. This butterfly is regarded as subpopulations. In years where large this species, which prefers undisturbed, Jamaica’s most endangered butterfly. numbers of spiders were observed, very high-altitude forests. In China and India, The species occurs in three limestone few Jamaican kite swallowtail larvae the Kaiser-i-Hind swallowtail forest habitats containing dense stands survived. Additionally, this species may populations are affected by habitat of its only known larval host plant, be at greater risk of extinction due to modification and destruction due to Oxandra lanceolata, known as black natural events such as hurricanes, and commercial and illegal logging, as well lancewood or West Indian lancewood, small fragmented subpopulations are as clearing for agriculture in India. In and these stands are rare. There are five generally at greater risk of extinction Nepal, the species is affected by habitat known sites that support colonies of the from habitat loss, predation, and disturbance and destruction resulting Jamaican kite swallowtail, although stochastic environmental events. from mining, wood collection for use as there is no known estimate of Since 1985, the Jamaican kite fuel, deforestation, collection of fodders population size. Two of the sites may be swallowtail has been categorized on and fiber plants, forest fires, invasion of recently extirpated, one is thought to be IUCN’s Red List as vulnerable, but the bamboo species into the oak forests, tenuous, and two are viable with strong assessment is marked as needs agriculture, and grazing animals. In numbers in some years. updating. This species is not included Vietnam, the forest habitat is reportedly Habitat loss, degradation, and in the Appendices to CITES or the declining. Comprehensive information fragmentation are considered the European Union Wildlife Trade on the rate of degradation of Himalayan primary factors affecting the Jamaican Regulations, although some level of forests containing the Kaiser-i-Hind kite swallowtail. Historical habitat loss illegal trade is likely occurring. swallowtail is not available, but habitat and destruction occurred when forests In the October 10, 2019, CNOR, the loss is consistently reported as one of were cleared for agriculture and timber Jamaican kite swallowtail was assigned the primary ongoing threats to the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:39 Aug 06, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09AUP1.SGM 09AUP1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 150 / Monday, August 9, 2021 / Proposed Rules 43489

species. Collection for commercial trade addition to the Lists. These candidates on the immediacy and magnitude of is also regarded as a threat to the include species and subspecies of fish, threats, as well as on taxonomic status. species. The Kaiser-i-Hind swallowtail wildlife, or plants, and DPSs of We published a complete description of is highly valued and has been collected vertebrate animals. This compilation our listing priority system in the and traded despite various prohibitions. relies on information from status Federal Register (48 FR 43098; Although it is difficult to assess the surveys and information from foreign September 21, 1983). potential impacts from collection, it is countries, other Federal agencies, Following the scientific name (third possible that collection in combination knowledgeable scientists, public and column) and the family designation with other stressors contribute to local private natural resource interests, and (fourth column) is the common name extirpations. comments received in response to (fifth column). The sixth column In China, the species is protected by previous CNORs. provides the known historical range for the Law of the People’s Republic of Table 4, below, list animals arranged the species or vertebrate population (for China on the Protection of Wildlife. In alphabetically by common names under vertebrate populations, this is the India, the Kaiser-i-Hind swallowtail is the major group headings. Animals are historical range for the entire species or listed on Schedule II of the Indian grouped by class or order. Useful subspecies and not just the historical Wildlife Protection Act. In Thailand, all synonyms and subgeneric scientific range for the DPS), indicated by butterflies in the genus Teinopalpus, names appear in parentheses with the country. Many species no longer occur including the Kaiser-i-Hind swallowtail, synonyms preceded by an ‘‘equals’’ in all of the areas indicated in the are listed under Thailand’s Wild Animal sign. We incorporate standardized historical range column. Reservation and Protection Act. In common names in these CNORs as they Vietnam, the species is listed as become available. Request for Information ‘‘Vulnerable’’ in the 2007 Vietnam Red Table 4 lists all candidate species, We request additional status Data Book and is reported to be the most plus species currently proposed for information that may be available for valuable of all butterflies in Vietnam. In listing under the Act. We emphasize any of the candidate species identified 2006, the species was listed on that in this document we are not in this CNOR. We will consider this Vietnam’s Schedule IIB of Decree No. 32 proposing to list any of the candidate information to monitor changes in the on management of endangered, species; rather, we will develop and status or LPN of candidate species and precious, and rare forest plants and publish proposed listing rules for these to manage candidates as we prepare animals. Since 1996, the Kaiser-i-Hind species in the future. We encourage listing documents and future revisions swallowtail has been categorized on the foreign countries where a candidate to the CNOR. We also request IUCN Red List as lower risk/near species occurs, other Federal agencies, information on additional species to threatened, but IUCN indicates that this and other parties to consider these consider including as candidates as we assessment needs updating. The Kaiser- species in environmental planning. prepare future updates of this CNOR. i-Hind swallowtail has been included in In Table 4, the ‘‘Category’’ column on We request you submit any further CITES Appendix II since 1987. the left side of the table identifies the information on the species named in Additionally, the Kaiser-i-Hind status of each species according to the this document as soon as possible or swallowtail is listed on Annex B of the following codes: whenever it becomes available. We are European Union Wildlife Trade PE—Species proposed for listing as particularly interested in information: Regulations; species listed on Annex B endangered. This category does not (1) Indicating that we should add a require an import permit. include species for which we have species to the list of candidate species; In the October 10, 2019, CNOR, the withdrawn or finalized the proposed (2) Indicating that we should remove Kaiser-i-Hind swallowtail was assigned rule. a species from candidate status; an LPN of 8. After reevaluating the C—Candidates: Species for which we (3) Documenting threats to any of the threats to this species, we have have on file sufficient information on included species; determined that no change in its LPN of biological vulnerability and threats to (4) Describing the immediacy or 8 is warranted because threats to the support proposals to list them as magnitude of threats facing candidate species are moderate in magnitude and endangered or threatened. Issuance of species; imminent. The Kaiser-i-Hind proposed rules for these species is (5) Pointing out taxonomic or swallowtail does not represent a precluded at present by other higher nomenclature changes for any of the monotypic genus. Threats from habitat priority listing actions. This category species; destruction and illegal collection are includes species for which we made a (6) Suggesting appropriate common moderate in magnitude due to the 12-month warranted-but-precluded names; and species’ wide distribution and to finding on a petition to list. Our analysis (7) Noting any mistakes, such as various protections in place within each for this document included making new errors in the indicated historical ranges. country. The threats are imminent due findings on all petitions for which we We will consider all information to ongoing habitat destruction and high previously made ‘‘warranted-but- provided in response to this CNOR in market value for specimens. Therefore, precluded’’ findings. We identify the deciding whether to propose species for an LPN of 8 remains valid for this species for which we made a continued listing and when to undertake necessary species to reflect imminent threats of warranted-but-precluded finding on a listing actions (including whether moderate magnitude. resubmitted petition by the code ‘‘C*’’ emergency listing under section 4(b)(7) in the category column (see Findings for of the Act is appropriate). Current CNOR Petitioned Candidate Species, above, for Submit information, materials, or We gather data on plants and animals additional information). comments regarding foreign species to foreign to the United States that appear The ‘‘Priority’’ column indicates the the person listed under FOR FURTHER to merit consideration for addition to LPN for each candidate species, which INFORMATION CONTACT, above. We will the Lists of Endangered and Threatened we use to determine the most maintain information we receive for Wildlife and Plants (Lists). This appropriate use of our available each candidate species mentioned in the document identifies those species that resources. The lowest numbers have the submission, and information and we currently regard as candidates for highest priority. We assign LPNs based comments we receive will become part

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:39 Aug 06, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09AUP1.SGM 09AUP1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1 43490 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 150 / Monday, August 9, 2021 / Proposed Rules

of the administrative record for the cannot guarantee that we will be able to Wildlife Service, approved this species. do so. document on August 4, 2021, for publication. Public Availability of Comments Signing Authority Authority Before including your address, phone The Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife number, email address, or other Service, approved this document and This document is published under the personal identifying information in your authorized the undersigned to sign and authority of the Endangered Species Act submission, be advised that your entire submit the document to the Office of the of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et submission—including your personal Federal Register for publication seq.). identifying information—may be made electronically as an official document of Madonna Baucum, publicly available at any time. Although the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Regulations and Policy Chief, Division of you can ask us in your submission to Martha Williams, Principal Deputy Policy, Economics, Risk Management, and withhold from public review your Director Exercising the Delegated Analytics, Joint Administrative Operations, personal identifying information, we Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

TABLE 4—CANDIDATE NOTICE OF REVIEW (FOREIGN SPECIES) [Note: See end of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for an explanation of symbols used in this table.]

Status Scientific name Family Common name Historical range Category I Priority BIRDS

C * ...... 2 Scytalopus novacapitalis ...... Rhinocryptidae .... Tapaculo, Brasilia ...... Brazil. C * ...... 2 Pauxi koepckeae ...... Cracidae ...... Curassow, Sira ...... Peru. C * ...... 2 Pauxi unicornis ...... Cracidae ...... Curassow, southern helmeted Bolivia. C * ...... 6 Strepera graculina crissalis ..... Cracticidae ...... Currawong, Lord Howe Island Lord Howe Island, New South pied. Wales. C * ...... 8 Haematopus chathamensis ..... Haematopodidae Oystercatcher, Chatham ...... Chatham Islands, New Zea- land. C * ...... 8 Cyanoramphus malherbi ...... Psittacidae ...... Parakeet, orange-fronted ...... New Zealand. C * ...... 2 Rallus semiplumbeus ...... Rallidae ...... Rail, Bogota´ ...... Colombia. C * ...... 8 Porphyrio hochstetteri ...... Rallidae ...... Takahe¯ ...... New Zealand. C * ...... 8 Tangara peruviana ...... Thraupidae ...... Tanager, black-backed ...... Brazil. C * ...... 2 Aulacorhynchus huallagae ...... Ramphastidae ..... Toucanet, yellow-browed ...... Peru. C * ...... 2 Zosterops luteirostris ...... Zosteropidae ...... White-eye, Gizo ...... Solomon Islands. C * ...... 8 Dryocopus galeatus ...... Picidae ...... Woodpecker, helmeted ...... Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay. C * ...... 2 Dendrocopos noguchii ...... Picidae ...... Woodpecker, Okinawa ...... Okinawa Island, Japan.

FISHES

PE ...... Acipenser dabryanus ...... Acipenseridae ..... Sturgeon, Yangtze ...... China.

CLAMS

C * ...... 8 Mulinia modesta ...... Mactridae ...... Clam, Colorado delta ...... Mexico.

INSECTS

C * ...... 2 Parides ascanius ...... Papilionidae ...... Swallowtail, fluminense ...... Brazil. C * ...... 2 Parides hahneli ...... Papilionidae ...... Swallowtail, Hahnel’s Amazo- Brazil. nian. C * ...... 3 Mimoides (=Eurytides or Papilionidae ...... Swallowtail, Harris’ mimic ...... Brazil. Graphium) lysithous harrisianus. C * ...... 2 Protographium (=Eurytides or Papilionidae ...... Swallowtail, Jamaican kite ...... Jamaica. Graphium or Neographium or Protesilaus) marcellinus. C * ...... 8 Teinopalpus imperialis ...... Papilionidae ...... Swallowtail, Kaiser-i-Hind ...... Bhutan, China, India, Laos, Myanmar, Nepal, Thailand, Vietnam.

[FR Doc. 2021–16943 Filed 8–6–21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333–15–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:39 Aug 06, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\09AUP1.SGM 09AUP1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1