Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Findings on Two Petitions, 78775-78778 [2014-30574]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 31, 2014 / Proposed Rules
compliance or reporting requirements
under the rule for small entities; (3) the
use of performance, rather than design,
standards; and (4) an exemption from
coverage of the rule, or any part thereof,
for small entities.
40. If the Commission were to adopt
rules requiring video programmers to
register and file contact information
with the Commission or to make such
contact information widely available
through other means, such regulations
would impose new reporting and
recordkeeping obligations on video
programmers, video programming
owners, and other entities, including
small entities. However, the proposed
requirement takes into consideration the
impact on small entities. The filing of
contact information is a simple task that
should take no more than a few
minutes. In addition, such requirements
may benefit other entities, such as VPDs
and consumers, who would be able to
search the registration information for
contact information, thereby enabling
them to more readily contact video
programmers who can address their
closed captioning concerns.
41. If the Commission were to adopt
rules requiring video programmers to
file certifications with the Commission
regarding compliance with the
Commission’s rules on the provisioning
and quality of closed captioning, such
regulations would impose different
reporting and recordkeeping obligations
than currently required on video
programmers, video programming
owners, and other entities, including
small entities. The proposed rules
would not impose additional burdens
on such entities, because video
programmers are already required to
provide certifications to VPDs and to
make such certifications widely
available under the Commission’s rules.
See 47 CFR 79.1(j)(1) and (k)(1)(iv); see
also 47 CFR 79.1(g)(6). The proposed
rule may ease the burden on video
programmers, because video
programmers would know to go directly
to the Commission’s Web site to provide
certification and would not need to
determine how to make such
certification widely available, and the
proposed rules would ease the burden
on VPDs and consumers by having all
certifications in one easy to find place.
42. If the Commission were to adopt
rules requiring each VPD, when
arranging to carry a video programmer’s
programming, to alert the video
programmer of the requirement to
provide certification to the Commission
and to report to the Commission any
video programmers that have failed to
do so, such regulations would impose
different reporting and recordkeeping
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:21 Dec 30, 2014
Jkt 235001
obligations than currently required on
VPDs, video programmers, video
programming owners, and other entities,
including small entities. The proposed
rules would not impose additional
burdens on such entities, because VPDs
who are unable to locate certifications
on widely available sources are already
required to alert video programmers of
the requirement and report such
noncompliance to the Commission. See
47 CFR 79.1(j)(1). The proposed rule
may ease the burden on VPDs, because
VPDs would be able to go directly to the
Commission’s Web site to confirm
whether the video programmer has
registered and certified, which may be
easier than having to determine on
which Web site or other widely
available place the information appears.
43. Federal Rules Which Duplicate,
Overlap, or Conflict With, the
Commission’s Proposals.
None.
Ordering Clauses
44. Pursuant to sections 4(i), 303(r),
and 713 of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i),
303(r) and 613, document FCC 14–206
IS ADOPTED.
45. The Commission’s Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference
Information Center, SHALL SEND a
copy of document FCC 14–206
including the Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration.
Federal Communications Commission.
Sheryl D. Todd,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014–30576 Filed 12–30–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket Nos. FWS–R8–ES–2014–0058;
FWS–R3–ES–2014–0056; 4500030113]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; 90-Day Findings on Two
Petitions
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of petition findings and
initiation of status reviews.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce 90day findings on a petition to delist the
coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila
californica californica) and a petition to
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
78775
list the monarch butterfly (Danaus
plexippus plexippus) under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act). Based on our review, we
find that both petitions present
substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that the
petitioned actions may be warranted.
Therefore, with the publication of this
notice, we are initiating a review of the
status of these subspecies to determine
if the petitioned actions are warranted.
To ensure that these status reviews are
comprehensive, we are requesting
scientific and commercial data and
other information regarding these
subspecies. Based on the status reviews,
we will issue 12-month findings on the
petitions, which will address whether
the petitioned action is warranted, as
provided in section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act.
DATES: To allow us adequate time to
conduct the status reviews, we request
that we receive information no later
than March 2, 2015. Information
submitted electronically using the
Federal eRulemaking Portal (see
ADDRESSES, below) must be received by
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing
date.
ADDRESSES:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. In the Search box,
enter the appropriate docket number
(see table below). You may submit
information by clicking on ‘‘Comment
Now!’’ If your information will fit in the
provided comment box, please use this
feature of https://www.regulations.gov, as
it is most compatible with our
information review procedures. If you
attach your information as a separate
document, our preferred file format is
Microsoft Word. If you attach multiple
comments (such as form letters), our
preferred format is a spreadsheet in
Microsoft Excel.
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail
or hand-delivery to: Public Comments
Processing, Attn: [Insert appropriate
docket number; see table below]; U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service Headquarters,
MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike; Falls
Church, VA 22041–3803.
We request that you send information
only by the methods described above.
We will post all information received on
https://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any
personal information you provide us
(see the Request for Information section,
below, for more details).
Species
Docket No.
coastal California
gnatcatcher.
FWS–R8–ES–2014–0058
E:\FR\FM\31DEP1.SGM
31DEP1
78776
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 31, 2014 / Proposed Rules
Species
Docket No.
monarch butterfly
FWS–R3–ES–2014–0056
For
the coastal California gnatcatcher:
Mendel Stewart, Field Supervisor,
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, 2177
Salk Ave, Suite 250, Carlsbad, CA
92008; telephone 760–431–9440; or
facsimile (fax) 760–431–5901.
For the monarch butterfly, Tony
Sullins, Chief of Endangered Species,
Midwest Region, 5600 American Blvd.
West, Suite 990, Bloomington, MN
55437; telephone 612–713–5334; or fax
612–713–5292.
If you use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD), please call the
Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS) at 800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Request for Information
When we make a finding that a
petition presents substantial
information indicating that listing,
reclassification, or delisting a species
may be warranted, we are required to
promptly review the status of the
species (status review). For the status
review to be complete and based on the
best available scientific and commercial
information, we request information on
the coastal California gnatcatcher and
monarch butterfly from governmental
agencies, Native American Tribes, the
scientific community, industry, and any
other interested parties. For both
petitioned subspecies we seek
information on:
(1) The subspecies’ biology, range,
and population trends, including:
(a) Habitat requirements;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range,
including distribution patterns;
(d) Historical and current population
levels, and current and projected trends;
and
(e) Past and ongoing conservation
measures for the subspecies, its habitat,
or both.
(2) The factors that are the basis for
making a listing, reclassification, or
delisting determination for a species
under section 4(a) of the Act (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.), which are:
(a) The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(b) Overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes;
(c) Disease or predation;
(d) The inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms; or
(e) Other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:21 Dec 30, 2014
Jkt 235001
(3) The potential effects of climate
change on the subspecies and its
habitat.
(4) Information specific to a
subspecies (e.g., taxonomy of the entity,
information about its status in a
particular area, or information that may
be used in a potential rule issued under
section 4(d) of the Act for the
conservation of the subspecies).
Specific questions for the coastal
California gnatcatcher:
(1) The coastal California
gnatcatcher’s biology, range, and
population trends, including, but not
limited to, distribution, abundance,
population trends, demographics, and
genetics.
(2) Information related to the
taxonomy, particularly the
distinctiveness at the subspecies level,
of California gnatcatchers in southern
California and Baja California, Mexico,
including:
(a) New morphological, genetic, or
other relevant information;
(b) New analyses or new
interpretations of existing
morphological, genetic, or other relevant
information;
(c) Information on the methods,
results, and conclusions of Zink et al.
(2000, entire) and Zink et al. (2013,
entire), on which the petition heavily
relies; and
(d) Information related to
consideration of the coastal California
gnatcatcher as a distinct population
segment (DPS).
Specific questions for the monarch
butterfly:
(1) Any relevant aspects of the life
history or behavior of the monarch
butterfly that have not yet been
documented; and
(2) Thermo-tolerance range and
microclimate requirements of the
monarch butterfly.
If, after the status review, we
determine that listing the monarch
butterfly is warranted, we will propose
critical habitat (see definition in section
3(5)(A) of the Act) under section 4 of the
Act, to the maximum extent prudent
and determinable at the time we
propose to list the subspecies.
Therefore, we also request data and
information on:
(1) What may constitute ‘‘physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the species,’’ within the
geographical range occupied by the
subspecies;
(2) Where these features are currently
found;
(3) Whether any of these features may
require special management
considerations or protection;
(4) Specific areas outside the
geographical area occupied by the
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
subspecies that are ‘‘essential for the
conservation of the species’’; and
(5) What, if any, critical habitat you
think we should propose for designation
if the subspecies is proposed for listing,
and why such habitat meets the
requirements of section 4 of the Act.
Please include sufficient information
with your submission (such as scientific
journal articles or other publications) to
allow us to verify any scientific or
commercial information you include.
Submissions merely stating support
for or opposition to the actions under
consideration without providing
supporting information, although noted,
will not be considered in making a
determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the
Act directs that determinations as to
whether any species is an endangered or
threatened species must be made
‘‘solely on the basis of the best scientific
and commercial data available.’’
You may submit your information
concerning these status reviews by one
of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES
section. If you submit information via
https://www.regulations.gov, your entire
submission—including any personal
identifying information—will be posted
on the Web site. If you submit a
hardcopy that includes personal
identifying information, you may
request at the top of your document that
we withhold this personal identifying
information from public review.
However, we cannot guarantee that we
will be able to do so. We will post all
hardcopy submissions on https://
www.regulations.gov.
Information and supporting
documentation that we received and
used in preparing this finding will be
available for you to review at https://
www.regulations.gov, or you may make
an appointment during normal business
hours at the appropriate lead U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service Field Office (see
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires
that we make a finding on whether a
petition to list, delist, or reclassify a
species presents substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that
the petitioned action may be warranted.
We are to base this finding on
information provided in the petition,
supporting information submitted with
the petition, and information otherwise
available in our files. To the maximum
extent practicable, we are to make this
finding within 90 days of our receipt of
the petition and publish our notice of
the finding promptly in the Federal
Register.
Our standard for substantial scientific
or commercial information within the
E:\FR\FM\31DEP1.SGM
31DEP1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 31, 2014 / Proposed Rules
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with
regard to a 90-day petition finding is
‘‘that amount of information that would
lead a reasonable person to believe that
the measure proposed in the petition
may be warranted’’ (50 CFR 424.14(b)).
If we find that substantial scientific or
commercial information was presented,
we are required to promptly commence
a review of the status of the species,
which will be subsequently summarized
in our 12-month finding.
Section 3(6) of the Act defines an
‘‘endangered species’’ as any species
which is in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range. Section 3(20) of the Act
defines a ‘‘threatened species’’ as any
species that is likely to become an
endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. Section
3(16) of the Act defines ‘‘species’’ as
including any species or subspecies of
fish or wildlife or plants, and any
distinct population segment of any
species of vertebrate fish or wildlife
which interbreeds when mature.
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533)
and its implementing regulations at 50
CFR 424 set forth the procedures for
adding a species to, or removing a
species from, the Federal Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants. A species may be
determined to be an endangered or
threatened species due to one or more
of the five factors described in section
4(a)(1) of the Act:
We may delist a species according to
50 CFR 424.11(d) if the best available
scientific and commercial data indicate
that the species is neither endangered
nor threatened for one or more of the
following reasons:
(1) The species is extinct;
(2) The species has recovered and is
no longer endangered or threatened; or
(3) The original scientific or
commercial data used at the time the
species was classified, or the
interpretation of such data, were in
error.
In considering what factors might
constitute threats, we must look beyond
the exposure of the species to a factor
to evaluate whether the species may
respond to the factor in a way that
causes actual impacts to the species. If
there is exposure to a factor and the
species responds negatively, the factor
may be a threat, and, during the
subsequent status review, we attempt to
determine how significant a threat it is.
The threat is significant if it drives, or
contributes to, the risk of extinction of
the species such that the species may
warrant listing as endangered or
threatened as those terms are defined in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:21 Dec 30, 2014
Jkt 235001
78777
the Act. However, the identification of
factors that could affect a species
negatively may not be sufficient for us
to find that the information in the
petition and our files is substantial. The
information must include evidence
sufficient to suggest that these factors
may be operative threats that act on the
species to the point that the species may
meet the definition of an endangered or
threatened species under the Act.
Review of Petition To List the Monarch
Butterfly as a Threatened Species
Under the Act
Additional information regarding our
review of this petition can be found as
an appendix at https://
www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
FWS–R3–ES–2014–0056 under the
Supporting Documents section in the
document labeled Appendix for
Monarch Butterfly.
Review of Petition To Remove the
Coastal California Gnatcatcher From
the List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife Under the Act
Subspecies and Range
This petition concerns the monarch
butterfly (Danaus plexippus plexippus),
with a range in North America
(continental United States, southern
Canada, Mexico), and Cuba and other
Caribbean Islands; the subspecies’
nonnative dispersed range includes
Hawaii, Australia, New Zealand, other
Pacific Islands, Azores, Canary Islands,
and coastal Spain.
Additional information regarding our
review of this petition can be found as
an appendix at https://
www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
FWS–R8–ES–2014–0058 under the
Supporting Documents section in the
document labeled Appendix for the
coastal California gnatcatcher.
Subspecies and Range
This petition concerns the coastal
California gnatcatcher (Polioptila
californica californica). Its range
includes coastal southern California in
the United States and northwestern Baja
California, Mexico.
Petition History
On June 11, 2014, we received a
petition dated June 10, 2014, from
Pacific Legal Foundation requesting that
the coastal California gnatcatcher be
removed from the List of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife (List) due to
error. The petition claims that the
coastal California gnatcatcher is not a
valid subspecies and thus does not meet
the definition of ‘‘species’’ under the
Act. The petition clearly identified itself
as such and included the requisite
identification information for the
petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a).
This finding addresses the petition.
Finding
Based on our review of the petition
and sources cited in the petition, we
find that the petition presents
substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted for
the coastal California gnatcatcher
(Polioptila californica californica).
Thus, for the coastal California
gnatcatcher, the Service requests
information regarding the species
taxonomy and listing factors under
section 4(a)(1) of the Act (see Request
for Information).
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Petition History
On August 26, 2014, we received a
petition dated August 26, 2014, from the
Center for Biological Diversity, the
Center for Food Safety, the Xerces
Society for Invertebrate Conservation,
and Dr. Lincoln Brower requesting that
we list the monarch butterfly (Danaus
plexippus plexippus) as a threatened
species under the Act. The petition
clearly identified itself as such and
included the requisite identification
information for the petitioners, required
at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding
addresses the petition.
The petition also requested that we
designate critical habitat for the
monarch butterfly, that we consider any
significant portion of range (SPR) when
making our listing determination, and
that we develop a rule under section
4(d) of the Act (‘‘4(d) rule’’) allowing
activities that promote conservation of
the subspecies. Should we propose to
list the monarch butterfly, we will at
that time consider the monarch’s status
rangewide; whether there may be a
threatened or endangered SPR if the
subspecies is not found to be threatened
or endangered throughout its range; if
threatened status is warranted, whether
a 4(d) rule may be appropriate; and
propose to designate critical habitat if
appropriate.
Finding
Based on our review of the petition
and sources cited in the petition, we
find that the petition presents
substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that listing may
be warranted for the monarch butterfly
under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, based
on factors A, B, C, and E (see Appendix
for Monarch Butterfly). We therefore
E:\FR\FM\31DEP1.SGM
31DEP1
78778
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 31, 2014 / Proposed Rules
request information on the five listing
factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act
(see Request for Information).
We reviewed the petition and
information presented in the petition
and determined that issuing an
emergency regulation temporarily
listing the subspecies under section
4(b)(7) of the Act is not warranted.
However, if at any time conditions
change and we determine emergency
listing is necessary, an emergency rule
may be developed.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Conclusion
On the basis of our evaluation of the
information presented under section
4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we have
determined that the petitions
summarized above for the coastal
California gnatcatcher (Polioptila
californica californica) and the monarch
butterfly (Danaus plexippus plexippus)
present substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that
the requested actions may be warranted.
Because we have found that the
petitions present substantial
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:21 Dec 30, 2014
Jkt 235001
information indicating that the
petitioned actions may be warranted, we
are initiating status reviews to
determine whether these actions under
the Act are warranted. At the conclusion
of the status reviews, we will issue a 12month finding in accordance with
section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act, stating
whether listing, reclassification, or
delisting, as appropriate, is warranted.
It is important to note that the
‘‘substantial information’’ standard for a
90-day finding differs from the Act’s
‘‘best scientific and commercial data’’
standard that applies to a status review
to determine whether a petitioned
action is warranted. A 90-day finding
does not constitute a status review
under the Act. In a 12-month finding,
we will determine whether a petitioned
action is warranted after we have
completed a thorough status review of
the species, which is conducted
following a substantial 90-day finding.
Because the Act’s standards for 90-day
and 12-month findings are different, as
described above, a substantial 90-day
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
finding does not mean that the 12month finding will result in a warranted
finding.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited is
available on the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov and upon request
from the appropriate lead Field Offices
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this notice are
the staff members of the Branch of
Listing, Ecological Services Program,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Authority
The authority for these actions is the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: December 18, 2014.
Stephen Guertin,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014–30574 Filed 12–30–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
E:\FR\FM\31DEP1.SGM
31DEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 250 (Wednesday, December 31, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 78775-78778]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30574]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket Nos. FWS-R8-ES-2014-0058; FWS-R3-ES-2014-0056; 4500030113]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Findings on
Two Petitions
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of petition findings and initiation of status reviews.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce 90-
day findings on a petition to delist the coastal California gnatcatcher
(Polioptila californica californica) and a petition to list the monarch
butterfly (Danaus plexippus plexippus) under the Endangered Species Act
of 1973, as amended (Act). Based on our review, we find that both
petitions present substantial scientific or commercial information
indicating that the petitioned actions may be warranted. Therefore,
with the publication of this notice, we are initiating a review of the
status of these subspecies to determine if the petitioned actions are
warranted. To ensure that these status reviews are comprehensive, we
are requesting scientific and commercial data and other information
regarding these subspecies. Based on the status reviews, we will issue
12-month findings on the petitions, which will address whether the
petitioned action is warranted, as provided in section 4(b)(3)(B) of
the Act.
DATES: To allow us adequate time to conduct the status reviews, we
request that we receive information no later than March 2, 2015.
Information submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking
Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern
Time on the closing date.
ADDRESSES:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter the appropriate docket
number (see table below). You may submit information by clicking on
``Comment Now!'' If your information will fit in the provided comment
box, please use this feature of https://www.regulations.gov, as it is
most compatible with our information review procedures. If you attach
your information as a separate document, our preferred file format is
Microsoft Word. If you attach multiple comments (such as form letters),
our preferred format is a spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel.
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: [Insert appropriate docket number; see table
below]; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Headquarters, MS: BPHC, 5275
Leesburg Pike; Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
We request that you send information only by the methods described
above. We will post all information received on https://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any
personal information you provide us (see the Request for Information
section, below, for more details).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Docket No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
coastal California gnatcatcher........... FWS-R8-ES-2014-0058
[[Page 78776]]
monarch butterfly........................ FWS-R3-ES-2014-0056
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For the coastal California
gnatcatcher: Mendel Stewart, Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and
Wildlife Office, 2177 Salk Ave, Suite 250, Carlsbad, CA 92008;
telephone 760-431-9440; or facsimile (fax) 760-431-5901.
For the monarch butterfly, Tony Sullins, Chief of Endangered
Species, Midwest Region, 5600 American Blvd. West, Suite 990,
Bloomington, MN 55437; telephone 612-713-5334; or fax 612-713-5292.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please
call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Request for Information
When we make a finding that a petition presents substantial
information indicating that listing, reclassification, or delisting a
species may be warranted, we are required to promptly review the status
of the species (status review). For the status review to be complete
and based on the best available scientific and commercial information,
we request information on the coastal California gnatcatcher and
monarch butterfly from governmental agencies, Native American Tribes,
the scientific community, industry, and any other interested parties.
For both petitioned subspecies we seek information on:
(1) The subspecies' biology, range, and population trends,
including:
(a) Habitat requirements;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns;
(d) Historical and current population levels, and current and
projected trends; and
(e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the subspecies, its
habitat, or both.
(2) The factors that are the basis for making a listing,
reclassification, or delisting determination for a species under
section 4(a) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), which are:
(a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(b) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(c) Disease or predation;
(d) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
(3) The potential effects of climate change on the subspecies and
its habitat.
(4) Information specific to a subspecies (e.g., taxonomy of the
entity, information about its status in a particular area, or
information that may be used in a potential rule issued under section
4(d) of the Act for the conservation of the subspecies).
Specific questions for the coastal California gnatcatcher:
(1) The coastal California gnatcatcher's biology, range, and
population trends, including, but not limited to, distribution,
abundance, population trends, demographics, and genetics.
(2) Information related to the taxonomy, particularly the
distinctiveness at the subspecies level, of California gnatcatchers in
southern California and Baja California, Mexico, including:
(a) New morphological, genetic, or other relevant information;
(b) New analyses or new interpretations of existing morphological,
genetic, or other relevant information;
(c) Information on the methods, results, and conclusions of Zink et
al. (2000, entire) and Zink et al. (2013, entire), on which the
petition heavily relies; and
(d) Information related to consideration of the coastal California
gnatcatcher as a distinct population segment (DPS).
Specific questions for the monarch butterfly:
(1) Any relevant aspects of the life history or behavior of the
monarch butterfly that have not yet been documented; and
(2) Thermo-tolerance range and microclimate requirements of the
monarch butterfly.
If, after the status review, we determine that listing the monarch
butterfly is warranted, we will propose critical habitat (see
definition in section 3(5)(A) of the Act) under section 4 of the Act,
to the maximum extent prudent and determinable at the time we propose
to list the subspecies. Therefore, we also request data and information
on:
(1) What may constitute ``physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species,'' within the geographical range
occupied by the subspecies;
(2) Where these features are currently found;
(3) Whether any of these features may require special management
considerations or protection;
(4) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
subspecies that are ``essential for the conservation of the species'';
and
(5) What, if any, critical habitat you think we should propose for
designation if the subspecies is proposed for listing, and why such
habitat meets the requirements of section 4 of the Act.
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
Submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the actions
under consideration without providing supporting information, although
noted, will not be considered in making a determination. Section
4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any
species is an endangered or threatened species must be made ``solely on
the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.''
You may submit your information concerning these status reviews by
one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. If you submit
information via https://www.regulations.gov, your entire submission--
including any personal identifying information--will be posted on the
Web site. If you submit a hardcopy that includes personal identifying
information, you may request at the top of your document that we
withhold this personal identifying information from public review.
However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will
post all hardcopy submissions on https://www.regulations.gov.
Information and supporting documentation that we received and used
in preparing this finding will be available for you to review at https://www.regulations.gov, or you may make an appointment during normal
business hours at the appropriate lead U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires that we make a finding on
whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted. We are to base this finding on
information provided in the petition, supporting information submitted
with the petition, and information otherwise available in our files. To
the maximum extent practicable, we are to make this finding within 90
days of our receipt of the petition and publish our notice of the
finding promptly in the Federal Register.
Our standard for substantial scientific or commercial information
within the
[[Page 78777]]
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90-day petition
finding is ``that amount of information that would lead a reasonable
person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be
warranted'' (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we find that substantial scientific
or commercial information was presented, we are required to promptly
commence a review of the status of the species, which will be
subsequently summarized in our 12-month finding.
Section 3(6) of the Act defines an ``endangered species'' as any
species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. Section 3(20) of the Act defines a
``threatened species'' as any species that is likely to become an
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. Section 3(16) of the Act defines
``species'' as including any species or subspecies of fish or wildlife
or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of
vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 424 set forth the procedures for adding a species
to, or removing a species from, the Federal Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A species may be determined to be an
endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five factors
described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act:
We may delist a species according to 50 CFR 424.11(d) if the best
available scientific and commercial data indicate that the species is
neither endangered nor threatened for one or more of the following
reasons:
(1) The species is extinct;
(2) The species has recovered and is no longer endangered or
threatened; or
(3) The original scientific or commercial data used at the time the
species was classified, or the interpretation of such data, were in
error.
In considering what factors might constitute threats, we must look
beyond the exposure of the species to a factor to evaluate whether the
species may respond to the factor in a way that causes actual impacts
to the species. If there is exposure to a factor and the species
responds negatively, the factor may be a threat, and, during the
subsequent status review, we attempt to determine how significant a
threat it is. The threat is significant if it drives, or contributes
to, the risk of extinction of the species such that the species may
warrant listing as endangered or threatened as those terms are defined
in the Act. However, the identification of factors that could affect a
species negatively may not be sufficient for us to find that the
information in the petition and our files is substantial. The
information must include evidence sufficient to suggest that these
factors may be operative threats that act on the species to the point
that the species may meet the definition of an endangered or threatened
species under the Act.
Review of Petition To Remove the Coastal California Gnatcatcher From
the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Under the Act
Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be
found as an appendix at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
FWS-R8-ES-2014-0058 under the Supporting Documents section in the
document labeled Appendix for the coastal California gnatcatcher.
Subspecies and Range
This petition concerns the coastal California gnatcatcher
(Polioptila californica californica). Its range includes coastal
southern California in the United States and northwestern Baja
California, Mexico.
Petition History
On June 11, 2014, we received a petition dated June 10, 2014, from
Pacific Legal Foundation requesting that the coastal California
gnatcatcher be removed from the List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife (List) due to error. The petition claims that the coastal
California gnatcatcher is not a valid subspecies and thus does not meet
the definition of ``species'' under the Act. The petition clearly
identified itself as such and included the requisite identification
information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This
finding addresses the petition.
Finding
Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the
petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be
warranted for the coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila
californica californica).
Thus, for the coastal California gnatcatcher, the Service requests
information regarding the species taxonomy and listing factors under
section 4(a)(1) of the Act (see Request for Information).
Review of Petition To List the Monarch Butterfly as a Threatened
Species Under the Act
Additional information regarding our review of this petition can be
found as an appendix at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
FWS-R3-ES-2014-0056 under the Supporting Documents section in the
document labeled Appendix for Monarch Butterfly.
Subspecies and Range
This petition concerns the monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus
plexippus), with a range in North America (continental United States,
southern Canada, Mexico), and Cuba and other Caribbean Islands; the
subspecies' nonnative dispersed range includes Hawaii, Australia, New
Zealand, other Pacific Islands, Azores, Canary Islands, and coastal
Spain.
Petition History
On August 26, 2014, we received a petition dated August 26, 2014,
from the Center for Biological Diversity, the Center for Food Safety,
the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, and Dr. Lincoln
Brower requesting that we list the monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus
plexippus) as a threatened species under the Act. The petition clearly
identified itself as such and included the requisite identification
information for the petitioners, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This
finding addresses the petition.
The petition also requested that we designate critical habitat for
the monarch butterfly, that we consider any significant portion of
range (SPR) when making our listing determination, and that we develop
a rule under section 4(d) of the Act (``4(d) rule'') allowing
activities that promote conservation of the subspecies. Should we
propose to list the monarch butterfly, we will at that time consider
the monarch's status rangewide; whether there may be a threatened or
endangered SPR if the subspecies is not found to be threatened or
endangered throughout its range; if threatened status is warranted,
whether a 4(d) rule may be appropriate; and propose to designate
critical habitat if appropriate.
Finding
Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the
petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that listing may be warranted for the
monarch butterfly under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, based on factors A,
B, C, and E (see Appendix for Monarch Butterfly). We therefore
[[Page 78778]]
request information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1)
of the Act (see Request for Information).
We reviewed the petition and information presented in the petition
and determined that issuing an emergency regulation temporarily listing
the subspecies under section 4(b)(7) of the Act is not warranted.
However, if at any time conditions change and we determine emergency
listing is necessary, an emergency rule may be developed.
Conclusion
On the basis of our evaluation of the information presented under
section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we have determined that the petitions
summarized above for the coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila
californica californica) and the monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus
plexippus) present substantial scientific or commercial information
indicating that the requested actions may be warranted. Because we have
found that the petitions present substantial information indicating
that the petitioned actions may be warranted, we are initiating status
reviews to determine whether these actions under the Act are warranted.
At the conclusion of the status reviews, we will issue a 12-month
finding in accordance with section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act, stating
whether listing, reclassification, or delisting, as appropriate, is
warranted.
It is important to note that the ``substantial information''
standard for a 90-day finding differs from the Act's ``best scientific
and commercial data'' standard that applies to a status review to
determine whether a petitioned action is warranted. A 90-day finding
does not constitute a status review under the Act. In a 12-month
finding, we will determine whether a petitioned action is warranted
after we have completed a thorough status review of the species, which
is conducted following a substantial 90-day finding. Because the Act's
standards for 90-day and 12-month findings are different, as described
above, a substantial 90-day finding does not mean that the 12-month
finding will result in a warranted finding.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at
https://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the appropriate lead
Field Offices (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this notice are the staff members of the
Branch of Listing, Ecological Services Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
Authority
The authority for these actions is the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: December 18, 2014.
Stephen Guertin,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-30574 Filed 12-30-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
