Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Findings for Five Species, 60362-60366 [2017-27389]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
60362
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 20, 2017 / Proposed Rules
PART 395—HOURS OF SERVICE OF
DRIVERS
Section 395.1
part
Scope of the rules in this
ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
Question 34: Does the agricultural
commodity exception (§ 395.1(k)(1))
apply to drivers while driving unloaded
to a source where an agricultural
commodity will be loaded, and to an
unloaded return trip after delivering an
agricultural commodity under the
exception?
Guidance: Yes, provided that the trip
does not involve transporting other
cargo and the sole purpose of the trip is
to complete the delivery or pick up of
agricultural commodities, as defined in
§ 395.2. In that case, driving and onduty time are not limited, nor do other
requirements of 49 CFR part 395 apply.
Question 35: Does the agricultural
commodity exception (§ 395.1(k)(1))
apply if the destination for the
commodity is beyond the 150 air-mile
radius from the source?
Guidance: The exception applies to
transportation during the initial 150 airmiles from the source of the commodity.
Once a driver operates beyond the 150
air-mile radius of the source, part 395
applies. Starting at zero from that point,
the driver must then begin recording his
or her duty time, and the limits under
the 11-hour, 14-hour, and the 60-/70hour rules apply. Once the hours of
service rules begin to apply on a given
trip, they continue to apply for the
duration of that trip, until the driver
crosses back into the area within 150
air-miles of the original source of the
commodities and is returning to that
source. If the driver is not returning to
the original source, the HOS rules
continue to apply, even if the driver
reenters the 150-mile radius.
VI. Expiration Date for the Proposed
Regulatory Guidance
In accordance with section
5203(a)(2)(A) and (a)(3) of the Fixing
America’s Surface Transportation
(FAST) Act, Public Law 114–94, 129
Stat. 1312, 1535 (Dec. 4, 2015), the
proposed regulatory guidance will be
posted on FMCSA’s website,
www.fmcsa.dot.gov, if finalized. It
would be reviewed by the Agency no
later than five years after it is finalized.
The Agency would consider at that time
whether the guidance should be
withdrawn, reissued for another period
up to five years, or incorporated into the
safety regulations.
VII. Request for Comments
Refer to the ADDRESSES section above
for instructions on submitting
comments to the public docket
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:03 Dec 19, 2017
Jkt 244001
concerning this regulatory guidance.
The FMCSA will consider comments
received by the closing date of the
comment period to determine whether
any further clarification of these
regulatory provisions is necessary. In
addition to comments concerning the
proposed regulatory guidance above,
including the issue of ‘‘sources’’ of
agricultural commodities, as outlined
above, the Agency is seeking
information on the following:
1. Are there particular segments of the
industry that would take advantage of
this change more than others?
2. How does the flexibility provided
in this guidance impact a carrier’s need
for an electronic logging device?
3. How many carriers and drivers are
there transporting agricultural
commodities in various segments
(livestock, unprocessed food, others)
that are impacted by this guidance?
Issued on: December 13, 2017.
Cathy F. Gautreaux,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2017–27310 Filed 12–19–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[4500030115]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; 90-Day Findings for Five
Species
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notification of petition findings
and initiation of status reviews.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce 90day findings on several petitions to list
or reclassify wildlife or plants under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act). Based on our review, we
find that the petitions present
substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that the
petitioned actions may be warranted
with respect to the species mentioned in
this notification. Therefore, with the
publication of this document, we
announce that we plan to initiate a
review of the status of each of these
species 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 species. After
completing the status reviews, we will
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
issue 12-month findings on the
petitions, which will address whether or
not the petitioned action is warranted,
in accordance with the Act. In addition,
we announce a correction to
information contained in the 90-day
petition finding for the leopard
(Panthera pardus), which clarifies the
range and entity we are evaluating in
our status review of the species.
These findings were made on
December 20, 2017.
DATES:
Summaries of the bases for
the petition findings contained in this
document are available on https://
www.regulations.gov under the
appropriate docket number (see table
under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).
Supporting information in preparing
these findings is available for public
inspection, by appointment, during
normal business hours by contacting the
appropriate person, as specified in FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. If you
have new information concerning the
status of, or threats to, the species for
which we made these petition findings,
or their habitats, please submit that
information by one of the following
methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. In the Search box,
enter the appropriate docket number
(see table under SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION). Then, click on the Search
button. After finding the correct
document, 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 under
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION], U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, 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 we receive
on https://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any
personal information you provide us
(see Request for Information for Status
Reviews, below, for more information).
ADDRESSES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
E:\FR\FM\20DEP1.SGM
20DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 20, 2017 / Proposed Rules
Common name
60363
Contact person
Oblong rocksnail .......................................................................................
Sturgeon chub and sicklefin chub ............................................................
Tricolored bat ............................................................................................
Venus flytrap .............................................................................................
Leopard .....................................................................................................
If you use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD), please call the
Federal Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–
877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533)
and its implementing regulations in title
50 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(50 CFR part 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. 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. To
the maximum extent practicable, we are
to make this finding within 90 days of
our receipt of the petition and publish
the finding promptly in the Federal
Register.
Last year, the Service and the
National Marine Fisheries Service of the
Department of Commerce revised the
regulations that outline the procedures
for evaluating petitions (81 FR 66462;
September 27, 2016). The new
regulations at 50 CFR 424.14 were
effective October 27, 2016. We received
the petitions referenced in this
document prior to that effective date.
Therefore, we evaluated these petitions
under the 50 CFR 424.14 requirements
that were in effect prior to October 27,
2016, as those requirements applied
when the petitions were received. The
regulations in effect prior to October 27,
2016, establish that the standard for
substantial scientific or commercial
information with regard to a 90-day
petition finding is ‘‘that amount of
information that would lead a
Brian Evans, 404–679–7118; brian_evans@fws.gov.
Justin Shoemaker, 309–757–5800 x214; justin_shoemaker@fws.gov.
Krishna Gifford, 413–253–8619; krishna_gifford@fws.gov.
Brian Evans, 404–679–7118; brian_evans@fws.gov.
Janine Van Norman, 703–358–2370; janine_vannorman@fws.gov.
reasonable person to believe that the
measure proposed in the petition may
be warranted’’ (former 50 CFR
424.14(b)).
A species may be determined to be an
endangered or threatened species
because of one or more of the five
factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the
Act. The five factors are:
(a) The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range
(Factor A);
(b) Overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes (Factor B);
(c) Disease or predation (Factor C);
(d) The inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms (Factor D); or
(e) Other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence (Factor
E).These factors represent broad
categories of natural or human-caused
actions or conditions that could have an
effect on a species’ continued existence
(i.e., threats). In evaluating these actions
and conditions, we look for those that
may have a negative effect on
individuals of the species, as well as for
those that may ameliorate any negative
effects and those that may have positive
effects. In considering whether the
petition presents substantial
information indicating the species may
be threatened or endangered, we must
look beyond the exposure of the species
to a threat to evaluate whether the
species may respond to the threat in a
way that causes actual impacts to the
species. The mere identification of
threats that could affect a species
negatively may not be sufficient to
compel a finding that the information in
the petition is substantial information
indicating that the petitioned action
may be warranted. The information
presented in the petition must include
evidence sufficient to suggest that these
threats may be affecting the species to
the point that the species may meet the
definition of an ‘‘endangered species’’ or
‘‘threatened species’’ under the Act.
If we find that a petition presents
such information, our subsequent status
review will evaluate all identified
threats by considering the individual,
population, and species-level effects,
and the expected response by the
species. We will evaluate individual
threats and their expected effects on the
species, then analyze the cumulative
effect of the threats on the species as a
whole. We also consider the cumulative
effect of the threats in light of those
actions and conditions that will have
positive effects on the species—such as
any existing regulatory mechanisms or
conservation efforts that may ameliorate
threats. It is only after conducting this
cumulative analysis of threats and the
actions that may ameliorate them, and
the expected effect on the species now
and in the foreseeable future, that we
can determine whether the species
meets the definition of an ‘‘endangered
species’’ or ‘‘threatened species.’’
If we find that a petition presents
substantial scientific or commercial
information, the Act requires us to
promptly commence a review of the
status of the species, and we will
subsequently complete a status review
in accordance with our prioritization
methodology for 12-month findings (81
FR 49248; July 27, 2016).
Summaries of Petition Findings
The petition findings contained in
this document are listed in the table
below and the bases for the findings,
along with supporting information, are
available on https://www.regulations.gov
under the appropriate docket number.
TABLE—SUBSTANTIAL FINDINGS AND CORRECTION ANNOUNCED
ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
Common name
Docket No.
Oblong rocksnail ...............................................
Sturgeon chub and sicklefin chub ....................
Tricolored bat ....................................................
Venus flytrap .....................................................
Leopard .............................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:03 Dec 19, 2017
Jkt 244001
URL to docket on https://www.regulations.gov
FWS–R4–ES–2017–0042
FWS–R6–ES–2017–0010
FWS–R5–ES–2017–0011
FWS–R4–ES–2017–0041
FWS–HQ–ES–2016–0131
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FWS-R-ES-2017-0042.
https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FWS-R6-ES-2017-0010.
https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FWS-R5-ES-2017-0011.
https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FWS-R4-ES-2017-0041.
https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FWS-HQ-ES-2016-0131.
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\20DEP1.SGM
20DEP1
60364
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 20, 2017 / Proposed Rules
Evaluation of a Petition To List the
Oblong Rocksnail as an Endangered or
Threatened Species Under the Act
Species and Range
Oblong rocksnail (Leptoxis
compacta): Cahaba River, Shelby
County, Alabama.
Petition History
On June 21, 2016, we received a
petition dated the same day from the
Center for Biological Diversity and
Cahaba Riverkeeper requesting that the
oblong rocksnail be listed as endangered
or threatened and that critical habitat be
designated for this species under the
Act. The petition clearly identified itself
as such and included the requisite
identification information for the
petitioners, required at former 50 CFR
424.14(a). This finding addresses the
petition.
ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
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 oblong rocksnail, based on Factors A
and E as set forth in section 4(a)(1) of
the Act (for information about these
factors, see Background, above).
However, during our status review, we
will thoroughly evaluate all potential
threats to the species, including the
extent to which any protections or other
conservation efforts have reduced those
threats. Thus, for this species, the
Service requests any information
relevant to whether the species falls
within the definition of either
‘‘endangered species’’ under section 3(6)
of the Act or ‘‘threatened species’’ under
section 3(20) of the Act, including
information on the five listing factors
under section 4(a)(1) (see Request for
Information for Status Reviews, below).
The basis for our finding on this
petition, and other information
regarding our review of the petition, can
be found as an appendix at https://
www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
FWS–R4–ES–2017–0042 under the
Supporting Documents section.
Evaluation of a Petition To List the
Sturgeon Chub and Sicklefin Chub as
Endangered or Threatened Species
Under the Act
Species and Range
Sturgeon chub (Macrhybopsis gelida):
Arkansas, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi,
Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North
Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee, and
Wyoming (Missouri River, tributaries to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:03 Dec 19, 2017
Jkt 244001
the Yellowstone and Missouri Rivers,
Middle and Lower Mississippi River).
Sicklefin chub (Macrhybopsis meeki):
Arkansas, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi,
Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North
Dakota, South Dakota, and Tennessee
(Missouri River, Lower Yellowstone
River, and Middle and Lower
Mississippi River).
Petition History
On August 15, 2016, we received a
petition dated August 11, 2016, from
WildEarth Guardians requesting that the
sturgeon chub and sicklefin chub be
listed as endangered or threatened and
that critical habitat be designated for
these species under the Act. The
petition clearly identified itself as such
and included the requisite identification
information for the petitioner, required
at former 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 sturgeon chub and sicklefin chub,
based on Factors A, C, D, and E as set
forth in section 4(a)(1) of the Act (for
information about these factors, see
Background, above). However, during
our status review, we will thoroughly
evaluate all potential threats to the
species, including the extent to which
any protections or other conservation
efforts have reduced those threats. Thus,
for these species, the Service requests
any information relevant to whether the
species fall within the definition of
either ‘‘endangered species’’ under
section 3(6) of the Act or ‘‘threatened
species’’ under section 3(20) of the Act,
including information on the five listing
factors under section 4(a)(1) (see
Request for Information for Status
Reviews, below).
The basis for our finding on this
petition, and other information
regarding our review of the petition, can
be found as an appendix at https://
www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
FWS–R6–ES–2017–0010 under the
Supporting Documents section.
Evaluation of a Petition To List the
Tricolored Bat as an Endangered or
Threatened Species Under the Act
Species and Range
Tricolored bat (Perimyotis subflavus):
Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado,
Connecticut, Delaware, District of
Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Illinois,
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico,
New York, North Carolina, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
South Carolina, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia,
West Virginia, and Wisconsin; Canada
(New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario,
and Quebec); Mexico (Eastern and
southern regions: Coahuila to Chiapas);
Central America (Guatemala)
Petition History
On June 14, 2016, we received a
petition dated June 14, 2016, from the
Center for Biological Diversity and
Defenders of Wildlife requesting that the
tricolored bat be listed as endangered or
threatened and that critical habitat be
designated for this species under the
Act. The petition clearly identified itself
as such and included the requisite
identification information for the
petitioners, required at former 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 tricolored bat, based on Factors A,
C, and E as set forth in section 4(a)(1)
of the Act (for information about these
factors, see Background, above).
However, during our status review, we
will thoroughly evaluate all potential
threats to the species, including the
extent to which any protections or other
conservation efforts have reduced those
threats. Thus, for this species, the
Service requests any information
relevant to whether the species falls
within the definition of either
‘‘endangered species’’ under section 3(6)
of the Act or ‘‘threatened species’’ under
section 3(20) of the Act, including
information on the five listing factors
under section 4(a)(1) (see Request for
Information for Status Reviews, below).
The basis for our finding on this
petition, and other information
regarding our review of the petition, can
be found as an appendix at https://
www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
FWS–R5–ES–2017–0011 under the
Supporting Documents section.
E:\FR\FM\20DEP1.SGM
20DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 20, 2017 / Proposed Rules
Evaluation of a Petition To List the
Venus Flytrap as an Endangered or
Threatened Species Under the Act
Species and Range
Venus flytrap (Dionaea muscipula
Ellis): Southeastern North Carolina and
northeastern South Carolina, and one
introduced population each in Florida
and New Jersey.
Petition History
On October 21, 2016, we received a
petition dated the same day from
Donald M. Waller, J.T. Curtis Professor
of Botany and Environmental Studies,
University of Wisconsin-Madison, and
25 additional supporters requesting that
the Venus flytrap be listed as
endangered or threatened and that
critical habitat be designated for this
species under the Act. The petition
clearly identified itself as such and
included the requisite identification
information for the petitioners, required
at former 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding
addresses the petition.
ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
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 Venus flytrap, based on Factors A,
B, and D as set forth in section 4(a)(1)
of the Act (see Background, above).
However, during our status review, we
will thoroughly evaluate all potential
threats to the species, including the
extent to which any protections or other
conservation efforts have reduced those
threats. Thus, for this species, the
Service requests any information
relevant to whether the species falls
within the definition of either
‘‘endangered species’’ under section 3(6)
of the Act or ‘‘threatened species’’ under
section 3(20) of the Act, including
information on the five listing factors
under section 4(a)(1) (see Request for
Information for Status Reviews, below).
The basis for our finding on this
petition, and other information
regarding our review of the petition, can
be found as an appendix at https://
www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
FWS–R4–ES–2017–0041 under the
Supporting Documents section.
Correction to our Evaluation of a
Petition To Reclassify the Leopard as
an Endangered Species Throughout Its
Range
On November 30, 2016, we published
a document in the Federal Register (81
FR 86315) announcing 90-day findings
on three petitions to list or reclassify
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:03 Dec 19, 2017
Jkt 244001
wildlife or plants under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act;
16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). That document
included a finding on a petition to
reclassify leopard (Panthera pardus) as
an endangered species throughout its
range. However, in the discussion of our
finding and supporting documentation,
we made two errors. Therefore, with
this document, we correct those errors,
clarify our intent to evaluate the status
of the species throughout its range. The
public is welcome to submit
information on the species in light of
these corrections (see ADDRESSES,
above). If you sent information
previously, you need not resend it.
The first error we made in the
November 30, 2016, 90-day finding is
that we mistakenly titled the action
‘‘Evaluation of a Petition To Reclassify
Leopards Currently Listed as
Threatened Species to Endangered
Species Under the Act,’’ inadvertently
implying that we will evaluate the
status of the species only in the
countries in which it is currently listed
as threatened. However, the petition
requests that we reclassify leopards as
endangered throughout the species’
current range, and we evaluated the
petition based on that request. Our
finding on the petition—that the
petition contains substantial
information that listing the leopard as
endangered throughout its range may be
warranted—has not changed. Therefore,
we clarify that we will evaluate the
status of leopards throughout their
current range in our assessment of the
species’ status.
The second error we made in the
November 30, 2016, 90-day finding is
that we mistakenly described the
current range of the leopard as:
Democratic Republic of the Congo,
Gabon, Kenya, and Uganda. However,
the correct current range of the species
is as follows:
Species and Range
Leopard (Panthera pardus): 62
countries in Africa and Asia.
The corrected information regarding
our review of this petition can be found
as an appendix at https://
www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
FWS–HQ–ES–2016–0131 in the
Supporting Documents section.
Request for Information for Status
Reviews
When we make a finding that a
petition presents substantial
information indicating that listing,
reclassification, or delisting of a species
may be warranted, we are required to
review the status of the species (a status
review). For the status review to be
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
60365
complete and based on the best
available scientific and commercial
information, we request information on
these species from governmental
agencies, Native American Tribes, the
scientific community, industry, and any
other interested parties. We seek
information on:
(1) The species’ biology, range, and
population trends, including:
(a) Habitat requirements;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range,
including distribution patterns; and
(d) Historical and current population
levels and current and projected trends.
(2) The five factors described in
section 4(a)(1) of the Act (see
Background, above) 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.), including past and
ongoing conservation measures that
could decrease the extent to which one
or more of the factors affect the species,
its habitat, or both.
(3) The potential effects of climate
change on the species and its habitat,
and the extent to which it affects the
habitat or range of the species.
If, after the status review, we
determine that listing is warranted, we
will propose critical habitat (see
definition at section 3(5)(A) of the Act)
for domestic (United States) species
under section 4 of the Act, to the
maximum extent prudent and
determinable at the time we propose to
list the species. Therefore, we also
request data and information (submitted
as provided for in ADDRESSES, above) for
the species listed in the table above on:
(1) What may constitute ‘‘physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the species,’’ within the
geographical range occupied by the
species;
(2) Where these features are currently
found;
(3) Whether or not any of these
features may require special
management considerations or
protection;
(4) Specific areas outside the
geographical area occupied by the
species 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 species is proposed for listing, and
why such habitat falls within the
definition of ‘‘critical habitat’’ at section
3(5) 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.
E:\FR\FM\20DEP1.SGM
20DEP1
60366
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 20, 2017 / Proposed Rules
ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
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 ADDRESSES. If
you submit information via https://
www.regulations.gov, your entire
submission—including any personal
identifying information—will be posted
on the website. 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.
It is important to note that the
standard for a 90-day finding differs
from the Act’s standard that applies to
a status review to determine whether a
petitioned action is warranted. In
making a 90-day finding, we consider
information in the petition and sources
cited in the petition, as well as
information which is readily available,
and we evaluate merely whether that
information constitutes ‘‘substantial
information’’ indicating that the
petitioned action ‘‘may be warranted.’’
In a 12-month finding, we must
complete a thorough status review of the
species and evaluate the ‘‘best scientific
and commercial data available’’ to
determine whether a petitioned action
‘‘is warranted.’’ Because the Act’s
standards for 90-day and 12-month
findings are different, a substantial 90day finding does not mean that the 12month finding will result in a
‘‘warranted’’ finding.
Conclusion
On the basis of our evaluation of the
information presented in the petitions
under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we
have determined that the petitions
referenced above for the oblong
rocksnail, sturgeon chub, sicklefin chub,
tricolored bat, and Venus flytrap present
substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that the
requested actions may be warranted.
Because we have found that these
petitions present substantial
information indicating that the
petitioned actions may be warranted, we
are initiating status reviews to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:03 Dec 19, 2017
Jkt 244001
determine whether these actions are
warranted under the Act. At the
conclusion of each status review, we
will issue a finding, in accordance with
section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act, as to
whether or not the petitioned action is
warranted.
Authors
The primary authors of this document
are staff members of the 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: October 23, 2017.
James W. Kurth,
Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, exercising the authority of the
Director U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2017–27389 Filed 12–19–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 665
[Docket No. 170915903–7999–01]
RIN 0648–XF706
Pacific Island Fisheries; 2017 Hawaii
Kona Crab Annual Catch Limit and
Accountability Measure
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed specification; request
for comments.
AGENCY:
NMFS proposes a 2017
annual catch limit (ACL) of 3,500 lb for
Hawaii Kona Crab, and an
accountability measure (AM) to correct
or mitigate any overages of catch limits.
The proposed ACL and AM support the
long-term sustainability of fishery
resources of the U.S. Pacific Islands.
DATES: NMFS must receive comments
by January 4, 2018.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
on this document, identified by NOAA–
NMFS–2017–0120, by either of the
following methods:
• Electronic Submission: Submit all
electronic public comments via the
Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to
https://www.regulations.gov/#!
docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-20170120, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon,
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
complete the required fields, and enter
or attach your comments.
• Mail: Send written comments to
Michael D. Tosatto, Regional
Administrator, NMFS Pacific Islands
Region (PIR), 1845 Wasp Blvd., Bldg.
176, Honolulu, HI 96818.
Instructions: NMFS may not consider
comments sent by any other method, to
any other address or individual, or
received after the end of the comment
period. All comments received are a
part of the public record and will
generally be posted for public viewing
on https://www.regulations.gov change.
All personal identifying information
(e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential
business information, or otherwise
sensitive information submitted
voluntarily by the sender will be
publicly accessible.
NMFS prepared an environmental
analysis that describes the potential
impacts on the human environment that
would result from the proposed ACL
and AM. Copies of the environmental
analyses and other supporting
documents are available at https://
www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sarah Ellgen, NMFS PIR Sustainable
Fisheries, 808–725–5173.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Kona
crab fishery in the U.S. Exclusive
Economic Zone (generally 3–200 nm
from shore) around Hawaii is managed
under Fishery Ecosystem Plan for the
Hawaiian Archipelago (FEP). The
Western Pacific Fishery Management
Council (Council) developed the FEP,
and NMFS implemented the plan under
the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management
Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
The FEP contains a process for the
Council and NMFS to specify ACLs and
AMs; that process is codified at Title 50,
Code of Federal Regulations, Section
665.4 (50 CFR 665.4). The regulations
require NMFS to specify, every fishing
year, an ACL for each stock and stock
complex of management unit species
(MUS) in an FEP, as recommended by
the Council and considering the best
available scientific, commercial, and
other information about the fishery. If a
fishery exceeds an ACL, the regulations
require the Council to take action,
which may include reducing the ACL
for the subsequent fishing year by the
amount of the overage, or other
appropriate action.
The Council recommended that
NMFS specify an ACL of 3,500 lb of
Hawaii Kona crab for fishing year 2017,
which began on January 1 and ends on
December 31. The Council based its
ACL recommendation on a
E:\FR\FM\20DEP1.SGM
20DEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 243 (Wednesday, December 20, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 60362-60366]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-27389]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[4500030115]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Findings
for Five Species
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notification of petition findings and initiation of status
reviews.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce 90-
day findings on several petitions to list or reclassify wildlife or
plants under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act).
Based on our review, we find that the petitions present substantial
scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned
actions may be warranted with respect to the species mentioned in this
notification. Therefore, with the publication of this document, we
announce that we plan to initiate a review of the status of each of
these species 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
species. After completing the status reviews, we will issue 12-month
findings on the petitions, which will address whether or not the
petitioned action is warranted, in accordance with the Act. In
addition, we announce a correction to information contained in the 90-
day petition finding for the leopard (Panthera pardus), which clarifies
the range and entity we are evaluating in our status review of the
species.
DATES: These findings were made on December 20, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Summaries of the bases for the petition findings contained
in this document are available on https://www.regulations.gov under the
appropriate docket number (see table under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).
Supporting information in preparing these findings is available for
public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours by
contacting the appropriate person, as specified in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT. If you have new information concerning the status
of, or threats to, the species for which we made these petition
findings, or their habitats, please submit that information by one of
the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter the appropriate docket
number (see table under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION). Then, click on the
Search button. After finding the correct document, 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
under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION], U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 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 we receive on https://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any
personal information you provide us (see Request for Information for
Status Reviews, below, for more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
[[Page 60363]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Common name Contact person
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oblong rocksnail....................... Brian Evans, 404-679-7118;
[email protected].
Sturgeon chub and sicklefin chub....... Justin Shoemaker, 309-757-5800
x214;
[email protected].
Tricolored bat......................... Krishna Gifford, 413-253-8619;
[email protected].
Venus flytrap.......................... Brian Evans, 404-679-7118;
[email protected].
Leopard................................ Janine Van Norman, 703-358-
2370;
[email protected].
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please
call the Federal Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR part
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. 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. To the maximum extent
practicable, we are to make this finding within 90 days of our receipt
of the petition and publish the finding promptly in the Federal
Register.
Last year, the Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service of
the Department of Commerce revised the regulations that outline the
procedures for evaluating petitions (81 FR 66462; September 27, 2016).
The new regulations at 50 CFR 424.14 were effective October 27, 2016.
We received the petitions referenced in this document prior to that
effective date. Therefore, we evaluated these petitions under the 50
CFR 424.14 requirements that were in effect prior to October 27, 2016,
as those requirements applied when the petitions were received. The
regulations in effect prior to October 27, 2016, establish that the
standard for substantial scientific or commercial information 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'' (former 50 CFR 424.14(b)).
A species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened
species because of one or more of the five factors described in section
4(a)(1) of the Act. The five factors are:
(a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range (Factor A);
(b) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes (Factor B);
(c) Disease or predation (Factor C);
(d) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D); or
(e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence (Factor E).These factors represent broad categories of
natural or human-caused actions or conditions that could have an effect
on a species' continued existence (i.e., threats). In evaluating these
actions and conditions, we look for those that may have a negative
effect on individuals of the species, as well as for those that may
ameliorate any negative effects and those that may have positive
effects. In considering whether the petition presents substantial
information indicating the species may be threatened or endangered, we
must look beyond the exposure of the species to a threat to evaluate
whether the species may respond to the threat in a way that causes
actual impacts to the species. The mere identification of threats that
could affect a species negatively may not be sufficient to compel a
finding that the information in the petition is substantial information
indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. The information
presented in the petition must include evidence sufficient to suggest
that these threats may be affecting the species to the point that the
species may meet the definition of an ``endangered species'' or
``threatened species'' under the Act.
If we find that a petition presents such information, our
subsequent status review will evaluate all identified threats by
considering the individual, population, and species-level effects, and
the expected response by the species. We will evaluate individual
threats and their expected effects on the species, then analyze the
cumulative effect of the threats on the species as a whole. We also
consider the cumulative effect of the threats in light of those actions
and conditions that will have positive effects on the species--such as
any existing regulatory mechanisms or conservation efforts that may
ameliorate threats. It is only after conducting this cumulative
analysis of threats and the actions that may ameliorate them, and the
expected effect on the species now and in the foreseeable future, that
we can determine whether the species meets the definition of an
``endangered species'' or ``threatened species.''
If we find that a petition presents substantial scientific or
commercial information, the Act requires us to promptly commence a
review of the status of the species, and we will subsequently complete
a status review in accordance with our prioritization methodology for
12-month findings (81 FR 49248; July 27, 2016).
Summaries of Petition Findings
The petition findings contained in this document are listed in the
table below and the bases for the findings, along with supporting
information, are available on https://www.regulations.gov under the
appropriate docket number.
Table--Substantial Findings and Correction Announced
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
URL to docket on https://
Common name Docket No. www.regulations.gov
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oblong rocksnail..................... FWS-R4-ES-2017-0042 https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FWS-R-ES-2017-0042.
Sturgeon chub and sicklefin chub..... FWS-R6-ES-2017-0010 https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FWS-R6-ES-2017-0010 0010.
Tricolored bat....................... FWS-R5-ES-2017-0011 https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FWS-R5-ES-2017-0011 0011.
Venus flytrap........................ FWS-R4-ES-2017-0041 https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FWS-R4-ES-2017-0041 0041.
Leopard.............................. FWS-HQ-ES-2016-0131 https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FWS-HQ-ES-2016-0131 0131.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 60364]]
Evaluation of a Petition To List the Oblong Rocksnail as an Endangered
or Threatened Species Under the Act
Species and Range
Oblong rocksnail (Leptoxis compacta): Cahaba River, Shelby County,
Alabama.
Petition History
On June 21, 2016, we received a petition dated the same day from
the Center for Biological Diversity and Cahaba Riverkeeper requesting
that the oblong rocksnail be listed as endangered or threatened and
that critical habitat be designated for this species under the Act. The
petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite
identification information for the petitioners, required at former 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 oblong rocksnail, based on Factors A and E as set
forth in section 4(a)(1) of the Act (for information about these
factors, see Background, above). However, during our status review, we
will thoroughly evaluate all potential threats to the species,
including the extent to which any protections or other conservation
efforts have reduced those threats. Thus, for this species, the Service
requests any information relevant to whether the species falls within
the definition of either ``endangered species'' under section 3(6) of
the Act or ``threatened species'' under section 3(20) of the Act,
including information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1)
(see Request for Information for Status Reviews, below).
The basis for our finding on this petition, and other information
regarding our review of the petition, can be found as an appendix at
https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2017-0042 under
the Supporting Documents section.
Evaluation of a Petition To List the Sturgeon Chub and Sicklefin Chub
as Endangered or Threatened Species Under the Act
Species and Range
Sturgeon chub (Macrhybopsis gelida): Arkansas, Illinois, Iowa,
Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska,
North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Wyoming (Missouri River,
tributaries to the Yellowstone and Missouri Rivers, Middle and Lower
Mississippi River).
Sicklefin chub (Macrhybopsis meeki): Arkansas, Illinois, Iowa,
Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska,
North Dakota, South Dakota, and Tennessee (Missouri River, Lower
Yellowstone River, and Middle and Lower Mississippi River).
Petition History
On August 15, 2016, we received a petition dated August 11, 2016,
from WildEarth Guardians requesting that the sturgeon chub and
sicklefin chub be listed as endangered or threatened and that critical
habitat be designated for these species under the Act. The petition
clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite
identification information for the petitioner, required at former 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 sturgeon chub and sicklefin chub, based on Factors A,
C, D, and E as set forth in section 4(a)(1) of the Act (for information
about these factors, see Background, above). However, during our status
review, we will thoroughly evaluate all potential threats to the
species, including the extent to which any protections or other
conservation efforts have reduced those threats. Thus, for these
species, the Service requests any information relevant to whether the
species fall within the definition of either ``endangered species''
under section 3(6) of the Act or ``threatened species'' under section
3(20) of the Act, including information on the five listing factors
under section 4(a)(1) (see Request for Information for Status Reviews,
below).
The basis for our finding on this petition, and other information
regarding our review of the petition, can be found as an appendix at
https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2017-0010 under
the Supporting Documents section.
Evaluation of a Petition To List the Tricolored Bat as an Endangered or
Threatened Species Under the Act
Species and Range
Tricolored bat (Perimyotis subflavus): Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado,
Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia,
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska,
New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin;
Canada (New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario, and Quebec); Mexico
(Eastern and southern regions: Coahuila to Chiapas); Central America
(Guatemala)
Petition History
On June 14, 2016, we received a petition dated June 14, 2016, from
the Center for Biological Diversity and Defenders of Wildlife
requesting that the tricolored bat be listed as endangered or
threatened and that critical habitat be designated for this species
under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and
included the requisite identification information for the petitioners,
required at former 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 tricolored bat, based on Factors A, C, and E as set
forth in section 4(a)(1) of the Act (for information about these
factors, see Background, above). However, during our status review, we
will thoroughly evaluate all potential threats to the species,
including the extent to which any protections or other conservation
efforts have reduced those threats. Thus, for this species, the Service
requests any information relevant to whether the species falls within
the definition of either ``endangered species'' under section 3(6) of
the Act or ``threatened species'' under section 3(20) of the Act,
including information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1)
(see Request for Information for Status Reviews, below).
The basis for our finding on this petition, and other information
regarding our review of the petition, can be found as an appendix at
https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2017-0011 under
the Supporting Documents section.
[[Page 60365]]
Evaluation of a Petition To List the Venus Flytrap as an Endangered or
Threatened Species Under the Act
Species and Range
Venus flytrap (Dionaea muscipula Ellis): Southeastern North
Carolina and northeastern South Carolina, and one introduced population
each in Florida and New Jersey.
Petition History
On October 21, 2016, we received a petition dated the same day from
Donald M. Waller, J.T. Curtis Professor of Botany and Environmental
Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison, and 25 additional supporters
requesting that the Venus flytrap be listed as endangered or threatened
and that critical habitat be designated for this species under the Act.
The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the
requisite identification information for the petitioners, required at
former 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 Venus flytrap, based on Factors A, B, and D as set
forth in section 4(a)(1) of the Act (see Background, above). However,
during our status review, we will thoroughly evaluate all potential
threats to the species, including the extent to which any protections
or other conservation efforts have reduced those threats. Thus, for
this species, the Service requests any information relevant to whether
the species falls within the definition of either ``endangered
species'' under section 3(6) of the Act or ``threatened species'' under
section 3(20) of the Act, including information on the five listing
factors under section 4(a)(1) (see Request for Information for Status
Reviews, below).
The basis for our finding on this petition, and other information
regarding our review of the petition, can be found as an appendix at
https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2017-0041 under
the Supporting Documents section.
Correction to our Evaluation of a Petition To Reclassify the Leopard as
an Endangered Species Throughout Its Range
On November 30, 2016, we published a document in the Federal
Register (81 FR 86315) announcing 90-day findings on three petitions to
list or reclassify wildlife or plants under the Endangered Species Act
of 1973, as amended (Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). That document
included a finding on a petition to reclassify leopard (Panthera
pardus) as an endangered species throughout its range. However, in the
discussion of our finding and supporting documentation, we made two
errors. Therefore, with this document, we correct those errors, clarify
our intent to evaluate the status of the species throughout its range.
The public is welcome to submit information on the species in light of
these corrections (see ADDRESSES, above). If you sent information
previously, you need not resend it.
The first error we made in the November 30, 2016, 90-day finding is
that we mistakenly titled the action ``Evaluation of a Petition To
Reclassify Leopards Currently Listed as Threatened Species to
Endangered Species Under the Act,'' inadvertently implying that we will
evaluate the status of the species only in the countries in which it is
currently listed as threatened. However, the petition requests that we
reclassify leopards as endangered throughout the species' current
range, and we evaluated the petition based on that request. Our finding
on the petition--that the petition contains substantial information
that listing the leopard as endangered throughout its range may be
warranted--has not changed. Therefore, we clarify that we will evaluate
the status of leopards throughout their current range in our assessment
of the species' status.
The second error we made in the November 30, 2016, 90-day finding
is that we mistakenly described the current range of the leopard as:
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Gabon, Kenya, and Uganda. However,
the correct current range of the species is as follows:
Species and Range
Leopard (Panthera pardus): 62 countries in Africa and Asia.
The corrected information regarding our review of this petition can
be found as an appendix at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
FWS-HQ-ES-2016-0131 in the Supporting Documents section.
Request for Information for Status Reviews
When we make a finding that a petition presents substantial
information indicating that listing, reclassification, or delisting of
a species may be warranted, we are required to review the status of the
species (a status review). For the status review to be complete and
based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we
request information on these species from governmental agencies, Native
American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, and any other
interested parties. We seek information on:
(1) The species' biology, range, and population trends, including:
(a) Habitat requirements;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns;
and
(d) Historical and current population levels and current and
projected trends.
(2) The five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act (see
Background, above) 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.), including past and
ongoing conservation measures that could decrease the extent to which
one or more of the factors affect the species, its habitat, or both.
(3) The potential effects of climate change on the species and its
habitat, and the extent to which it affects the habitat or range of the
species.
If, after the status review, we determine that listing is
warranted, we will propose critical habitat (see definition at section
3(5)(A) of the Act) for domestic (United States) species under section
4 of the Act, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable at the
time we propose to list the species. Therefore, we also request data
and information (submitted as provided for in ADDRESSES, above) for the
species listed in the table above on:
(1) What may constitute ``physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species,'' within the geographical range
occupied by the species;
(2) Where these features are currently found;
(3) Whether or not any of these features may require special
management considerations or protection;
(4) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species 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 species is proposed for listing, and why such
habitat falls within the definition of ``critical habitat'' at section
3(5) 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.
[[Page 60366]]
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 ADDRESSES. If you submit information via
https://www.regulations.gov, your entire submission--including any
personal identifying information--will be posted on the website. 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.
It is important to note that the standard for a 90-day finding
differs from the Act's standard that applies to a status review to
determine whether a petitioned action is warranted. In making a 90-day
finding, we consider information in the petition and sources cited in
the petition, as well as information which is readily available, and we
evaluate merely whether that information constitutes ``substantial
information'' indicating that the petitioned action ``may be
warranted.'' In a 12-month finding, we must complete a thorough status
review of the species and evaluate the ``best scientific and commercial
data available'' to determine whether a petitioned action ``is
warranted.'' Because the Act's standards for 90-day and 12-month
findings are different, a substantial 90-day finding does not mean that
the 12-month finding will result in a ``warranted'' finding.
Conclusion
On the basis of our evaluation of the information presented in the
petitions under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we have determined that
the petitions referenced above for the oblong rocksnail, sturgeon chub,
sicklefin chub, tricolored bat, and Venus flytrap present substantial
scientific or commercial information indicating that the requested
actions may be warranted. Because we have found that these petitions
present substantial information indicating that the petitioned actions
may be warranted, we are initiating status reviews to determine whether
these actions are warranted under the Act. At the conclusion of each
status review, we will issue a finding, in accordance with section
4(b)(3)(B) of the Act, as to whether or not the petitioned action is
warranted.
Authors
The primary authors of this document are staff members of the
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: October 23, 2017.
James W. Kurth,
Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, exercising the
authority of the Director U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-27389 Filed 12-19-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
