Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Black Teatfish as Threatened or Endangered Under the Endangered Species Act, 48144-48148 [2020-15721]
Download as PDF
48144
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 154 / Monday, August 10, 2020 / Proposed Rules
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2019 (Pub. L. 115–232; 132 Stat.
1918); or
(iv) A specific determination made by
an appropriate national security agency.
(2) And is capable of:
(i) Routing or redirecting user data
traffic or permitting visibility into any
user data or packets that such
equipment or service transmits or
otherwise handles;
(ii) Causing the networks of a provider
of advanced communications services to
be disrupted remotely; or
(iii) Otherwise posing an
unacceptable risk to the national
security of the United States or the
security and safety of United States
persons.
§ 1.40003
Updates to the Covered List.
(a) Consultation with External
Sources. The Public Safety and
Homeland Security Bureau shall
monitor the status of external
determinations in order to place
additional communications equipment
or services on the Covered List or to
remove communications equipment and
services from the Covered List.
(b) External Determination Reversal. If
an external determination regarding
communications equipment or service
on the Covered List is reversed, the
Commission shall remove such
equipment or service from the Covered
List, except the Commission may not
remove such equipment or service if any
other of the sources identified in
§ 1.40002(b)(1)(i) through (iv) maintains
an external determination supporting
inclusion on the Covered List of such
equipment or service.
PART 54—UNIVERSAL SERVICE
4. The authority citation for part 54 is
revised to read as follows:
■
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 155, 201,
205, 214, 219, 220, 229, 254, 303(r), 403,
1004, 1302, and 1601–1609, unless otherwise
noted.
5. Add § 54.10 to subpart A to read as
follows:
■
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
§ 54.10 Prohibition on use of certain
Federal subsidies.
(a) A Federal subsidy made available
through a program administered by the
Commission that provides funds to be
used for the capital expenditures
necessary for the provision of advanced
communications service may not be
used to:
(1) Purchase, rent, lease, or otherwise
obtain any covered communications
equipment or service; or
(2) Maintain any covered
communications equipment or service
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:35 Aug 07, 2020
Jkt 250001
previously purchased, rented, leased, or
otherwise obtained.
(b) The term ‘‘covered
communications equipment or service’’
is defined in § 1.40001(c) of this
chapter.
(c) The prohibition in paragraph (a) of
this section applies with respect to any
covered communications equipment or
service beginning on the date that is 60
days after the date on which such
equipment or service is placed on a
published list pursuant to § 1.40002(b)
of this chapter. In the case of any
covered communications equipment or
service that is on the initial list
published pursuant to § 1.40002(b),
such equipment or service shall be
treated as being placed on the list on the
date which such list is published.
■ 6. Add subpart P to read as follows:
Subpart P—Secure and Trusted
Communications Networks Reimbursement
Program
Sec.
54.1600 Purpose.
54.1601 [Reserved]
54.1602 Enforcement.
Subpart P—Secure and Trusted
Communications Networks
Reimbursement Program
§ 54.1600
Purpose.
The purpose of this subpart is to set
out the terms by which providers of
advanced communications service can
seek and obtain reimbursements to
replace covered communications
equipment or services in accordance
with the Secure and Trusted
Communications Networks Act of 2019,
Public Law 116–124, 133 Stat. 158.
§ 54.1601
[Reserved]
§ 54.1602
Enforcement.
(a) General enforcement. In addition
to the penalties provided under the
Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, and § 1.80 of this chapter, if
a recipient in the Secure and Trusted
Communications Networks
Reimbursement Program (Program)
violates the Secure and Trusted
Communications Networks Act of 2019,
Public Law 116–124, 133 Stat. 158, the
Commission’s rules implementing that
statute, or the commitments made by
the recipient in the application for
reimbursement, the recipient:
(1) Shall repay to the Commission all
reimbursement funds provided to the
recipient under the Program;
(2) Shall be barred from further
participation in the Program;
(3) Shall be referred to all appropriate
law enforcement agencies or officials for
further action under applicable criminal
and civil law; and
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(4) May be barred by the Commission
from participation in other programs of
the Commission, including the Federal
universal service support programs
established under section 254 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as
amended.
(b) Notice and opportunity to cure.
The penalties described in paragraph (a)
of this section shall not apply to a
recipient unless:
(1) The Commission, the Wireline
Competition Bureau, or the Enforcement
Bureau provides the recipient with
notice of the violation; and
(2) The recipient fails to cure the
violation within 180 days after the
Commission or Bureau provides such
notice.
(c) Recovery of funds. The
Commission will immediately take
action to recover all reimbursement
funds awarded to a recipient under the
Program in any case in which such
recipient is required to repay
reimbursement funds under paragraph
(a) of this section.
[FR Doc. 2020–17223 Filed 8–7–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Parts 223 and 224
[Docket No. 200715–0191; RTID 0648–
XR113]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife;
90-Day Finding on a Petition To List
the Black Teatfish as Threatened or
Endangered Under the Endangered
Species Act
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: 90-Day petition finding, request
for information, and initiation of status
review.
AGENCY:
We, NMFS, announce a 90day finding on a petition to list the
black teatfish (Holothuria nobilis) as
threatened or endangered under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA). We find
that the petition presents substantial
scientific or commercial information
indicating that the petitioned action
may be warranted. Therefore, we are
initiating a status review of the species
to determine whether listing under the
ESA is warranted. To ensure this status
review is comprehensive, we are
soliciting scientific and commercial
information regarding this species.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\10AUP1.SGM
10AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 154 / Monday, August 10, 2020 / Proposed Rules
Scientific and commercial
information pertinent to the petitioned
action must be received by October 9,
2020.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
on this document, identified by NOAA–
NMFS–2020–0093 by the following
method:
• Electronic Submissions: Submit all
electronic public comments via the
Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to
www.regulations.gov/
#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-20200093. Click the ‘‘Comment Now’’ icon,
complete the required fields, and enter
or attach your comments.
Instructions: Comments sent by any
other method, to any other address or
individual, or received after the end of
the comment period, may not be
considered by NMFS. All comments
received are a part of the public record
and will generally be posted for public
viewing on www.regulations.gov
without 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 will
accept anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/
A’’ in the required fields if you wish to
remain anonymous).
Interested persons may obtain a copy
of the petition online at the NMFS
website: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/
national/endangered-speciesconservation/petitions-awaiting-90-dayfindings.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Adrienne Lohe, NMFS Office of
Protected Resources, (301) 427–8442,
Adrienne.Lohe@noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
DATES:
Background
On May 14, 2020, we received a
petition from the Center for Biological
Diversity to list the black teatfish
(Holothuria nobilis) as a threatened or
endangered species under the ESA. The
petition asserts that H. nobilis is
threatened by four of the five ESA
section 4(a)(1) factors: (1) Present and
threatened modification of its habitat;
(2) overutilization for commercial
purposes; (3) inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms; and (4) other
natural or manmade factors. The
petition is available online (see
ADDRESSES).
ESA Statutory, Regulatory, and Policy
Provisions and Evaluation Framework
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA of 1973,
as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.),
requires, to the maximum extent
practicable, that within 90 days of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:35 Aug 07, 2020
Jkt 250001
receipt of a petition to list a species as
threatened or endangered, the Secretary
of Commerce make a finding on whether
that petition presents substantial
scientific or commercial information
indicating that the petitioned action
may be warranted, and to promptly
publish such finding in the Federal
Register (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)). When
it is found that substantial scientific or
commercial information in a petition
indicates the petitioned action may be
warranted (a ‘‘positive 90-day finding’’),
we are required to promptly commence
a review of the status of the species
concerned during which we will
conduct a comprehensive review of the
best available scientific and commercial
information. In such cases, we conclude
the review with a finding as to whether,
in fact, the petitioned action is
warranted within 12 months of receipt
of the petition. Because the finding at
the 12-month stage is based on a more
thorough review of the available
information, as compared to the narrow
scope of review at the 90-day stage, a
‘‘may be warranted’’ finding does not
prejudge the outcome of the status
review.
Under the ESA, a listing
determination may address a species,
which is defined to also include
subspecies and, for any vertebrate
species, any distinct population
segment (DPS) that interbreeds when
mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). A joint
NMFS–U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) (jointly, ‘‘the Services’’) policy
clarifies the agencies’ interpretation of
the phrase ‘‘distinct population
segment’’ for the purposes of listing,
delisting, and reclassifying a species
under the ESA (61 FR 4722; February 7,
1996). A species, subspecies, or DPS is
‘‘endangered’’ if it is in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range, and ‘‘threatened’’ if
it is likely to become endangered within
the foreseeable future throughout all or
a significant portion of its range (ESA
sections 3(6) and 3(20), respectively, 16
U.S.C. 1532(6) and (20)). Pursuant to the
ESA and our implementing regulations,
we determine whether species are
threatened or endangered based on any
one or a combination of the following
five section 4(a)(1) factors: (1) The
present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of habitat
or range; (2) overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (3) disease or
predation; (4) inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms to address
identified threats; (5) or any other
natural or manmade factors affecting the
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
48145
species’ existence (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1),
50 CFR 424.11(c)).
ESA-implementing regulations issued
jointly by NMFS and USFWS (50 CFR
424.14(h)(1)(i)) define ‘‘substantial
scientific or commercial information’’ in
the context of reviewing a petition to
list, delist, or reclassify a species as
credible scientific or commercial
information in support of the petition’s
claims such that a reasonable person
conducting an impartial scientific
review would conclude that the action
proposed in the petition may be
warranted. Conclusions drawn in the
petition without the support of credible
scientific or commercial information
will not be considered ‘‘substantial
information.’’ In reaching the initial (90day) finding on the petition, we will
consider the information described in
sections 50 CFR 424.14(c), (d), and (g)
(if applicable).
Our determination as to whether the
petition provides substantial scientific
or commercial information indicating
that the petitioned action may be
warranted will depend in part on the
degree to which the petition includes
the following types of information: (1)
Information on current population
status and trends and estimates of
current population sizes and
distributions, both in captivity and the
wild, if available; (2) identification of
the factors under section 4(a)(1) of the
ESA that may affect the species and
where these factors are acting upon the
species; (3) whether and to what extent
any or all of the factors alone or in
combination identified in section 4(a)(1)
of the ESA may cause the species to be
an endangered species or threatened
species (i.e., the species is currently in
danger of extinction or is likely to
become so within the foreseeable
future), and, if so, how high in
magnitude and how imminent the
threats to the species and its habitat are;
(4) information on adequacy of
regulatory protections and effectiveness
of conservation activities by States as
well as other parties, that have been
initiated or that are ongoing, that may
protect the species or its habitat; and (5)
a complete, balanced representation of
the relevant facts, including information
that may contradict claims in the
petition. See 50 CFR 424.14(d).
If the petitioner provides
supplemental information before the
initial finding is made and states that it
is part of the petition, the new
information, along with the previously
submitted information, is treated as a
new petition that supersedes the
original petition, and the statutory
timeframes will begin when such
E:\FR\FM\10AUP1.SGM
10AUP1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
48146
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 154 / Monday, August 10, 2020 / Proposed Rules
supplemental information is received.
See 50 CFR 424.14(g).
We may also consider information
readily available at the time the
determination is made. We are not
required to consider any supporting
materials cited by the petitioner if the
petitioner does not provide electronic or
hard copies, to the extent permitted by
U.S. copyright law, or appropriate
excerpts or quotations from those
materials (e.g., publications, maps,
reports, letters from authorities). See 50
CFR 424.14(c)(6).
The ‘‘substantial scientific or
commercial information’’ standard must
be applied in light of any prior reviews
or findings we have made on the listing
status of the species that is the subject
of the petition. Where we have already
conducted a finding on, or review of,
the listing status of that species
(whether in response to a petition or on
our own initiative), we will evaluate any
petition received thereafter seeking to
list, delist, or reclassify that species to
determine whether a reasonable person
conducting an impartial scientific
review would conclude that the action
proposed in the petition may be
warranted despite the previous review
or finding. Where the prior review
resulted in a final agency action—such
as a final listing determination, 90-day
not-substantial finding, or 12-month
not-warranted finding—a petition will
generally not be considered to present
substantial scientific and commercial
information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted
unless the petition provides new
information or analysis not previously
considered. See 50 CFR 424.14(h)(1)(iii).
At the 90-day finding stage, we do not
conduct additional research, and we do
not solicit information from parties
outside the agency to help us in
evaluating the petition. We will accept
the petitioners’ sources and
characterizations of the information
presented if they appear to be based on
accepted scientific principles, unless we
have specific information in our files
that indicates the petition’s information
is incorrect, unreliable, obsolete, or
otherwise irrelevant to the requested
action. Information that is susceptible to
more than one interpretation or that is
contradicted by other available
information will not be dismissed at the
90-day finding stage, so long as it is
reliable and a reasonable person
conducting an impartial scientific
review would conclude it supports the
petitioners’ assertions. In other words,
conclusive information indicating the
species may meet the ESA’s
requirements for listing is not required
to make a positive 90-day finding. We
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:35 Aug 07, 2020
Jkt 250001
will not conclude that a lack of specific
information alone necessitates a
negative 90-day finding if a reasonable
person conducting an impartial
scientific review would conclude that
the unknown information itself suggests
the species may be at risk of extinction
presently or within the foreseeable
future.
To make a 90-day finding on a
petition to list a species, we first
evaluate whether the information
presented in the petition, in light of the
information readily available in our
files, indicates that the petitioned entity
constitutes a ‘‘species’’ eligible for
listing under the ESA. Next, if we
conclude the petition presents
substantial scientific or commercial
information suggesting that the
petitioned entity may constitute a
‘‘species,’’ we evaluate whether the
information indicates that the species
may face an extinction risk such that
listing, delisting, or reclassification may
be warranted; this may be indicated in
information expressly discussing the
species’ status and trends, or in
information describing impacts and
threats to the species. We evaluate
whether the petition presents any
information on specific demographic
factors pertinent to evaluating
extinction risk for the species (e.g.,
population abundance and trends,
productivity, spatial structure, age
structure, sex ratio, diversity, current
and historical range, habitat integrity or
fragmentation), and the potential
contribution of identified demographic
risks to extinction risk for the species.
We then evaluate whether the petition
presents information suggesting
potential links between these
demographic risks and the causative
impacts and threats identified in section
4(a)(1) of the ESA.
Information presented on impacts or
threats should be specific to the species
and should reasonably suggest that one
or more of these factors may be
operative threats that act or have acted
on the species to the point that it may
warrant protection under the ESA.
Broad statements about generalized
threats to the species, or identification
of factors that could negatively impact
a species, do not constitute substantial
information indicating that listing may
be warranted. We look for information
indicating that not only is the particular
species exposed to a factor, but that the
species may be responding in a negative
fashion; then we assess the potential
significance of that negative response.
Many petitions identify risk
classifications made by
nongovernmental organizations, such as
the International Union on the
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the
American Fisheries Society, or
NatureServe, as evidence of extinction
risk for a species. Risk classifications by
other organizations or made under other
Federal or state statutes may be
informative, but such classification
alone may not provide the rationale for
a positive 90-day finding under the
ESA. For example, as explained by
NatureServe, their assessments of a
species’ conservation status do ‘‘not
constitute a recommendation by
NatureServe for listing under the U.S.
Endangered Species Act’’ because
NatureServe assessments ‘‘have
different criteria, evidence
requirements, purposes and taxonomic
coverage than government lists of
endangered and threatened species, and
therefore these two types of lists should
not be expected to coincide’’ (https://
explorer.natureserve.org/
AboutTheData/DataTypes/Conservation
StatusCategories). Additionally, species
classifications under IUCN and the ESA
are not equivalent; data standards,
criteria used to evaluate species, and
treatment of uncertainty are also not
necessarily the same. Thus, when a
petition cites such classifications, we
will evaluate the source of information
that the classification is based upon in
light of the standards on extinction risk
and impacts or threats discussed above.
Taxonomy
Morphological characteristics were
historically used to distinguish between
teatfish species, though morphological
features alone were determined to be
unreliable markers of identification due
to high interspecies variability (Uthicke
et al. 2004). The more recent use of
molecular analyses resolved taxonomic
confusion between teatfish in the
western Indian Ocean and southwestern
Pacific Oceans, distinguishing between
three species: (1) Holothuria whitmaei:
Black/dark brown specimens found in
waters of Australia and the southwest
Pacific; (2) H. fuscogilva: White/beige
specimens with dark markings broadly
distributed throughout the tropical
Indo-Pacific; and (3) H. nobilis: Black
specimens with white ventro-lateral
patches found in the western Indian
Ocean (Uthicke et al. 2004). The two
black teatfish (H. whitmaei, with
distribution in the Pacific Ocean, and H.
nobilis, with distribution in the Indian
Ocean) appear to be allopatric with a
genetic distance of 9.2 percent, implying
a divergence during the Pliocene of
approximately 1.8–4.6 million years
(Uthicke et al. 2004). Further molecular
analyses support the distinction
between H. nobilis and H. fuscogilva,
once considered synonyms, as different
E:\FR\FM\10AUP1.SGM
10AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 154 / Monday, August 10, 2020 / Proposed Rules
species (Ahmed et al. 2016). We
conclude that the petitioned entity, H.
nobilis, constitutes a species eligible for
listing under the ESA.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Distribution, Habitat, and Life History
The black teatfish occurs in coral reef
habitats between 0 and 40 meters depth,
and is most commonly found in reef
flats and outer reef slopes with a
preference for hard substrates (CITES
2019; Conand et al. 20013; Eriksson et
al. 2012; Idreesbabu and Sureshkumar
2017; Lawrence et al. 2004). The species
may also be found in shallow seagrass
beds (CITES 2019; Conand et al. 2013).
H. nobilis is distributed in the Indian
Ocean, including along the east coast of
Africa, the Red Sea, and coastal waters
of Madagascar, La Reunion, Yemen,
Oman, the west coast of India, Sri
Lanka, Seychelles, Comoros, and the
Maldives (Conand et al. 2013; Uthicke
et al. 2004).
Sea cucumbers of the order
Aspidochirotida, including H. nobilis,
are deposit and detritus feeders that
digest organic matter such as bacteria in
the top few millimeters of sediment (as
reviewed by Purcell et al. 2016).
Teatfish are non-migratory and
relatively sedentary, with slow growth
rates and longevity estimated at several
decades (FAO 2019). Teatfish generally
mature at 3–7 years (FAO 2019), and H.
nobilis is reported to mature at 4 years
(Conand et al. 2013). Teatfish reproduce
sexually through broadcast spawning,
therefore successful fertilization
depends upon density and proximity of
male and female teatfish to one another
(CITES 2019; FAO 2019; Purcell et al.
2010; Purcell et al. 2011). As teatfish
generally exhibit low natural mortality
rates, low to moderate population
growth, and suspected high larval
mortality, their overall productivity is
low (CITES 2019; FAO 2019).
Abundance and Population Trends
Although data on abundance and
population trends for H. nobilis are
sparse, available data indicate that the
species has declined by 60–70 percent
across at least 80 percent of its range
since the 1960s, and continues to
decrease (CITES 2019; Conand et al.
2013). Intense pressure from harvest for
international trade has resulted in
extremely low densities or no black
teatfish observed at surveyed sites
throughout its range with few
exceptions, and these observations are
matched by decreased exports (FAO
2019). In Madagascar and Egypt, very
few individuals of the species have been
observed and stocks are considered
depleted due to overexploitation (CITES
2019). In Tanzania, where H. nobilis
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:35 Aug 07, 2020
Jkt 250001
once dominated the catch, the species
now makes up a very small percentage
of sea cucumber species harvested
(CITES 20129; Conand et al. 2013). The
species has also been depleted in
Mozambique, India, Sri Lanka, the Red
Sea, Maldives, and likely in Tanzania
and Kenya, due to overfishing (Conand
et al. 2013; Purcell et al. 2012). In
Seychelles, harvest of H. nobilis was
stable from 2003–2006 and harvest
peaked at 10,371 individuals, and then
fell in 2007 and 2008 to 5,687
individuals; this fishery is likely not
depleted (Conand et al. 2013). Though
teatfish harvest in small-scale, artisanal
fisheries has generally not been
monitored long-term, H. nobilis
abundance is considered low compared
to recognized baselines, and
populations are declining throughout
their range (FAO 2019).
Analysis of ESA Section 4(a)(1) Factors
The petition asserts that H. nobilis is
threatened by four of the five ESA
section 4(a)(1) factors: Present and
threatened modification of coral reef
and seagrass bed habitat, overutilization
for commercial trade, inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms to
control the threats of trade, fisheries and
climate change, and other natural or
manmade factors including a lack of
basic biological and ecological
information, risks of rarity, and bycatch.
The primary threat facing the species is
overharvest for commercial
international trade (CITES 2019; FAO
2019), and we find that listing the black
teatfish as a threatened or endangered
species under the ESA may be
warranted based on this threat alone. As
such, we focus our discussion below on
the evidence of overutilization for
commercial purposes. However, we note
that in the status review for this species,
we will evaluate all ESA section 4(a)(1)
factors to determine whether any one or
a combination of these factors are
causing declines in the species or likely
to substantially negatively affect the
species within the foreseeable future to
such a point that the black teatfish is at
risk of extinction or likely to become so
in the foreseeable future.
Overutilization for Commercial,
Recreational, Scientific, or Educational
Purposes
An estimated 10,000 tons of dried and
processed sea cucumber are traded
internationally each year, corresponding
to about 200 million individuals
harvested from marine ecosystems
annually (Purcell et al. 2016). H. nobilis
is one of the most highly valued sea
cucumber species in the Indo-Pacific
region (Bruckner 2006; Conand 2018;
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
48147
Conand et al. 2013; Muthiga & Conand
2013) and is sold dried and processed
as ‘‘beche-de-mer’’ primarily to luxury
food markets in Hong Kong, Singapore,
Taiwan, China, Korea and Malaysia
(CITES 2019; Purcell et al. 2012). Black
teatfish is sold for $20 to $80/kg dry
weight, depending on size and
condition; prices in Hong Kong retail
markets range from $106 to $139/kg
dried (Purcell et al. 2012). Since the
1980s, the global sea cucumber fishery
has dramatically increased in terms of
number of producing countries, number
of exploited species, increased fishing
effort, and expanded fishing areas,
leading to overexploitation and
depletion of teatfish in most range
countries (CITES 2019).
Several of the black teatfish’s life
history traits make it vulnerable to
overexploitation, including its low
mobility, slow growth, late maturity,
density-dependent reproduction, and
low recruitment rates (CITES 2019; FAO
2019). These traits, combined with its
occurrence in shallow, easily accessible
waters, and high value in international
markets, have led to local extirpations
and depletion of stocks throughout most
of its range (CITES 2019; FAO 2019).
The species is estimated to have
declined between 60–70 percent over at
least 80 percent of its range, as
evidenced by vastly reduced catch per
unit effort, reduced sizes of harvested
individuals, and extremely low
observed population densities (Conand
et al. 2013). For example, transect data
reveal population densities of 0.66 and
1.0 individuals per hectare in nearshore
waters off Egypt and Eritrea,
respectively, and range-wide density is
estimated between 0.12 and 10
individuals per hectare (Conand et al.
2013). Even with fishery closures, sea
cucumber stocks may recover slowly,
potentially taking decades for
populations to be restored (Anderson et
al. 2011). Due to high demand that is
not being met by current beche-de-mer
production, fisheries pressure on the
species is expected to continue (Conand
et al. 2013; FAO 2019; Muthiga &
Conand 2013). The information
presented in the petition and briefly
summarized here regarding the threat of
overutilization for commercial purposes
indicates that H. nobilis may be in
danger of extinction or likely to become
so in the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range.
Petition Finding
After reviewing the petition, the
literature cited in the petition, and other
information readily available in our
files, we find that listing H. nobilis as a
threatened or endangered species may
E:\FR\FM\10AUP1.SGM
10AUP1
48148
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 154 / Monday, August 10, 2020 / Proposed Rules
be warranted. Therefore, in accordance
with section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA and
NMFS’ implementing regulations (50
CFR 424.14(h)(2)), we will commence a
status review of this species. During the
status review, we will determine
whether H. nobilis is in danger of
extinction (endangered) or likely to
become so (threatened) throughout all or
a significant portion of its range. As
required by section 4(b)(3)(B) of the
ESA, within 12 months of the receipt of
the petition (May 14, 2020), we will
make a finding as to whether listing the
black teatfish as an endangered or
threatened species is warranted. If
listing is warranted, we will publish a
proposed rule and solicit public
comments before developing and
publishing a final rule.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Information Solicited
To ensure that the status review is
based on the best available scientific
and commercial data, we are soliciting
comments and information from
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:35 Aug 07, 2020
Jkt 250001
interested parties on the status of the
black teatfish. Specifically, we are
soliciting information in the following
areas:
(1) Historical and current abundance,
density, and distribution of H. nobilis;
(2) Historical and current condition of
habitat for H. nobilis;
(3) The effects of harvest for
commercial international trade on the
distribution and abundance of H. nobilis
over the short- and long-term;
(4) The effects of other known or
potential threats, including coral reef
and seagrass bed degradation, climate
change, disease and predation, and the
inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms, on the distribution and
abundance of H. nobilis over the shortand long-term; and
(5) Management or conservation
programs for H. nobilis, including
mitigation measures related to any of
the threats listed above.
We request that all data and
information be accompanied by
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
supporting documentation such as
maps, bibliographic references, or
reprints of pertinent publications.
Please send any comments to one of the
ADDRESSES listed above. We will base
our findings on a review of the best
available scientific and commercial
information available, including all
information received during the public
comment period.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited
herein is available upon request (See
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authority: The authority for this action is
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: July 15, 2020.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2020–15721 Filed 8–7–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
E:\FR\FM\10AUP1.SGM
10AUP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 154 (Monday, August 10, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48144-48148]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-15721]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Parts 223 and 224
[Docket No. 200715-0191; RTID 0648-XR113]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 90-Day Finding on a Petition
To List the Black Teatfish as Threatened or Endangered Under the
Endangered Species Act
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: 90-Day petition finding, request for information, and
initiation of status review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, NMFS, announce a 90-day finding on a petition to list the
black teatfish (Holothuria nobilis) as threatened or endangered under
the Endangered Species Act (ESA). We find that the petition presents
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted. Therefore, we are initiating a
status review of the species to determine whether listing under the ESA
is warranted. To ensure this status review is comprehensive, we are
soliciting scientific and commercial information regarding this
species.
[[Page 48145]]
DATES: Scientific and commercial information pertinent to the
petitioned action must be received by October 9, 2020.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this document, identified by
NOAA-NMFS-2020-0093 by the following method:
Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public
comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2020-0093. Click the ``Comment Now'' icon,
complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other
address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period,
may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the
public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on
www.regulations.gov without 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 will accept anonymous
comments (enter ``N/A'' in the required fields if you wish to remain
anonymous).
Interested persons may obtain a copy of the petition online at the
NMFS website: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/endangered-species-conservation/petitions-awaiting-90-day-findings.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Adrienne Lohe, NMFS Office of
Protected Resources, (301) 427-8442, [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On May 14, 2020, we received a petition from the Center for
Biological Diversity to list the black teatfish (Holothuria nobilis) as
a threatened or endangered species under the ESA. The petition asserts
that H. nobilis is threatened by four of the five ESA section 4(a)(1)
factors: (1) Present and threatened modification of its habitat; (2)
overutilization for commercial purposes; (3) inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms; and (4) other natural or manmade factors. The
petition is available online (see ADDRESSES).
ESA Statutory, Regulatory, and Policy Provisions and Evaluation
Framework
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
et seq.), requires, to the maximum extent practicable, that within 90
days of receipt of a petition to list a species as threatened or
endangered, the Secretary of Commerce make a finding on whether that
petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information
indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted, and to promptly
publish such finding in the Federal Register (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)).
When it is found that substantial scientific or commercial information
in a petition indicates the petitioned action may be warranted (a
``positive 90-day finding''), we are required to promptly commence a
review of the status of the species concerned during which we will
conduct a comprehensive review of the best available scientific and
commercial information. In such cases, we conclude the review with a
finding as to whether, in fact, the petitioned action is warranted
within 12 months of receipt of the petition. Because the finding at the
12-month stage is based on a more thorough review of the available
information, as compared to the narrow scope of review at the 90-day
stage, a ``may be warranted'' finding does not prejudge the outcome of
the status review.
Under the ESA, a listing determination may address a species, which
is defined to also include subspecies and, for any vertebrate species,
any distinct population segment (DPS) that interbreeds when mature (16
U.S.C. 1532(16)). A joint NMFS-U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
(jointly, ``the Services'') policy clarifies the agencies'
interpretation of the phrase ``distinct population segment'' for the
purposes of listing, delisting, and reclassifying a species under the
ESA (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996). A species, subspecies, or DPS is
``endangered'' if it is in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range, and ``threatened'' if it is likely to
become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range (ESA sections 3(6) and 3(20),
respectively, 16 U.S.C. 1532(6) and (20)). Pursuant to the ESA and our
implementing regulations, we determine whether species are threatened
or endangered based on any one or a combination of the following five
section 4(a)(1) factors: (1) The present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of habitat or range; (2) overutilization
for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (3)
disease or predation; (4) inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms
to address identified threats; (5) or any other natural or manmade
factors affecting the species' existence (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1), 50 CFR
424.11(c)).
ESA-implementing regulations issued jointly by NMFS and USFWS (50
CFR 424.14(h)(1)(i)) define ``substantial scientific or commercial
information'' in the context of reviewing a petition to list, delist,
or reclassify a species as credible scientific or commercial
information in support of the petition's claims such that a reasonable
person conducting an impartial scientific review would conclude that
the action proposed in the petition may be warranted. Conclusions drawn
in the petition without the support of credible scientific or
commercial information will not be considered ``substantial
information.'' In reaching the initial (90-day) finding on the
petition, we will consider the information described in sections 50 CFR
424.14(c), (d), and (g) (if applicable).
Our determination as to whether the petition provides substantial
scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned
action may be warranted will depend in part on the degree to which the
petition includes the following types of information: (1) Information
on current population status and trends and estimates of current
population sizes and distributions, both in captivity and the wild, if
available; (2) identification of the factors under section 4(a)(1) of
the ESA that may affect the species and where these factors are acting
upon the species; (3) whether and to what extent any or all of the
factors alone or in combination identified in section 4(a)(1) of the
ESA may cause the species to be an endangered species or threatened
species (i.e., the species is currently in danger of extinction or is
likely to become so within the foreseeable future), and, if so, how
high in magnitude and how imminent the threats to the species and its
habitat are; (4) information on adequacy of regulatory protections and
effectiveness of conservation activities by States as well as other
parties, that have been initiated or that are ongoing, that may protect
the species or its habitat; and (5) a complete, balanced representation
of the relevant facts, including information that may contradict claims
in the petition. See 50 CFR 424.14(d).
If the petitioner provides supplemental information before the
initial finding is made and states that it is part of the petition, the
new information, along with the previously submitted information, is
treated as a new petition that supersedes the original petition, and
the statutory timeframes will begin when such
[[Page 48146]]
supplemental information is received. See 50 CFR 424.14(g).
We may also consider information readily available at the time the
determination is made. We are not required to consider any supporting
materials cited by the petitioner if the petitioner does not provide
electronic or hard copies, to the extent permitted by U.S. copyright
law, or appropriate excerpts or quotations from those materials (e.g.,
publications, maps, reports, letters from authorities). See 50 CFR
424.14(c)(6).
The ``substantial scientific or commercial information'' standard
must be applied in light of any prior reviews or findings we have made
on the listing status of the species that is the subject of the
petition. Where we have already conducted a finding on, or review of,
the listing status of that species (whether in response to a petition
or on our own initiative), we will evaluate any petition received
thereafter seeking to list, delist, or reclassify that species to
determine whether a reasonable person conducting an impartial
scientific review would conclude that the action proposed in the
petition may be warranted despite the previous review or finding. Where
the prior review resulted in a final agency action--such as a final
listing determination, 90-day not-substantial finding, or 12-month not-
warranted finding--a petition will generally not be considered to
present substantial scientific and commercial information indicating
that the petitioned action may be warranted unless the petition
provides new information or analysis not previously considered. See 50
CFR 424.14(h)(1)(iii).
At the 90-day finding stage, we do not conduct additional research,
and we do not solicit information from parties outside the agency to
help us in evaluating the petition. We will accept the petitioners'
sources and characterizations of the information presented if they
appear to be based on accepted scientific principles, unless we have
specific information in our files that indicates the petition's
information is incorrect, unreliable, obsolete, or otherwise irrelevant
to the requested action. Information that is susceptible to more than
one interpretation or that is contradicted by other available
information will not be dismissed at the 90-day finding stage, so long
as it is reliable and a reasonable person conducting an impartial
scientific review would conclude it supports the petitioners'
assertions. In other words, conclusive information indicating the
species may meet the ESA's requirements for listing is not required to
make a positive 90-day finding. We will not conclude that a lack of
specific information alone necessitates a negative 90-day finding if a
reasonable person conducting an impartial scientific review would
conclude that the unknown information itself suggests the species may
be at risk of extinction presently or within the foreseeable future.
To make a 90-day finding on a petition to list a species, we first
evaluate whether the information presented in the petition, in light of
the information readily available in our files, indicates that the
petitioned entity constitutes a ``species'' eligible for listing under
the ESA. Next, if we conclude the petition presents substantial
scientific or commercial information suggesting that the petitioned
entity may constitute a ``species,'' we evaluate whether the
information indicates that the species may face an extinction risk such
that listing, delisting, or reclassification may be warranted; this may
be indicated in information expressly discussing the species' status
and trends, or in information describing impacts and threats to the
species. We evaluate whether the petition presents any information on
specific demographic factors pertinent to evaluating extinction risk
for the species (e.g., population abundance and trends, productivity,
spatial structure, age structure, sex ratio, diversity, current and
historical range, habitat integrity or fragmentation), and the
potential contribution of identified demographic risks to extinction
risk for the species. We then evaluate whether the petition presents
information suggesting potential links between these demographic risks
and the causative impacts and threats identified in section 4(a)(1) of
the ESA.
Information presented on impacts or threats should be specific to
the species and should reasonably suggest that one or more of these
factors may be operative threats that act or have acted on the species
to the point that it may warrant protection under the ESA. Broad
statements about generalized threats to the species, or identification
of factors that could negatively impact a species, do not constitute
substantial information indicating that listing may be warranted. We
look for information indicating that not only is the particular species
exposed to a factor, but that the species may be responding in a
negative fashion; then we assess the potential significance of that
negative response.
Many petitions identify risk classifications made by
nongovernmental organizations, such as the International Union on the
Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the American Fisheries Society, or
NatureServe, as evidence of extinction risk for a species. Risk
classifications by other organizations or made under other Federal or
state statutes may be informative, but such classification alone may
not provide the rationale for a positive 90-day finding under the ESA.
For example, as explained by NatureServe, their assessments of a
species' conservation status do ``not constitute a recommendation by
NatureServe for listing under the U.S. Endangered Species Act'' because
NatureServe assessments ``have different criteria, evidence
requirements, purposes and taxonomic coverage than government lists of
endangered and threatened species, and therefore these two types of
lists should not be expected to coincide'' (https://explorer.natureserve.org/AboutTheData/DataTypes/ConservationStatusCategories). Additionally, species classifications
under IUCN and the ESA are not equivalent; data standards, criteria
used to evaluate species, and treatment of uncertainty are also not
necessarily the same. Thus, when a petition cites such classifications,
we will evaluate the source of information that the classification is
based upon in light of the standards on extinction risk and impacts or
threats discussed above.
Taxonomy
Morphological characteristics were historically used to distinguish
between teatfish species, though morphological features alone were
determined to be unreliable markers of identification due to high
interspecies variability (Uthicke et al. 2004). The more recent use of
molecular analyses resolved taxonomic confusion between teatfish in the
western Indian Ocean and southwestern Pacific Oceans, distinguishing
between three species: (1) Holothuria whitmaei: Black/dark brown
specimens found in waters of Australia and the southwest Pacific; (2)
H. fuscogilva: White/beige specimens with dark markings broadly
distributed throughout the tropical Indo-Pacific; and (3) H. nobilis:
Black specimens with white ventro[hyphen]lateral patches found in the
western Indian Ocean (Uthicke et al. 2004). The two black teatfish (H.
whitmaei, with distribution in the Pacific Ocean, and H. nobilis, with
distribution in the Indian Ocean) appear to be allopatric with a
genetic distance of 9.2 percent, implying a divergence during the
Pliocene of approximately 1.8-4.6 million years (Uthicke et al. 2004).
Further molecular analyses support the distinction between H. nobilis
and H. fuscogilva, once considered synonyms, as different
[[Page 48147]]
species (Ahmed et al. 2016). We conclude that the petitioned entity, H.
nobilis, constitutes a species eligible for listing under the ESA.
Distribution, Habitat, and Life History
The black teatfish occurs in coral reef habitats between 0 and 40
meters depth, and is most commonly found in reef flats and outer reef
slopes with a preference for hard substrates (CITES 2019; Conand et al.
20013; Eriksson et al. 2012; Idreesbabu and Sureshkumar 2017; Lawrence
et al. 2004). The species may also be found in shallow seagrass beds
(CITES 2019; Conand et al. 2013). H. nobilis is distributed in the
Indian Ocean, including along the east coast of Africa, the Red Sea,
and coastal waters of Madagascar, La Reunion, Yemen, Oman, the west
coast of India, Sri Lanka, Seychelles, Comoros, and the Maldives
(Conand et al. 2013; Uthicke et al. 2004).
Sea cucumbers of the order Aspidochirotida, including H. nobilis,
are deposit and detritus feeders that digest organic matter such as
bacteria in the top few millimeters of sediment (as reviewed by Purcell
et al. 2016). Teatfish are non-migratory and relatively sedentary, with
slow growth rates and longevity estimated at several decades (FAO
2019). Teatfish generally mature at 3-7 years (FAO 2019), and H.
nobilis is reported to mature at 4 years (Conand et al. 2013). Teatfish
reproduce sexually through broadcast spawning, therefore successful
fertilization depends upon density and proximity of male and female
teatfish to one another (CITES 2019; FAO 2019; Purcell et al. 2010;
Purcell et al. 2011). As teatfish generally exhibit low natural
mortality rates, low to moderate population growth, and suspected high
larval mortality, their overall productivity is low (CITES 2019; FAO
2019).
Abundance and Population Trends
Although data on abundance and population trends for H. nobilis are
sparse, available data indicate that the species has declined by 60-70
percent across at least 80 percent of its range since the 1960s, and
continues to decrease (CITES 2019; Conand et al. 2013). Intense
pressure from harvest for international trade has resulted in extremely
low densities or no black teatfish observed at surveyed sites
throughout its range with few exceptions, and these observations are
matched by decreased exports (FAO 2019). In Madagascar and Egypt, very
few individuals of the species have been observed and stocks are
considered depleted due to overexploitation (CITES 2019). In Tanzania,
where H. nobilis once dominated the catch, the species now makes up a
very small percentage of sea cucumber species harvested (CITES 20129;
Conand et al. 2013). The species has also been depleted in Mozambique,
India, Sri Lanka, the Red Sea, Maldives, and likely in Tanzania and
Kenya, due to overfishing (Conand et al. 2013; Purcell et al. 2012). In
Seychelles, harvest of H. nobilis was stable from 2003-2006 and harvest
peaked at 10,371 individuals, and then fell in 2007 and 2008 to 5,687
individuals; this fishery is likely not depleted (Conand et al. 2013).
Though teatfish harvest in small-scale, artisanal fisheries has
generally not been monitored long-term, H. nobilis abundance is
considered low compared to recognized baselines, and populations are
declining throughout their range (FAO 2019).
Analysis of ESA Section 4(a)(1) Factors
The petition asserts that H. nobilis is threatened by four of the
five ESA section 4(a)(1) factors: Present and threatened modification
of coral reef and seagrass bed habitat, overutilization for commercial
trade, inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms to control the
threats of trade, fisheries and climate change, and other natural or
manmade factors including a lack of basic biological and ecological
information, risks of rarity, and bycatch. The primary threat facing
the species is overharvest for commercial international trade (CITES
2019; FAO 2019), and we find that listing the black teatfish as a
threatened or endangered species under the ESA may be warranted based
on this threat alone. As such, we focus our discussion below on the
evidence of overutilization for commercial purposes. However, we note
that in the status review for this species, we will evaluate all ESA
section 4(a)(1) factors to determine whether any one or a combination
of these factors are causing declines in the species or likely to
substantially negatively affect the species within the foreseeable
future to such a point that the black teatfish is at risk of extinction
or likely to become so in the foreseeable future.
Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
An estimated 10,000 tons of dried and processed sea cucumber are
traded internationally each year, corresponding to about 200 million
individuals harvested from marine ecosystems annually (Purcell et al.
2016). H. nobilis is one of the most highly valued sea cucumber species
in the Indo-Pacific region (Bruckner 2006; Conand 2018; Conand et al.
2013; Muthiga & Conand 2013) and is sold dried and processed as
``beche-de-mer'' primarily to luxury food markets in Hong Kong,
Singapore, Taiwan, China, Korea and Malaysia (CITES 2019; Purcell et
al. 2012). Black teatfish is sold for $20 to $80/kg dry weight,
depending on size and condition; prices in Hong Kong retail markets
range from $106 to $139/kg dried (Purcell et al. 2012). Since the
1980s, the global sea cucumber fishery has dramatically increased in
terms of number of producing countries, number of exploited species,
increased fishing effort, and expanded fishing areas, leading to
overexploitation and depletion of teatfish in most range countries
(CITES 2019).
Several of the black teatfish's life history traits make it
vulnerable to overexploitation, including its low mobility, slow
growth, late maturity, density-dependent reproduction, and low
recruitment rates (CITES 2019; FAO 2019). These traits, combined with
its occurrence in shallow, easily accessible waters, and high value in
international markets, have led to local extirpations and depletion of
stocks throughout most of its range (CITES 2019; FAO 2019). The species
is estimated to have declined between 60-70 percent over at least 80
percent of its range, as evidenced by vastly reduced catch per unit
effort, reduced sizes of harvested individuals, and extremely low
observed population densities (Conand et al. 2013). For example,
transect data reveal population densities of 0.66 and 1.0 individuals
per hectare in nearshore waters off Egypt and Eritrea, respectively,
and range-wide density is estimated between 0.12 and 10 individuals per
hectare (Conand et al. 2013). Even with fishery closures, sea cucumber
stocks may recover slowly, potentially taking decades for populations
to be restored (Anderson et al. 2011). Due to high demand that is not
being met by current beche-de-mer production, fisheries pressure on the
species is expected to continue (Conand et al. 2013; FAO 2019; Muthiga
& Conand 2013). The information presented in the petition and briefly
summarized here regarding the threat of overutilization for commercial
purposes indicates that H. nobilis may be in danger of extinction or
likely to become so in the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.
Petition Finding
After reviewing the petition, the literature cited in the petition,
and other information readily available in our files, we find that
listing H. nobilis as a threatened or endangered species may
[[Page 48148]]
be warranted. Therefore, in accordance with section 4(b)(3)(A) of the
ESA and NMFS' implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.14(h)(2)), we will
commence a status review of this species. During the status review, we
will determine whether H. nobilis is in danger of extinction
(endangered) or likely to become so (threatened) throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. As required by section 4(b)(3)(B) of
the ESA, within 12 months of the receipt of the petition (May 14,
2020), we will make a finding as to whether listing the black teatfish
as an endangered or threatened species is warranted. If listing is
warranted, we will publish a proposed rule and solicit public comments
before developing and publishing a final rule.
Information Solicited
To ensure that the status review is based on the best available
scientific and commercial data, we are soliciting comments and
information from interested parties on the status of the black
teatfish. Specifically, we are soliciting information in the following
areas:
(1) Historical and current abundance, density, and distribution of
H. nobilis;
(2) Historical and current condition of habitat for H. nobilis;
(3) The effects of harvest for commercial international trade on
the distribution and abundance of H. nobilis over the short- and long-
term;
(4) The effects of other known or potential threats, including
coral reef and seagrass bed degradation, climate change, disease and
predation, and the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, on the
distribution and abundance of H. nobilis over the short- and long-term;
and
(5) Management or conservation programs for H. nobilis, including
mitigation measures related to any of the threats listed above.
We request that all data and information be accompanied by
supporting documentation such as maps, bibliographic references, or
reprints of pertinent publications. Please send any comments to one of
the ADDRESSES listed above. We will base our findings on a review of
the best available scientific and commercial information available,
including all information received during the public comment period.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon
request (See FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authority: The authority for this action is the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: July 15, 2020.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-15721 Filed 8-7-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P