Proposed Rule2025-18728
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Regulations for Eleven Species Treated as Listed Due to Similarity of Appearance
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
September 26, 2025
Issuing agencies
Interior DepartmentFish and Wildlife Service
Abstract
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to revise regulations issued under section 4(e) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) related to furthering the conservation of the following listed endangered species and threatened species: Pearl River map turtle (Graptemys pearlensis), bog turtle (northern distinct population segment [DPS]) (Glyptemys muhlenbergii), Miami blue butterfly (Cyclargus thomasi bethunebakeri), Desert tortoise (Mojave DPS) (Gopherus agassizii), Florida panther (Puma (=Felis) concolor coryi), and pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus). We propose to amend or remove regulations concerning taking or commerce in the following 11 similarity of appearance species: Alabama map turtle (Graptemys pulchra), Barbour's map turtle (Graptemys barbouri), Escambia map turtle (Graptemys ernsti), Pascagoula map turtle (Graptemys gibbonsi), bog turtle (southern DPS), cassius blue butterfly (Leptotes cassius theonus), ceraunus blue butterfly (Hemiargus ceraunus antibubastus), nickerbean blue butterfly (Cyclargus ammon), desert tortoise (Sonoran population), puma (=mountain lion) (Puma (=Felis) concolor (all subspecies except coryi)), and shovelnose sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus platorynchus). We are proposing these changes to eliminate unnecessary regulations and to ensure that species treated as endangered or threatened under section 4(e) of the Act meet the three required criteria as directed in section 4(e) of the Act.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 185 (Friday, September 26, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 185 (Friday, September 26, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46371-46379]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-18728]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2025-0176; FXES1111090FEDR-256-FF09E23000]
RIN 1018-BI81
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Regulations for
Eleven Species Treated as Listed Due to Similarity of Appearance
AGENCY: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
revise regulations issued under section 4(e) of the Endangered Species
Act (Act) related to furthering the conservation of the following
listed endangered species and threatened species: Pearl River map
turtle (Graptemys pearlensis), bog turtle (northern distinct population
segment [DPS]) (Glyptemys muhlenbergii), Miami blue butterfly
(Cyclargus thomasi bethunebakeri), Desert tortoise (Mojave DPS)
(Gopherus agassizii), Florida panther (Puma (=Felis) concolor coryi),
and pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus). We propose to amend or
remove regulations concerning taking or commerce in the following 11
similarity of appearance species: Alabama map turtle (Graptemys
pulchra), Barbour's map turtle (Graptemys barbouri), Escambia map
turtle (Graptemys ernsti), Pascagoula map turtle (Graptemys gibbonsi),
bog turtle (southern DPS), cassius blue butterfly (Leptotes cassius
theonus), ceraunus blue butterfly (Hemiargus ceraunus antibubastus),
nickerbean blue butterfly (Cyclargus ammon), desert tortoise (Sonoran
population), puma (=mountain lion) (Puma (=Felis) concolor (all
subspecies except coryi)), and shovelnose sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus
platorynchus). We are proposing these changes to eliminate unnecessary
regulations and to ensure that species treated as endangered or
threatened under section 4(e) of the Act meet the three required
criteria as directed in section 4(e) of the Act.
DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before
October 27, 2025. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 11:59
p.m. eastern time on the closing date. We cannot guarantee that we will
be able to consider hand-delivered comments that we do not receive, or
mailed comments that are not postmarked, by October 27, 2025.
ADDRESSES: Comment submission: You may submit comments by one of the
following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. In the Search box, enter FWS-HQ-ES-2025-0176,
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click on the
Search button. On the resulting page, in the panel on the left side of
the screen, under the Document Type heading, check the Proposed Rule
box to locate this document. You may submit a comment by clicking on
``Comment.'' Please ensure that you have found the correct rulemaking
before submitting your comment. Comments must be submitted to <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> before 11:59 p.m. eastern time on the date
specified in DATES.
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail to: Public Comments
Processing, Attn: FWS-HQ-ES-2025-0176, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
MS: PRB/3W, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
We request that you send comments only by the methods described
above. Comments and materials we receive will be posted and available
for public inspection on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. This generally
means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see
Information Requested, below, for more information).
Availability of supporting materials: References and a document
summarizing this proposed rule are available on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> under Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2025-0176.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Tirpak, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Division of Conservation and Classification; telephone 703-
358-2163; <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c2a8adaaac9db6abb0b2a3a982a4b5b1eca5adb4"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f59f9a9d9baa819c8785949eb5938286db929a83">[email protected]</span></a>. Individuals in the United States who are
deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial
711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay
services. Individuals outside the United States should use the relay
services offered within their country to make international calls to
the point-of-contact in the United States. Please see Docket No. FWS-
HQ-ES-2025-0176 on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> for a document that
summarizes this proposed rule.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Information Requested
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request
comments or information from other governmental agencies, Native
American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other
interested parties concerning this proposed rule. We particularly seek
comments concerning:
(1) Threats and conservation actions affecting the species listed
under section 4(a) of the Act and whether the similarity of appearance
regulations under section 4(e) concerning treatment of the unlisted
4(e) species addressed in this proposed rulemaking are needed to
address these threats and conservation actions in accordance with
section 4(e).
(2) Information to assist us with applying or issuing regulations
under section 4(e) of the Act concerning treatment of the following
species addressed in this proposed rulemaking (Alabama map turtle,
Barbour's map turtle, Escambia map turtle, Pascagoula map turtle,
southern DPS of bog turtle, and Sonoran DPS of desert tortoise). In
particular, we seek information concerning:
(a) The extent to which we should include any of the Act's section
9(a) prohibitions in the 4(e) regulations; and
(b) Whether we should consider any additional or different
exceptions from the prohibitions in the 4(e) regulations.
[[Page 46372]]
(3) Potential impacts on the Miami blue butterfly, Florida panther,
and pallid sturgeon from proposed removal of 4(e) treatment for the
cassius blue butterfly, ceraunus blue butterfly, nickerbean blue
butterfly, puma, and shovelnose sturgeon.
(4) Potential impacts on regulated entities from the proposed
rulemaking.
(5) Potential impacts on the Pearl River map turtle, bog turtle
(northern DPS), and Desert tortoise (Mojave DPS) from proposed
amendment of 4(e) treatment for the Alabama map turtle, Barbour's map
turtle, Escambia map turtle, Pascagoula map turtle, bog turtle
(southern DPS), and desert tortoise (Sonoran population).
Please include any supplemental information with your submission
(such as scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us
to verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
Please note that submissions merely stating support for, or
opposition to, the action under consideration without providing
supporting information, although noted, do not provide substantial
information necessary to support a determination. Determinations will
be made in accordance with the criteria in section 4(e) of the Act.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you
send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.
If you submit information via <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, your
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will
be posted on the website. If your submission is made via a hardcopy
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the
top of your document that we withhold this information from public
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We
will post all hardcopy submissions on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
Our final determination may differ from this proposal because we
will consider all comments we receive during the comment period as well
as any information that may become available after this proposal. Based
on the new information we receive (and, if relevant, any comments on
that new information), we may conclude with respect to each unlisted
4(e) species addressed in this proposed rulemaking that we should keep
treating the species as listed under section 4(e) of the Act or no
longer treat the species as listed under section 4(e) of the Act. In
addition, we may change the prohibitions or the exceptions to those
prohibitions in the regulations issued or applied under section 4(e) of
the Act if we conclude it is appropriate in light of comments and new
information received. In our final rule, we will clearly explain our
rationale and the basis for our final decision, including why we made
changes, if any, that differ from this proposal.
Background
Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
(``Act'' or ``ESA''; 16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing regulations
in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) set forth the
procedures for determining whether a species is an endangered species
or a threatened species, issuing protective regulations for threatened
species, and designating critical habitat for endangered and threatened
species.
The Act defines an ``endangered species'' at 16 U.S.C. 1532(6) as a
species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range and a ``threatened species'' at 16 U.S.C. 1532(20)
as a species that is likely to become an endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range. The Act requires that we determine whether any species is an
endangered species or a threatened species because of any of the
following factors in section 4(a):
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued
existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for
those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as
well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative
effects or may have positive effects.
Section 2 of the Act states that the purposes of the Act include
providing a means to conserve the ecosystems upon which endangered and
threatened species depend, developing a program for the conservation of
listed species, and achieving the purposes of certain treaties and
conventions (16 U.S.C. 1531(b)). The ultimate goal of conservation
efforts is the recovery of listed species, so that they no longer need
the protective measures of the Act. The Act provides multiple tools to
conserve species that warrant protection under section 4(a) and have
been added to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (50 CFR
17.11) or the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants (50 CFR 17.12).
These include (among other protections) designation of critical
habitat, recovery planning under section 4(f), protective regulations
for threatened species under section 4(d), and Federal agency
requirements to ensure their actions are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of listed species or destroy or adversely modify
their critical habitat under section 7(a)(2).
One of these tools, detailed in section 4(e) of the Act, provides
the Service with the discretion to treat species as endangered species
or threatened species when they do not meet the definition of an
endangered species or threatened species (16 U.S.C. 1532(6), (20)) as a
result of the factors listed in section 4(a). This authority to treat
species as endangered or threatened when they are similar in appearance
to (i.e., resemble) a species that is listed under section 4(a) is
limited to situations when treating the species as endangered or
threatened under section 4(e) will ``substantially facilitate
enforcement'' of the Act for the benefit of, and reduce threats to, the
species listed under section 4(a). The Act's tools and protections for
endangered and threatened species are directed at the species that meet
the definitions of endangered species or threatened species under
section 4(a), not the species that are treated as endangered or
threatened under section 4(e) solely because of a similarity in
appearance.
Section 4(e) of the Act provides that the Secretary may, by
regulation of commerce or taking, and to the extent he deems advisable,
treat any species as an endangered species or threatened species even
though it is not listed pursuant to section 4 of the Act if the
Secretary finds that: (A) such species so closely resembles in
appearance, at the point in question, a species which has been listed
pursuant to the Act that enforcement personnel would have substantial
difficulty in attempting to differentiate between the listed and
unlisted species; (B) the effect of this substantial difficulty is an
additional threat to an endangered or threatened species; and (C) such
treatment of an
[[Page 46373]]
unlisted species will substantially facilitate the enforcement and
further the policy of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(e)). The Act provides the
Service discretion in determining both when and how to apply section
4(e).
Executive Order (E.O.) 14154, ``Unleashing American Energy,''
issued January 20, 2025, directed all departments and agencies to
immediately review agency actions that potentially impose an undue
burden on the identification, development, or use of domestic energy
resources, and, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law,
consider suspending, revising, or rescinding agency actions that
conflict with this national objective (90 FR 8353). In addition, E.O.
14192, ``Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,'' issued January
31, 2025, is intended to significantly reduce the private expenditures
required to comply with Federal regulations to secure America's
economic prosperity and national security and the highest possible
quality of life for each citizen (90 FR 9065). As E.O. 14192 noted, it
is important that for each new regulation issued, at least 10 prior
regulations be identified for elimination. This practice is to ensure
that the cost of planned regulations is responsibly managed and
controlled through a rigorous regulatory budgeting process. It is the
policy of the executive branch to be prudent and financially
responsible in the expenditure of funds, from both public and private
sources, and to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens placed on the
American people. This proposed rule is intended to reduce or remove
regulatory burdens.
The Service has finalized regulations that treat 17 entities as
listed species under section 4(e) of the Act. These entities are listed
as E (S/A) (endangered based on similarity of appearance to an existing
listed species) or T (S/A) (threatened based on similarity of
appearance to an existing listed species) at 50 CFR 17.11. After
reviewing these regulations, we propose to remove or revise this
treatment for 11 species.
Proposed Regulatory Revisions
We propose to remove treatment as listed species for the following
five unlisted species: cassius blue butterfly, ceraunus blue butterfly,
nickerbean blue butterfly, puma, and shovelnose sturgeon. We also
propose to revise regulations under section 4(e) of the Act for the
following six unlisted species that are treated as listed species:
Alabama map turtle, Barbour's map turtle, Escambia map turtle,
Pascagoula map turtle, southern DPS of bog turtle, and Sonoran DPS of
desert tortoise. See table 1, below, for a summary of the species and
proposed actions discussed in this document.
Table 1--Species Treated as Listed Based on Similarity of Appearance Under Section 4(e) of the Act and Proposed
Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4(e) Species common Listing citations and
4(a) Listed species common name name applicable rules Proposed action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Florida panther...................... Puma (=mountain lion).. 56 FR 40265, 8/14/1991; Remove entry at 50 CFR
50 CFR 17.40(h). 17.11(h) and remove
4(e) treatment at 50
CFR 17.40(h).
Miami blue butterfly................. Cassius blue butterfly, 77 FR 20948, 4/6/2012; Remove entry at 50 CFR
Ceraunus blue 50 CFR 17.47(a). 17.11(h) and remove
butterfly, Nickerbean 4(e) treatment at 50
blue butterfly. CFR 17.47(a).
Pallid sturgeon...................... Shovelnose sturgeon.... 75 FR 53598, 9/1/2010; Remove entry at 50 CFR
50 CFR 17.44(aa). 17.11(h) and remove
4(e) treatment at 50
CFR 17.44(aa).
Bog turtle (northern DPS)............ Bog turtle (southern 62 FR 59605, 11/4/1997; Revise 4(e) treatment
DPS). 50 CFR 17.42(f). at 50 CFR 17.42(f).
Desert tortoise (Mojave DPS)......... Desert tortoise 55 FR 12178, 4/2/1990; Revise 4(e) treatment
(Sonoran DPS). 50 CFR 17.42(e). at 50 CFR 17.42(e).
Pearl River map turtle............... Alabama map turtle, 89 FR 57206, 7/12/2024; Revise 4(e) treatment
Barbour's map turtle, 50 CFR 17.42(n). at 50 CFR 17.42(n).
Escambia map turtle,
Pascagoula map turtle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Florida Panther and Puma
The Florida panther was first listed as an endangered species under
the precursor to the Act, the Endangered Species Preservation Act of
October 15, 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668aa(c); 32 FR 4001, March 11, 1967) and
has continued to be protected as an endangered species under the Act.
Because unlisted species of cougars (or pumas) periodically occur in
Florida, either as escapees from captivity or as deliberate releases or
wild individuals from populations outside of Florida, there is a risk
that Florida panthers will be killed under the assumption or
justification that they are escaped cougars or other wild big cats.
Therefore, we finalized a rule on August 14, 1991 (56 FR 40265),
treating all other free-living Felis concolor (i.e., puma, mountain
lion) in Florida (hereafter referred to as ``puma'' or ``mountain
lion'') as a threatened species under section 4(e) of the Act due to
similarity of appearance to the Florida panther. We also issued
regulations at 50 CFR 17.40(h) providing the prohibitions and exception
for activities with regard to the puma.
The regulations provide that except as otherwise allowed, no person
shall take any free-living mountain lion (Felis concolor) in Florida.
Exceptions allow for a mountain lion to be taken in this area under a
valid threatened species permit issued pursuant to 50 CFR 17.52 or when
an employee or designated agent of the Service or the Florida Game and
Fresh Water Fish Commission takes a mountain lion for taxonomic
identification or other reasons consistent with the conservation of the
endangered Florida panther (Felis concolor coryi). When it has been
established by the Service, in consultation with the State, that an
animal in question is not a Florida panther or an eastern cougar (Felis
concolor couguar), such animals may be removed from the wild. The
disposition of animals so taken shall be at the discretion of the
Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, with the concurrence of
the Service. Take for reasons of human safety is allowed and must be
reported in writing to the Service's Office of Law Enforcement. The
specimen may only be retained, disposed of, or salvaged in accordance
with directions from the Service.
According to our 2009 status review, habitat loss, fragmentation,
degradation, and associated human disturbance are the greatest threats
to panther survival and among the greatest threats to its recovery
(Service 2009, p. 12).
We propose to remove section 4(e) similarity of appearance
treatment for puma as a threatened species at 50 CFR 17.11 together
with the corresponding 4(e) regulations at 50 CFR 17.40(h). The
intention of the 4(e) regulations for puma are largely duplicative with
other
[[Page 46374]]
existing protections for the Florida panther and puma.
The Florida panther was first declared to be an endangered species
by the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission (GFC), the
predecessor agency of the current Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission (FWC), in 1958, at which time State protections
were afforded to the species. FWC currently lists the Florida panther
as a federally designated Endangered Species (68A-27.003, Florida
Administrative Code). Federally designated Endangered and Threatened
Species are defined by the State of Florida as ``species of fish or
wild animal life, subspecies or isolated populations of species or
subspecies, whether vertebrate or invertebrate, that are native to
Florida and classified as Endangered and Threatened under Commission
rule by virtue of designation by the United States Departments of
Interior or Commerce as endangered or threatened under the Federal
Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1532 et seq. and rules thereto[. .
.]'' (68A-27.001(2) Florida Administrative Code).
Florida's regulations provide that ``no person shall take, possess,
or sell any of the endangered or threatened species included in this
subsection, or parts thereof or their nests or eggs except as allowed
by specific federal permit or authorization'' (68A-27.003(1)(a) Florida
Administrative Code). Take is defined as ``to harass, harm, pursue,
hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to
engage in such conduct'' (68A-27.003(4) Florida Administrative Code,
Title XXVII, section 379.101). Florida statutes also provide that ``it
is unlawful for a person to kill a member of the Florida `endangered
species,' as defined in s. 379.2291(3), known as the Florida panther
(Felis concolor coryi)'' and that ``it is unlawful for a person to kill
any member of the species of panther (Felis concolor) occurring in the
wild'' (section 379.4115 Florida Statutes). Any person convicted of
violating these sections commits a Level Four violation under s.
379.401.
This proposal would not alter any protections relating to
activities with the Florida panther under State or Federal law. Anyone
under the jurisdiction of the United States that engages in prohibited
activities with the Florida panther without a permit is subject to law
enforcement.
We continue to find that the puma so closely resembles the Florida
panther in appearance that enforcement personnel would have substantial
difficulty in attempting to differentiate between the species. However,
given the protections available in the State of Florida for both the
Florida panther and puma, the effect of this substantial difficulty is
not an additional threat to the Florida panther. Because the law
regarding the killing of any panther does not cite to the protections
currently afforded by section 4(e) of the Act, we anticipate these
protections will continue after our proposed removal of such treatment.
We appreciate and are seeking comments from the State of Florida on
this proposal. We find that this continued treatment will not
substantially facilitate the enforcement and the policy of the Act
because of the current protections under State laws; therefore,
treating the puma as a threatened species is no longer advisable in
accordance with section 4(e) because one of the three statutory
criteria is no longer met.
Miami Blue Butterfly and Cassius Blue Butterfly, Ceraunus Blue
Butterfly, and Nickerbean Blue Butterfly
On April 6, 2012, the Service published a final rule (77 FR 20948)
listing the Miami blue butterfly as an endangered species primarily due
to habitat loss and fragmentation. In that final rule, we also made
final determinations to treat the cassius blue butterfly, ceraunus blue
butterfly, and nickerbean blue butterfly as threatened species due to
similarity of appearance to the Miami blue butterfly and issued
regulations at 50 CFR 17.47(a) providing the prohibitions and
exceptions for the cassius blue butterfly, ceraunus blue butterfly, and
nickerbean blue butterfly.
The regulations at 50 CFR 17.47(a) provide that: (1) The provisions
of Sec. 17.31(c) apply to cassius blue butterfly, ceraunus blue
butterfly, nickerbean blue butterfly regardless of whether in the wild
or in captivity, and also apply to the progeny of any such butterfly;
(2) Any violation of State law will also be a violation of the Act; (3)
Incidental take, that is, take that results from, but is not the
purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity, will not apply
to these species; and (4) Collection of these species is prohibited in
coastal counties south of Interstate 4 and extending to the boundaries
of the State of Florida at the endpoints of Interstate 4 at Tampa and
Daytona Beach. Specifically, such activities are prohibited in the
following counties: Brevard, Broward, Charlotte, Collier, De Soto,
Hillsborough, Indian River, Lee, Manatee, Pinellas, Sarasota, St.
Lucie, Martin, Miami-Dade, Monroe, Palm Beach, and Volusia.
We propose to remove section 4(e) similarity of appearance
treatment for cassius blue butterfly, ceraunus blue butterfly, and
nickerbean blue butterfly as threatened species at 50 CFR 17.11
together with the corresponding 4(e) regulations at 50 CFR 17.47(a).
According to our most recent status review, the threat of collection of
Miami blue butterflies has likely been reduced, in part due to the
remote locations of Miami blue butterfly and reduction in occupied
areas (Service 2024, p. 5).
The Miami blue butterfly is listed as a federally designated
endangered species under Florida law (68A-27.003, Florida
Administrative Code). Under Florida law, no person shall take, possess,
or sell endangered species, or parts thereof or their nests or eggs
except as allowed by specific Federal or State permit or authorization.
No person shall intentionally kill, attempt to kill or wound any
species that is both designated in Rule 68A-27.003 of the Florida
Administrative Code and designated in 50 CFR 17.11 as endangered. This
proposal would not alter any protections under State or Federal law
relating to activities with the Miami blue butterfly. Anyone under the
jurisdiction of the United States that engages in prohibited activities
with the Miami blue butterfly without a permit is subject to law
enforcement.
Cassius blue butterfly, ceraunus blue butterfly, and nickerbean
blue butterfly are also listed due to similarity of appearance to Miami
blue butterfly under Florida law (68A-27.003). Under Florida law,
incidental take, that is, take that results from, but is not a purpose
of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity does not apply to cassius
blue butterfly, ceraunus blue butterfly, and nickerbean blue butterfly.
Florida law also prohibits collection of the cassius blue butterfly,
ceraunus blue butterfly, and nickerbean blue butterfly in the coastal
counties south of Interstate 4 and extending to the boundaries of the
State of Florida at endpoints of Interstate 4 at Tampa and Daytona
Beach. Specifically, such activities are prohibited in the following
counties: Brevard, Broward, Charlotte, Collier, De Soto, Hillsborough,
Indian River, Lee, Manatee, Pinellas, Sarasota, St. Lucie, Martin,
Miami-Dade, Monroe, Palm Beach, and Volusia.
We continue to find that the cassius blue butterfly, ceraunus blue
butterfly, and nickerbean blue butterfly closely resemble in appearance
the Miami blue butterfly in the wild. However, there are morphological
features that can differentiate the species and enforcement personnel
should not have substantial difficulty in attempting to differentiate
between collected individuals of the species after
[[Page 46375]]
conferring with species experts. In addition, the effect of this
substantial difficulty is not an additional threat to the Miami blue
butterfly as there are no records of ongoing collection of this
species, likely due to rarity and remote locations. Finally, collection
of cassius blue butterfly, ceraunus blue butterfly, and nickerbean blue
butterfly is prohibited by Florida law; however, we recognize that the
law cites to the protections afforded under the Act and it is unclear
what kind of protections may continue after our proposed removal of
such treatment.
We appreciate and are seeking comments from the State of Florida on
this proposal. We find that continuing this treatment will not
substantially facilitate the enforcement and the policy of the Act.
Therefore, treating the cassius blue butterfly, ceraunus blue
butterfly, and nickerbean blue butterfly as threatened species is no
longer advisable in accordance with section 4(e) because not all of the
three statutory criteria are met.
Pallid Sturgeon and Shovelnose Sturgeon
On September 6, 1990, the Service listed the pallid sturgeon as an
endangered species due to curtailment of range, habitat destruction and
modification, low population size, lack of recruitment, commercial
harvest, pollution and contaminants, and hybridization (55 FR 36641).
Another sturgeon species, the shovelnose sturgeon, can be difficult to
differentiate from the pallid sturgeon in the wild.
At the time the pallid sturgeon was listed, within areas of overlap
in the Missouri and Mississippi River basins, Illinois, Kentucky,
Missouri, and Tennessee, commercial harvest of shovelnose sturgeon was
allowed. In a 2007 status review, we found that State fishing
regulations had helped reduce commercial harvest of pallid sturgeon,
but that incidental and illegal take during commercial harvest of
shovelnose sturgeon was still having a substantial and detrimental
effect on the pallid sturgeon (Service 2007, pp. 45-48). Subsequently,
on September 1, 2010, we finalized a rule under section 4(e) of the Act
(75 FR 53598) treating the shovelnose sturgeon as a threatened species
due to its similarity of appearance to the pallid sturgeon to reduce
the threat of harvest of pallid sturgeon.
To prevent misidentification with pallid sturgeon where their
ranges overlap with shovelnose sturgeon, regulations at 50 CFR
17.44(aa) establish certain prohibitions and exceptions for activities
with regard to the shovelnose sturgeon, shovelnose-pallid sturgeon
hybrids, or their roe, and provides that the Service has the authority
to permit otherwise prohibited actions under 50 CFR 17.32.
We propose to remove treatment for the shovelnose sturgeon as a
threatened species at 50 CFR 17.11 together with the corresponding 4(e)
regulations at 50 CFR 17.44(aa). According to our most recent status
review, all threats identified at the time of listing, including
overutilization and overharvest (e.g., due to similarity of appearance
to the shovelnose sturgeon), remain a concern (Service 2021, p. 4).
However, the regulations regarding commercial harvest of pallid
sturgeon, and the potential for misidentification of pallid sturgeon as
shovelnose sturgeon, are largely duplicative with several State laws.
For example, in Illinois, shovelnose sturgeon may not be
commercially harvested except in the Mississippi River upstream of the
Mel Price Lock and Dam in Alton, Illinois (excluding the area from lock
and dam 19 to the State Highway 9 bridge in Niota), the Ohio River, and
the Wabash River. Shovelnose sturgeon may only be commercially
harvested from October 1 through May 31 from the Mississippi and Wabash
River and from October 15 through May 15 from the Ohio River. A
commercial roe harvest permit is required to commercially harvest
shovelnose sturgeon from any body of water. Illinois also has size
limits for shovelnose sturgeon from certain rivers (<a href="https://www.ifishillinois.org/programs/commercialfish.html">https://www.ifishillinois.org/programs/commercialfish.html</a>). In Missouri, due
to the 4(e) regulations of shovelnose sturgeon, the harvest of the
flesh or roe of shovelnose sturgeon and shovelnose-pallid sturgeon
hybrids by commercial fishing methods is prohibited in the entire
Missouri River and in the Mississippi River below Melvin Price Locks
and Dam near Alton, Illinois (<a href="https://mdc.mo.gov/fishing/regulations/commercial-shovelnose-fishing-restricted">https://mdc.mo.gov/fishing/regulations/commercial-shovelnose-fishing-restricted</a>).
We recognize that many State laws are based upon the 4(e)
similarity of appearance listing and it is unclear what kind of
protections may continue after our proposed removal of such treatment.
We appreciate and are seeking comments from affected States on this
proposal. This proposal would not alter any protections under section
9(a)(1) of the Act for the pallid sturgeon. Anyone under the
jurisdiction of the United States that engages in prohibited activities
with the pallid sturgeon without a permit is subject to law
enforcement.
We continue to find that the shovelnose sturgeon and shovelnose-
pallid sturgeon hybrids, or their roe, closely resemble in appearance
the pallid sturgeon in the wild. However, given the genetic
differentiation of the species, enforcement personnel should not have
substantial difficulty in attempting to differentiate between collected
individuals, though distinction between roe of the species may continue
to prove substantially difficult. While the effect of this substantial
difficulty is an additional threat to the pallid sturgeon, we find that
this treatment will not substantially facilitate the enforcement and
the policy of the Act. Therefore, treating the shovelnose sturgeon as a
threatened species is no longer advisable in accordance with section
4(e) because not all of the three statutory criteria are met.
Bog Turtle (Northern DPS) and Bog Turtle (Southern DPS)
On November 4, 1997, the Service published a final rule (62 FR
59605) listing the northern DPS of the bog turtle as a threatened
species due to a variety of factors including habitat degradation and
fragmentation from agriculture and development, habitat succession due
to invasive exotic and native plants, and illegal trade and collecting.
We determined that collection was a significant factor in the species
decline and a threat to its continued existence in the wild. Difficulty
in differentiating morphology and identifying source populations of
individuals poses a problem for Federal and State law enforcement
agents working to stop illegal trade in the northern population.
Therefore, in that final rule, we also made final determinations to
treat the southern DPS of the bog turtle as a threatened species and
issued regulations at 50 CFR 17.42(f) outlining the prohibitions and
exceptions for the southern DPS.
The treatment of the southern population as a threatened species
due to similarity of appearance was intended to eliminate the ability
of commercial collectors to commingle northern bog turtles with
southern ones or to misrepresent them as southern bog turtles for
commercial purposes (62 FR 59605 at 59622, November 4, 1997). According
to our most recent status review, collection and trade of bog turtles
is a continued threat with an investigation as recently as August 2018,
and we are aware of continued interest in illegally obtaining bog
turtles (Service 2022, p. 11).
The regulations at 50 CFR 17.42(f) establish certain prohibitions
and
[[Page 46376]]
exceptions for activities with regard to the southern DPS of bog
turtle. Specifically, the regulations include all of the section
9(a)(1) prohibitions with regard to the southern DPS. Incidental take,
that is, take that results from, but is not the purpose of, carrying
out an otherwise lawful activity, does not apply to the southern DPS.
The regulations also provide several exceptions to these prohibitions.
For example, Federal and State law enforcement officers may possess,
deliver, carry, transport, or ship the southern DPS taken in violation
of the Act as necessary in performing their official duties; certain
individuals can take individuals to aid, salvage, or dispose of the
southern DPS; States, the Service, and National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) can take individuals when carrying out conservation
programs; and the Service has the authority to permit otherwise
prohibited actions under 50 CFR 17.32.
We propose to amend the treatment of the southern DPS of bog turtle
as a threatened species by revising the regulations at 50 CFR
17.42(f)(2) to authorize activities that are otherwise prohibited under
a similarity of appearance permit (50 CFR 17.52) instead of a permit at
50 CFR 17.32. The regulations at 50 CFR 17.52 pertain to permits for
similarity of appearance cases and outline application requirements,
issuance criteria, permit conditions, and duration of permits. The
regulations at 50 CFR 17.32 pertain to permits for threatened species
(i.e., those listed as threatened under section 4(a) of the Act).
Issuance criteria for permits for similarity of appearance species
at 50 CFR 17.52 are minimal compared to those for species listed under
section 4(a) and are as follows: (1) Whether the information submitted
by the applicant appears reliable, and (2) whether the information
submitted by the applicant adequately identifies the wildlife or plant
in question so as to distinguish it from any endangered or threatened
wildlife or plant. The 50 CFR 17.52 criteria for obtaining permits are
focused on whether the applicant has provided reliable evidence that
the specimen subject to the otherwise prohibited activity is from an
unlisted similarity of appearance species under section 4(e) or is from
a listed species under section 4(a).
The issuance criteria at 50 CFR 17.32(a)(2) for threatened species
are more detailed and focus on the conservation needs of the species.
The issuance criteria under 50 CFR 17.32(a)(2) considers the following
factors: (1) Whether the purpose for which the permit is required is
adequate to justify removing from the wild or otherwise changing the
status of the wildlife sought to be covered by the permit; (2) The
probable direct and indirect effect which issuing the permit would have
on the wild populations of the wildlife sought to be covered by the
permit; (3) Whether the permit, if issued, would in any way, directly
or indirectly, conflict with any known program intended to enhance the
survival probabilities of the population from which the wildlife sought
to be covered by the permit was or would be removed; (4) Whether the
purpose for which the permit is required would be likely to reduce the
threat of extinction facing the species of wildlife sought to be
covered by the permit; (5) The opinions or views of scientists or other
persons or organizations having expertise concerning the wildlife or
other matters germane to the application; and (6) Whether the
expertise, facilities, or other resources available to the applicant
appear adequate to successfully accomplish the objectives stated in the
application.
It is generally more appropriate to regulate species that are not
at risk of extinction but are treated as a listed species to conserve
another species under our permitting regulations at 50 CFR 17.52 rather
than 50 CFR 17.32 to ensure they are accurately identified prior to
authorizing otherwise prohibited activity. We find that it would be
appropriate to ensure the continued identification of the unlisted
southern DPS of bog turtle as distinct from the listed northern DPS
when authorizing otherwise prohibited activities. We anticipate persons
involved in legal activities with the southern DPS would have access to
the necessary information and have minimal difficulty meeting their
burden to produce evidence that the specimen is from the southern DPS.
The bog turtle is listed as threatened or endangered in every State in
the southern and northern portion of the range and State-issued permits
may also be needed for activities with the southern DPS.
We also propose to revise the wording at 50 CFR 17.42(f)(2) to make
the current prohibitions and exceptions clearer. We currently cite to
50 CFR 17.31(a) and (b), which then cites to the applicable
prohibitions and exceptions. Instead, we propose to cite directly to
the applicable prohibitions and exceptions, as this is clearer for the
public and is more in keeping with the current practice for species-
specific rules. These minor clarifications would result in no change in
prohibitions or exceptions.
This proposal would not alter any protections for the northern DPS
of the bog turtle. Anyone under the jurisdiction of the United States
that engages in prohibited activities with either the northern or
southern DPS without a permit are subject to law enforcement.
Additionally, this proposal would not affect any threatened species
permits currently issued under the authority of 50 CFR 17.32 for the
similarity of appearance species; any such permits issued under the
stricter standards would continue to be valid in accordance with their
terms and conditions.
We continue to find that the southern DPS of the bog turtle so
closely resembles the northern DPS in appearance that enforcement
personnel would have substantial difficulty in attempting to
differentiate between the species, and the effect of this substantial
difficulty is an additional threat to the northern DPS. We also find
that this proposed revised treatment would continue to substantially
facilitate the enforcement and the policy of the Act with a lower
burden to the regulated public and is advisable in accordance with
section 4(e).
Desert Tortoise (Mojave DPS) and Desert Tortoise (Sonoran DPS)
On April 2, 1990, the Service published a final rule (55 FR 12178)
listing the Mojave DPS of desert tortoise as a threatened species due
to habitat loss and degradation, illegal collection, disease, and
predation. We also determined that treating the Sonoran DPS of desert
tortoise as a threatened species due to similarity of appearance to the
Mojave DPS would facilitate law enforcement (55 FR 12178 at 12189,
April 2, 1990). Therefore, in that final rule, we also made final
determinations to treat the Sonoran DPS (desert tortoise found outside
of Arizona (south and east of the Colorado River) and Mexico) as a
threatened species and issued regulations at 50 CFR 17.42(e) outlining
the prohibitions and exceptions for the Sonoran DPS. We subsequently
identified a threat to desert tortoises from their collection for human
food sources (Service 1994, p. 6). In our status reviews (Service 2010,
p. 48; Service 2022, p. 22), we explain that collection still occurs
and could possibly impact local populations.
The regulations at 50 CFR 17.42(e) establish certain prohibitions
and exceptions for activities with regard to the Sonoran DPS of desert
tortoise. Specifically, the regulations make it illegal for any person
subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to commit, to attempt
to commit, to solicit
[[Page 46377]]
another to commit, or to cause to be committed any of the following
acts with regard to the Sonoran DPS: (1) import into, or export from,
the United States; (2) take (which includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt,
shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage
in any such conduct) within the United States, within the territorial
sea of the United States, or on the high seas; (3) possess, sell,
deliver, carry, transport, or ship, by any means whatsoever, any such
wildlife that has been taken illegally; (4) deliver, receive, carry,
transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce, by any means
whatsoever and in the course of commercial activity; or (5) sell or
offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce.
The regulations also provide several exceptions to these
prohibitions (e.g., Federal and State law enforcement officers may
possess, deliver, carry, transport, or ship the Sonoran DPS taken in
violation of the Act as necessary in performing their official duties;
certain individuals can take individuals to aid, salvage, or dispose of
the Sonoran DPS; States, the Service and NMFS can take individuals when
carrying out conservation programs; and the Service has the authority
to permit otherwise prohibited actions under 50 CFR 17.32).
We propose to amend the treatment of the Sonoran DPS of desert
tortoise as a threatened species by revising the regulations at 50 CFR
17.42(e) to authorize activities that are otherwise prohibited under a
similarity of appearance permit (50 CFR 17.52) instead of a permit at
50 CFR 17.32 for the same rationale as provided for the bog turtle
above. It is generally more appropriate to regulate species that are
not at risk of extinction but are treated as a listed species to
conserve another species, under our permitting regulations at 50 CFR
17.52 rather than 50 CFR 17.32, to ensure they are accurately
identified prior to authorizing otherwise prohibited activity.
We find that it would be appropriate to ensure the continued
identification of the unlisted Sonoran DPS as distinct from the listed
Mojave DPS when authorizing otherwise prohibited activities. We
anticipate persons involved in legal activities with desert tortoises
from the Sonoran DPS would have access to the necessary information and
have minimal difficulty meeting their burden to produce evidence that
the specimen is from the Sonoran DPS.
We also propose to revise the wording at 50 CFR 17.42(e)(2) to make
the current prohibitions and exceptions clearer. We currently cite to
50 CFR 17.31-17.32, which then cite to the applicable prohibitions and
exceptions. Instead, we propose to cite directly to the applicable
prohibitions and exceptions, as this is clearer for the public and is
more in keeping with the current practice for species-specific rules.
These minor clarifications would result in no change in prohibitions or
exceptions.
This proposal would not alter any protections for the Mojave DPS of
desert tortoise. Anyone under the jurisdiction of the United States
that engages in prohibited activities with either the Mojave or Sonoran
DPS without a permit is subject to law enforcement. Additionally, this
proposal would not affect any threatened species permits currently
issued under the authority of 50 CFR 17.32 for the similarity of
appearance species; any such permits issued under the stricter
standards would continue to be valid in accordance with their terms and
conditions.
We continue to find that the Sonoran DPS of desert tortoise so
closely resembles in appearance the Mojave DPS that enforcement
personnel would have substantial difficulty in attempting to
differentiate between the species, and the effect of this substantial
difficulty is an additional threat to the Mojave DPS. We also find that
this proposed revised treatment would continue to substantially
facilitate the enforcement and the policy of the Act with a lower
burden to the regulated public and is advisable in accordance with
section 4(e).
Pearl River Map Turtle and Alabama Map Turtle, Barbour's Map Turtle,
Escambia Map Turtle, and Pascagoula Map Turtle
On July 12, 2024, the Service published a final rule (89 FR 57206)
listing the Pearl River map turtle as a threatened species. In that
final rule, we also made final determinations to treat the Alabama map
turtle, Barbour's map turtle, Escambia map turtle, and Pascagoula map
turtles as threatened species and issued regulations at 50 CFR 17.42(n)
outlining the prohibitions and exceptions for those species. We
determined that the Alabama map turtle, Barbour's map turtle, Escambia
map turtle, and Pascagoula map turtle all closely resemble in
appearance the Pearl River map turtle such that enforcement personnel
would have substantial difficulty in attempting to differentiate
between the species. We also determined that treating these species as
listed species minimizes the possibility that private and commercial
collectors will be able to misrepresent Pearl River map turtles as
Alabama map turtles, Barbour's map turtles, Escambia map turtles, or
Pascagoula map turtles for private or commercial purposes (89 FR 57206
at 57232, July 12, 2024).
The regulations at 50 CFR 17.42(n) establish certain prohibitions
and exceptions for activities with regard to the Alabama map turtle,
Barbour's map turtle, Escambia map turtle, or Pascagoula map turtle.
Specifically, the regulations make it illegal for any person subject to
the jurisdiction of the United States to commit, to attempt to commit,
to solicit another to commit, or to cause to be committed any of the
following acts with regard to the Alabama map turtle, Barbour's map
turtle, Escambia map turtle, and Pascagoula map turtle: (1) import
into, or export from, the United States; (2) intentional take in the
form of collect, capture, or trap (other than for scientific purposes);
(3) possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship, by any means
whatsoever, any such wildlife that has been taken illegally; (4)
deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign
commerce, by any means whatsoever and in the course of commercial
activity; or (5) sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign
commerce.
The regulations also provide several exceptions to these
prohibitions. For example, Federal and State law enforcement officers
may possess, deliver, carry, transport, or ship the Alabama map turtle,
Barbour's map turtle, Escambia map turtle, and Pascagoula map turtle
taken in violation of the Act as necessary in performing their official
duties; certain individuals can take individuals to aid, salvage, or
dispose of the Alabama map turtle, Barbour's map turtle, Escambia map
turtle, and Pascagoula map turtle; and the States, Service, and NMFS
can take individuals when carrying out conservation programs; and the
Service has the authority to permit otherwise prohibited actions under
50 CFR 17.32.
We propose to amend the treatment of the Alabama map turtle,
Barbour's map turtle, Escambia map turtle, and Pascagoula map turtle as
threatened species by revising the regulations at 50 CFR 17.42(n) to
authorize activities that are otherwise prohibited under a similarity
of appearance permit at 50 CFR 17.52 instead of a permit at 50 CFR
17.32.
It is generally more appropriate to regulate species that are not
at risk of extinction but are treated as a listed species to conserve
another species, under our permitting regulations at 50 CFR 17.52
rather than 50 CFR 17.32, to
[[Page 46378]]
ensure they are accurately identified prior to authorizing otherwise
prohibited activity. We find that it would be appropriate to ensure the
continued identification of these unlisted species as distinct from the
Pearl River map turtle when authorizing otherwise prohibited
activities. We anticipate persons involved in legal activities with
these species would have access to the necessary information and have
minimal difficulty meeting their burden to produce evidence of
identification to the species level.
This proposal would not alter any protections for the Pearl River
map turtle. Anyone under the jurisdiction of the United States that
engages in prohibited activities with the Pearl River map turtle or the
Alabama map turtle, Barbour's map turtle, Escambia map turtle, and
Pascagoula map turtle without a permit are subject to law enforcement.
Additionally, this proposal would not affect any threatened species
permits currently issued under the authority of 50 CFR 17.32 for the
similarity of appearance species; any such permits issued under the
stricter standards would continue to be valid in accordance with their
terms and conditions.
We continue to find that the Alabama map turtle, Barbour's map
turtle, Escambia map turtle, and Pascagoula map turtle so closely
resembles in appearance the Pearl River map turtle that enforcement
personnel would have substantial difficulty in attempting to
differentiate between the species and the effect of this substantial
difficulty is an additional threat to the Pearl River map turtle. We
also find that this proposed revised treatment would continue to
substantially facilitate the enforcement and the policy of the Act with
a lower burden to the regulated public and is advisable in accordance
with section 4(e).
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review--E.O.s 12866 and 13563
E.O. 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget will review all
significant rules. OIRA has determined that this proposed rule is not
significant.
E.O. 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for
improvements in the Nation's regulatory system to promote
predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most
innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends.
E.O. 13563 directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that
reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the
public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent
with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that
regulations must be based on the best available science and that the
rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open
exchange of ideas. We have developed this proposed rule in a manner
consistent with these requirements.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.),
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (SBREFA; title II of Pub. L. 104-121, March 29, 1996), whenever a
Federal agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking for any
proposed or final rule, it must prepare, and make available for public
comment, a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of
the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small
organizations, and small government jurisdictions). However, no
regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency,
or that person's designee, certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
SBREFA amended the RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a
statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
This rulemaking proposes to remove or revise the Service's
regulations treating 11 species as threatened species under section
4(e) of the Act based on similarity of appearance to listed species.
Removing treatment under section 4(e) or revising 4(e) regulations to
require permitting under 50 CFR 17.52 instead of 17.32 would reduce
regulatory burden. We certify that, if adopted as proposed, this rule
would not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of
small entities.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
et seq.):
(a) On the basis of information contained above in the Regulatory
Flexibility Act section, this proposed rule would not ``significantly
or uniquely'' affect small governments. We have determined and certify
pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act that this proposed rule
would not impose a cost of $100 million or more in any given year on
local or State governments or private entities. A small government
agency plan is not required. As explained above, small governments
would not be affected because the proposed rule would not place
additional requirements on any city, county, or other local
municipalities.
(b) This proposed rule would not produce a Federal mandate on
State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector of $100
million or greater in any year; that is, this proposed rule is not a
``significant regulatory action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act. This proposed rule would impose no obligations on State, local, or
Tribal governments.
Takings --E.O. 12630
In accordance with E.O. 12630 (``Governmental Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights''), this
proposed rule would not have significant takings implications. This
proposed rule would not pertain to ``taking'' of private property
interests, nor would it directly affect private property. A takings
implication assessment is not required because this proposed rule (1)
would not effectively compel a property owner to suffer a physical
invasion of property and (2) would not deny all economically beneficial
or productive use of the land or aquatic resources. This proposed rule
would substantially advance a legitimate government interest
(conservation and recovery of endangered species and threatened
species) and would not present a barrier to all reasonable and expected
beneficial use of private property.
Federalism--E.O. 13132
In accordance with E.O. 13132 (``Federalism''), this proposed rule
would not have significant federalism effects. This proposed rule would
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the States and the Federal Government, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
Civil Justice Reform--E.O. 12988
This proposed rule would not unduly burden the judicial system and
meets the applicable standards provided in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of
E.O. 12988 (``Civil Justice Reform'').
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with E.O.13175, (``Consultation and Coordination With
[[Page 46379]]
Indian Tribal Governments''), and the Department of the Interior's
manual at 512 DM 2, we are considering possible effects of this
proposed rule on federally recognized Indian Tribes. The Service has
reached a preliminary conclusion that the proposed rule would not
directly affect any specific Tribal lands, treaty rights, or Tribal
trust resources. This proposed rule would revise regulations for
several species pursuant to section 4(e) of the Act. These proposed
regulations would not have substantial direct effects on one or more
Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.
We are considering the possible effects of this proposed rule on
federally recognized Indian Tribes. We will continue to collaborate
with Tribes on issues related to federally listed species and their
habitats and work with them as we implement the provisions of the Act.
See Secretary's Order 3206, ``American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-
Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act'' (June
5, 1997).
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This proposed rule does not contain any new collection of
information that requires approval by the OMB under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). An agency may not
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
We are analyzing this proposed rule in accordance with the criteria
of the NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the Department of the Interior
regulations on Implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act
(43 CFR 46), and the Department of the Interior Manual (516 DM 8). We
invite the public to comment on the extent to which these proposed
regulation revisions may have a significant impact on the human
environment or fall within one of the categorical exclusions for
actions that have no reasonably foreseeable effects on the quality of
the human environment. We will complete our analysis, in compliance
with NEPA, before finalizing these proposed regulation revisions.
Energy Supply, Distribution or Use--E.O. 13211
E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare statements of energy
effects when undertaking certain actions. The proposed revised
regulations are not expected to affect energy supplies, distribution,
and use. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action, and
no statement of energy effects is required.
Clarity of the Proposed Rule
We are required by E.O.s 12866 and 12988 and by the Presidential
memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This
means that each rule we publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you believe that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us
revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For
example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs
that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long,
the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in this proposed rule is
available on the internet at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> under Docket
No. FWS-HQ-ES-2025-0176 and upon request from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Division of Conservation and Classification (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authority
We issue this proposed rule under the authority of the Endangered
Species Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, and Wildlife.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, we hereby propose to
amend part 17 of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations
as set forth below:
PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245,
unless otherwise noted.
Sec. 17.11 [Amended]
0
2. In Sec. 17.11, paragraph (h), amend the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife by removing entries for ``Butterfly, cassius
blue''; ``Butterfly, ceraunus blue''; ``Butterfly, nickerbean blue'';
``Puma (=mountain lion)''; and ``Sturgeon, shovelnose''.
Sec. 17.40 [Amended]
0
3. Amend Sec. 17.40 by removing and reserving paragraph (h).
Sec. 17.42 [Amended]
0
4. Amend Sec. 17.42 by revising paragraphs (e)(2), (f)(2), and
(n)(2)(i) to read as follows:
Sec. 17.42 Species-specific rules--reptiles.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(2) Applicable provisions. Except as provided in Sec. Sec. 17.4
through 17.8, or in a permit issued pursuant to Sec. 17.52, the
provisions of 17.31(b) of this section and all of the provisions of
Sec. 17.21 (for endangered species of wildlife), except Sec.
17.21(c)(3) and (5), apply to any desert tortoise subject to this
paragraph (e).
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(2) Prohibitions. Except as provided in paragraph (f)(3) of this
section, Sec. Sec. 17.4 through 17.8, or in a permit issued pursuant
to Sec. 17.52, the provisions of Sec. 17.31(b) of this section and
all of the provisions of Sec. 17.21 (for endangered species of
wildlife), except Sec. 17.21(c)(3) and (5), apply (see also 50 CFR
part 23).
* * * * *
(n) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) Conduct activities as authorized by a permit under Sec. 17.52.
* * * * *
Sec. 17.44 [Amended]
0
5. Amend Sec. 17.44 by removing and reserving paragraph (aa).
Sec. 17.47 [Amended]
0
6. Amend Sec. 17.47 by removing and reserving paragraph (a).
Brian Nesvik,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2025-18728 Filed 9-25-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on September 26, 2025.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.