81144 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 241 / Tuesday, December 15, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

State and location Community 

No. 

Effective date authorization/cancellation of sale 

of flood insurance in community 

Current effective 

map date 

Date certain 

Federal assistance 

no longer available 

in SFHAs 

Region VII 

Iowa: 

Aplington, City of, Butler County ............................... 190335 September 3, 2010, Emerg; September 16, 

2011, Reg; December 17, 2020, Susp. 

......do ................... Do. 

Aredale, City of, Butler County ................................. 190035 November 3, 1975, Emerg; August 19, 1986, 

Reg; December 17, 2020, Susp. 

......do ................... Do. 

Butler County, Unincorporated Areas ....................... 190850 July 5, 1994, Emerg; November 6, 2000, Reg; 

December 17, 2020, Susp. 

......do ................... Do. 

Clarksville, City of, Butler County ............................. 190336 October 28, 1985, Emerg; September 6, 1989, 

Reg; December 17, 2020, Susp. 

......do ................... Do. 

Dumont, City of, Butler County ................................. 190036 July 21, 1975, Emerg; August 1, 1986, Reg; 

December 17, 2020, Susp. 

......do ................... Do. 

Greene, City of, Butler County .................................. 190037 July 8, 1975, Emerg; October 15, 1982, Reg; 

December 17, 2020, Susp. 

......do ................... Do. 

New Hartford, City of, Butler County ........................ 190038 November 6, 1974, Emerg; September 29, 

1986, Reg; December 17, 2020, Susp. 

......do ................... Do. 

Parkersburg, City of, Butler County .......................... 190337 N/A, Emerg; February 21, 2014, Reg; December 17, 2020, Susp. ......do ................... Do. 

Sheldon, City of, O’Brien County .............................. 190216 July 25, 1975, Emerg; September 18, 1985, 

Reg; December 17, 2020, Susp. 

......do ................... Do. 

Shell Rock, City of, Butler County ............................ 190338 October 1, 1991, Emerg; May 1, 1992, Reg; 

December 17, 2020, Susp. 

......do ................... Do. 

*......do = Ditto. 

Code for reading third column: Emerg.—Emergency; Reg.—Regular; Susp.—Suspension. 

Katherine B. Fox, 

Assistant Administrator for Mitigation, 

Federal Insurance and Mitigation 

Administration—FEMA Resilience, 

Department of Homeland Security, Federal 

Emergency Management Agency. 

[FR Doc. 2020–27340 Filed 12–14–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–12–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2014–0061; 

FF09E21000 FXES11110900000 212] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 12-Month Finding for the 

Northern Spotted Owl 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of 12-month finding. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 

12-month finding on a petition to list 

the northern spotted owl (Strix 

occidentalis caurina) as an endangered 

species under the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973, as amended (Act). After a 

thorough review of the best available 

scientific and commercial information, 

we find that reclassification of the 

northern spotted owl from a threatened 

species to an endangered species is 

warranted but precluded by higher 

priority actions to amend the Lists of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants. We will develop a proposed 

rule to reclassify the northern spotted 

owl as our priorities allow. However, we 

ask the public to submit to us any new 

information relevant to the status of the 

subspecies or its habitat at any time. 

DATES: The finding in this document 

was made on December 15, 2020. 

ADDRESSES: A detailed description of 

the basis for this finding is available on 

the internet at http://

www.regulations.gov under docket 

number FWS–R1–ES–2014–0061. 

Supporting information used to 

prepare this finding is available by 

contacting the appropriate person as 

specified under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. Please submit any 

new information, materials, comments, 

or questions concerning this finding to 

the appropriate person, as specified 

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

Henson, State Supervisor, Oregon Fish 

and Wildlife Office, telephone: 503– 

231–6179, email: paul_henson@fws.gov. 

If you use a telecommunications device 

for the deaf (TDD), please call the 

Federal Relay Service at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Under section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), we are required to 

make a finding on whether or not a 

petitioned action is warranted within 12 

months after receiving any petition that 

we have determined contains 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating that the 

petitioned action may be warranted 

(‘‘12-month finding’’). We must make a 

finding that the petitioned action is: (1) 

Not warranted; (2) warranted; or (3) 

warranted but precluded. ‘‘Warranted 

but precluded’’ means that (a) the 

petitioned action is warranted, but the 

immediate proposal of a regulation 

implementing the petitioned action is 

precluded by other pending proposals to 

determine whether species are 

endangered or threatened species, and 

(b) expeditious progress is being made 

to add qualified species to the Lists of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants (Lists) and to remove from 

the Lists species for which the 

protections of the Act are no longer 

necessary. Section 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act 

requires that, when we find that a 

petitioned action is warranted but 

precluded, we treat the petition as 

though it is resubmitted on the date of 

such finding, that is, requiring that a 

subsequent finding be made within 12 

months of that date. We must publish 

these 12-month findings in the Federal 

Register. 

Summary of Information Pertaining to 

the Five Factors 

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) 

and the implementing regulations at 

part 424 of title 50 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (50 CFR part 424) 

set forth procedures for adding species 

to, removing species from, or 

reclassifying species on the Lists. The 

Act defines ‘‘endangered species’’ as 

any species that is in danger of 

extinction throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range (16 U.S.C. 1532(6)), 

and ‘‘threatened species’’ as any species 

that is likely to become an endangered 

species within the foreseeable future 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range (16 U.S.C. 1532(20)). Under 

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 241 / Tuesday, December 15, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 81145 

section 4(a)(1) of the Act, a species may 

be determined to be an endangered 

species or a threatened species because 

of any of the following five factors: 

(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. 

We use the term ‘‘threat’’ to refer in 

general to actions or conditions that are 

known to or are reasonably likely to 

negatively affect individuals of a 

species. The term ‘‘threat’’ includes 

actions or conditions that have a direct 

impact on individuals (direct impacts), 

as well as those that affect individuals 

through alteration of their habitat or 

required resources (stressors). The term 

‘‘threat’’ may encompass—either 

together or separately—the source of the 

action or condition or the action or 

condition itself. 

However, the mere identification of 

any threat(s) does not necessarily mean 

that the species meets the statutory 

definition of an ‘‘endangered species’’ or 

a ‘‘threatened species.’’ In determining 

whether a species meets either 

definition, we must evaluate all 

identified threats by considering the 

expected response by the species, and 

the effects of the threats—in light of 

those actions and conditions that will 

ameliorate the threats—on an 

individual, population, and species 

level. We evaluate each threat and its 

expected effects on the species, then 

analyze the cumulative effect of all of 

the threats on the species as a whole. 

We also consider the cumulative effect 

of the threats in light of those actions 

and conditions that will have positive 

effects on the species, such as any 

existing regulatory mechanisms or 

conservation efforts. The Secretary 

determines whether the species meets 

the definition of an ‘‘endangered 

species’’ or a ‘‘threatened species’’ only 

after conducting this cumulative 

analysis and describing the expected 

effect on the species now and in the 

foreseeable future. 

In conducting our evaluation of the 

five factors provided in section 4(a)(1) of 

the Act to determine whether the 

northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis 

caurina) meets the definition of an 

‘‘endangered species,’’ we considered 

and thoroughly evaluated the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available regarding the past, present, 

and future threats to the subspecies. We 

reviewed the petition, information 

available in our files, and other 

available published and unpublished 

information. This evaluation may 

include information from recognized 

experts; Federal, State, and tribal 

governments; academic institutions; 

foreign governments; private entities; 

and other members of the public. 

The species assessment for the 

northern spotted owl contains more 

detailed biological information, a 

thorough analysis of the listing factors, 

and an explanation of why we 

determined that this subspecies meets 

the definition of an endangered species. 

This supporting information can be 

found on the internet at http://

www.regulations.gov under docket 

number FWS–R1–ES–2014–0061. The 

following is an informational summary 

of the finding in this document. 

Previous Federal Actions 

On June 26, 1990, we published in the 

Federal Register (55 FR 26114) a final 

rule listing the northern spotted owl as 

a threatened species. On August 21, 

2012, we received a petition dated 

August 15, 2012, from the 

Environmental Protection Information 

Center (EPIC) requesting that the 

northern spotted owl be listed as an 

endangered species pursuant to the Act. 

On April 10, 2015, we published a 90- 

day finding (80 FR 19259), in which we 

announced that the petition presented 

substantial information indicating that 

reclassification may be warranted for 

the northern spotted owl and that our 

status review will also constitute our 5- 

year review for the northern spotted 

owl. 

Summary of Finding 

The northern spotted owl is the 

largest of three subspecies of spotted 

owls, and inhabits structurally complex 

forests from southwestern British 

Columbia through Washington and 

Oregon, and into northern California. 

The northern spotted owl is relatively 

long-lived, has a long reproductive life 

span, invests significantly in parental 

care, and exhibits high adult 

survivorship relative to other North 

American owls. The historical range of 

the northern spotted owl included most 

mature forests or stands throughout the 

Pacific Northwest, from southwestern 

British Columbia to as far south as 

Marin County, California. The current 

range of the northern spotted owl is 

smaller than the historical range, as the 

northern spotted owl is extirpated or 

very uncommon in certain areas such as 

southwestern Washington and British 

Columbia. 

Habitat loss was the primary factor 

leading to the listing of the northern 

spotted owl as a threatened species, and 

it continues to be a stressor on the 

subspecies due to the lag effects of past 

habitat loss, continued timber harvest, 

wildfire, and a minor amount from 

insect and forest disease outbreaks. The 

most recent rangewide northern spotted 

owl demographic study (Dugger et al. 

2016, entire) found that nonnative 

barred owls are currently the stressor 

with the largest negative impact on 

northern spotted owls through 

competition of resources. The study also 

found a significant rate of decline in 

northern spotted owl populations (3.8 

percent per year for all study areas 

combined but as high as 8.4 percent per 

year in one study area in Washington), 

and the rate of decline has increased 

noticeably since the 2011 5-year Review 

for the Northern Spotted Owl (USFWS 

2011b, p. 3). Populations of northern 

spotted owls in several long-term 

demographic monitoring areas have 

declined more than 70 percent since the 

early 1990s, and the extinction risk for 

northern spotted owl populations has 

increased, particularly in Washington 

and Oregon. 

We have carefully assessed the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available regarding the past, present, 

and future threats to the northern 

spotted owl, and we evaluated all 

relevant factors under the five listing 

factors, including any regulatory 

mechanisms and conservation measures 

addressing these stressors. On nonFederal lands, State regulatory 

mechanisms have not prevented the 

continued decline of nesting/roosting 

and foraging habitat; the amount of 

northern spotted owl habitat on these 

lands has decreased considerably over 

the past two decades, including in 

geographic areas where Federal lands 

are lacking. On Federal lands, the 

Northwest Forest Plan has reduced 

habitat loss and allowed for the 

development of new northern spotted 

owl habitat; however, the combined 

effects of climate change, high-severity 

wildfire, and past management practices 

are changing forest ecosystem processes 

and dynamics, and the expansion of 

barred owl populations is altering the 

81146 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 241 / Tuesday, December 15, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

capacity of intact habitat to support 

northern spotted owls. 

Based on our review of the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information pertaining to the factors 

affecting the northern spotted owl, we 

find that the stressors acting on the 

subspecies and its habitat, particularly 

rangewide competition from the 

nonnative barred owl and high-severity 

wildfire, are of such imminence, 

intensity, and magnitude to indicate 

that the northern spotted owl is now in 

danger of extinction throughout all of its 

range. Our status review indicates that 

the northern spotted owl meets the 

definition of an endangered species. 

Therefore, in accordance with sections 

3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act, we find that 

listing the northern spotted owl as an 

endangered species is warranted 

throughout all of its range. However, 

work on a reclassification for the 

northern spotted owl has been, and 

continues to be, precluded by work on 

higher-priority actions—which includes 

listing actions with statutory, courtordered, or court-approved deadlines 

and final listing determinations. This 

work includes all the actions listed in 

the National Listing Workplan 

discussed below under Preclusion and 

in the tables below under Expeditious 

Progress, as well as other actions at 

various stages of completion, such as 

90-day findings for new petitions. 

Preclusion and Expeditious Progress 

To make a finding that a particular 

action is warranted but precluded, the 

Service must make two determinations: 

(1) That the immediate proposal and 

timely promulgation of a final 

regulation is precluded by pending 

proposals to determine whether any 

species is endangered or threatened; and 

(2) that expeditious progress is being 

made to add qualified species to either 

of the Lists and to remove species from 

the Lists (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(B)(iii)). 

Preclusion 

A listing proposal is precluded if the 

Service does not have sufficient 

resources available to complete the 

proposal, because there are competing 

demands for those resources, and the 

relative priority of those competing 

demands is higher. Thus, in any given 

fiscal year (FY), multiple factors dictate 

whether it will be possible to undertake 

work on a proposed listing regulation or 

whether promulgation of such a 

proposal is precluded by higher priority 

listing actions—(1) The amount of 

resources available for completing the 

listing function, (2) the estimated cost of 

completing the proposed listing 

regulation, and (3) the Service’s 

workload, along with the Service’s 

prioritization of the proposed listing 

regulation, in relation to other actions in 

its workload. 

Available Resources 

The resources available for listing 

actions are determined through the 

annual Congressional appropriations 

process. In FY 1998 and for each fiscal 

year since then, Congress has placed a 

statutory cap on funds that may be 

expended for the Listing Program 

(spending cap). This spending cap was 

designed to prevent the listing function 

from depleting funds needed for other 

functions under the Act (for example, 

recovery functions, such as removing 

species from the Lists), or for other 

Service programs (see House Report 

105–163, 105th Congress, 1st Session, 

July 1, 1997). The funds within the 

spending cap are available to support 

work involving the following listing 

actions: Proposed and final rules to add 

species to the Lists or to change the 

status of species from threatened to 

endangered; 90-day and 12-month 

findings on petitions to add species to 

the Lists or to change the status of a 

species from threatened to endangered; 

annual ‘‘resubmitted’’ petition findings 

on prior warranted-but-precluded 

petition findings as required under 

section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Act; critical 

habitat petition findings; proposed rules 

designating critical habitat or final 

critical habitat determinations; and 

litigation-related, administrative, and 

program-management functions 

(including preparing and allocating 

budgets, responding to Congressional 

and public inquiries, and conducting 

public outreach regarding listing and 

critical habitat). 

For more than two decades the size 

and cost of the workload in these 

categories of actions have far exceeded 

the amount of funding available to the 

Service under the spending cap for 

completing listing and critical habitat 

actions under the Act. Since we cannot 

exceed the spending cap without 

violating the Anti-Deficiency Act (31 

U.S.C. 1341(a)(1)(A)), each year we have 

been compelled to determine that work 

on at least some actions was precluded 

by work on higher-priority actions. We 

make our determinations of preclusion 

on a nationwide basis to ensure that the 

species most in need of listing will be 

addressed first, and because we allocate 

our listing budget on a nationwide basis. 

Through the listing cap and the amount 

of funds needed to complete courtmandated actions within the cap, 

Congress and the courts have in effect 

determined the amount of money 

remaining (after completing courtmandated actions) for listing activities 

nationwide. Therefore, the funds that 

remain within the listing cap—after 

paying for work needed to comply with 

court orders or court-approved 

settlement agreements—set the 

framework within which we make our 

determinations of preclusion and 

expeditious progress. 

For FY 2019, through the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act of 

2019, (Pub. L. 116–6, February 15, 

2019), Congress appropriated the 

Service $18,318,000 under a 

consolidated cap for all domestic and 

foreign listing work, including status 

assessments, listings, domestic critical 

habitat determinations, and related 

activities. For FY 2020, through the 

Further Consolidated Appropriations 

Act, 2020 (Pub. L. 116–94, December 20, 

2019), Congress appropriated 

$20,318,000 for all domestic and foreign 

listing work. The amount of funding 

Congress will appropriate in future 

years is uncertain. 

Costs of Listing Actions 

The work involved in preparing 

various listing documents can be 

extensive, and may include, but is not 

limited to: Gathering and assessing the 

best scientific and commercial data 

available and conducting analyses used 

as the basis for our decisions; writing 

and publishing documents; and 

obtaining, reviewing, and evaluating 

public comments and peer-review 

comments on proposed rules and 

incorporating relevant information from 

those comments into final rules. The 

number of listing actions that we can 

undertake in a given year also is 

influenced by the complexity of those 

listing actions; that is, more complex 

actions generally are more costly. Our 

practice of proposing to designate 

critical habitat concurrent with listing 

species requires additional coordination 

and an analysis of the economic impacts 

of the designation, and thus adds to the 

complexity and cost of our work. Since 

completing all of the work for 

outstanding listing and critical habitat 

actions has for so long required more 

funding than has been available within 

the spending cap, the Service has 

developed several ways to determine 

the relative priorities of the actions 

within its workload to identify the work 

it can complete with the funding it has 

available for listing and critical habitat 

actions each year. 

Prioritizing Listing Actions 

The Service’s Listing Program 

workload is broadly composed of four 

types of actions, which the Service 

prioritizes as follows: (1) Compliance 

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 241 / Tuesday, December 15, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 81147 

with court orders and court-approved 

settlement agreements requiring that 

petition findings or listing or critical 

habitat determinations be completed by 

a specific date; (2) essential litigationrelated, administrative, and listing 

program-management functions; (3) 

section 4 (of the Act) listing and critical 

habitat actions with absolute statutory 

deadlines; and (4) section 4 listing 

actions that do not have absolute 

statutory deadlines. 

In previous years, the Service 

received many new petitions, including 

multiple petitions to list numerous 

species—a single petition even sought to 

list 404 domestic species. The emphasis 

that petitioners placed on seeking listing 

for hundreds of species at a time 

through the petition process 

significantly increased the number of 

actions within the third category of our 

workload—actions that have absolute 

statutory deadlines for making findings 

on those petitions. In addition, the 

necessity of dedicating all of the Listing 

Program funding towards determining 

the status of 251 candidate species and 

complying with other court-ordered 

requirements between 2011 and 2016 

added to the number of petition findings 

awaiting action. Because we are not able 

to work on all of these at once, the 

Service’s most recent effort to prioritize 

its workload focuses on addressing the 

backlog in petition findings that has 

resulted from the influx of large multispecies petitions and the 5-year period 

in which the Service was compelled to 

suspend making 12-month findings for 

most of those petitions. The number of 

petitions that are awaiting status 

reviews and accompanying 12-month 

findings illustrates the considerable 

extent of this backlog: As a result of the 

outstanding petitions to list hundreds of 

species, and our efforts to make initial 

petition findings within 90 days of 

receiving the petition to the maximum 

extent practicable, at the beginning of 

FY 2020 we had 422 12-month petition 

findings for domestic species yet to be 

initiated and completed. 

To determine the relative priorities of 

the outstanding 12-month petition 

findings, the Service developed a 

prioritization methodology 

(methodology) (81 FR 49248; July 27, 

2016), after providing the public with 

notice and an opportunity to comment 

on the draft methodology (81 FR 2229; 

January 15, 2016). Under the 

methodology, we assign each 12-month 

finding to one of five priority bins: (1) 

The species is critically imperiled; (2) 

strong data are already available about 

the status of the species; (3) new science 

is underway that would inform key 

uncertainties about the status of the 

species; (4) conservation efforts are in 

development or underway and likely to 

address the status of the species; or (5) 

the available data on the species are 

limited. As a general rule, 12-month 

findings with a lower bin number have 

a higher priority than, and are 

scheduled before, 12-month findings 

with a higher bin number. However, we 

make some exceptions—for example, we 

may schedule a lower-priority finding 

earlier if batching it with a higherpriority finding would generate 

efficiencies. We may also consider 

where there are any special 

circumstances that affect the timing for 

completion of an action. One 

circumstance that might result in 

divergence from priority order is when 

the current highest priorities are 

clustered in a geographic area, such that 

the field office where the highestpriority work is clustered has reached 

capacity; in such a circumstance, other 

field offices would continue to work on 

their highest-priority actions even if 

those actions are relatively lower in 

priority than the previously mentioned 

at-capacity field office. In other words, 

we recognize that the geographic 

distribution of our scientific expertise 

will in some cases require us to balance 

workload across geographic areas. This 

approach also results in efficiencies 

from having listing work completed by 

biologists in the field office who have 

the scientific expertise on the 

ecosystems, species, and threats within 

that geographic area. Since before 

Congress first established the spending 

cap for the Listing Program in 1998, the 

Listing Program workload has required 

considerably more resources than the 

amount of funds Congress has allowed 

for the Listing Program. Therefore, it is 

important that we be as efficient as 

possible in our listing process. 

After finalizing the prioritization 

methodology, we then applied that 

methodology to develop a multi-year 

National Listing Workplan (Workplan) 

for completing the outstanding status 

assessments and accompanying 12- 

month findings. The purpose of the 

Workplan is provide transparency and 

predictability to the public about when 

the Service anticipates completing 

specific 12-month findings while 

allowing for flexibility to update the 

Workplan when new information 

changes the priorities. In May 2019, the 

Service released its updated Workplan 

for addressing the Act’s domestic listing 

and critical habitat decisions over the 

subsequent 5 years. The updated 

Workplan identified the Service’s 

schedule for addressing all domestic 

species on the candidate list and 

conducting 267 status reviews and 

accompanying 12-month findings by FY 

2023 for domestic species that have 

been petitioned for Federal protections 

under the Act. As we implement our 

Workplan and work on proposed rules 

for the highest-priority species, we 

increase efficiency by preparing multispecies proposals when appropriate, 

and these may include species with 

lower priority if they overlap 

geographically or have the same threats 

as one of the highest-priority species. 

The National Listing Workplan is 

available online at: https://

www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/ 

listing-workplan.html. 

An additional way in which we 

determine relative priorities of 

outstanding actions in the section 4 

program is application of the listing 

priority guidelines (48 FR 43098; 

September 21, 1983). Under those 

guidelines, which apply primarily to 

candidate species, we assign each 

candidate a listing priority number 

(LPN) of 1 to 12, depending on the 

magnitude of threats (high or moderate 

to low), immediacy of threats (imminent 

or nonimminent), and taxonomic status 

of the species (in order of priority: 

Monotypic genus (a species that is the 

sole member of a genus), a species, or 

a part of a species (subspecies or 

distinct population segment)). The 

lower the listing priority number, the 

higher the listing priority (that is, a 

species with an LPN of 1 would have 

the highest listing priority). A species 

with a higher LPN would generally be 

precluded from listing by species with 

lower LPNs, unless work on a proposed 

rule for the species with the higher LPN 

can be combined for efficiency with 

work on a proposed rule for other highpriority species. 

Finally, proposed rules for 

reclassification of threatened species 

status to endangered species status are 

generally lower in priority because, as 

listed species, they are already afforded 

the protections of the Act and 

implementing regulations. However, for 

efficiency reasons, we may choose to 

work on a proposed rule to reclassify a 

species to endangered species status if 

we can combine this with higherpriority work. 

Based on our listing priority system, 

we are assigning an LPN of 3 to this 

reclassification of the northern spotted 

owl. This priority number indicates the 

magnitude of threat is high and those 

threats are imminent. As explained 

above, proposed rules to reclassify 

threatened species to endangered 

species status are a lower priority than 

listing currently unprotected species, so 

listing a candidate species with a higher 

81148 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 241 / Tuesday, December 15, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

LPN number would generally be a 

higher priority action than 

reclassification of an already listed 

species such as the northern spotted 

owl. As such, we will continue to 

monitor the threats to the northern 

spotted owl and the subspecies’ status 

on an annual basis, and should the 

magnitude or the imminence of the 

threats change, we will revisit our 

assessment of the LPN. 

Listing Program Workload 

The National Listing Workplan that 

the Service released in 2019 outlined 

work for domestic species over the 

period from 2019 to 2023. Tables 1 and 

2 under Expeditious Progress, below, 

identify the higher-priority listing 

actions that we completed through FY 

2020 (September 30, 2020), as well as 

those we have been working on in FY 

2020 but have not yet completed. For 

FY 2020, our National Listing Workplan 

includes 74 12-month findings or 

proposed listing actions that are at 

various stages of completion at the time 

of this finding. In addition to the actions 

scheduled in the National Listing 

Workplan, the overall Listing Program 

workload also includes the development 

and revision of listing regulations that 

are required by new court orders or 

settlement agreements, or to address the 

repercussions of any new court 

decisions, as well as proposed and final 

critical habitat designations or revisions 

for species that have already been listed. 

The Service’s highest priorities for 

spending its funding in FY 2019 and FY 

2020 are actions included in the 

Workplan and actions required to 

address court decisions. As described in 

‘‘Prioritizing Listing Actions,’’ above, 

reclassification of the northern spotted 

owl is a lower-priority action than these 

types of work. Therefore, these higherpriority actions precluded reclassifying 

the owl in FY 2019, and the Service 

anticipates that they will continue to 

preclude work on reclassifying the owl 

in FY 2020 and the near future. 

Expeditious Progress 

As explained above, a determination 

that listing is warranted but precluded 

must also demonstrate that expeditious 

progress is being made to add and 

remove qualified species to and from 

the Lists. Please note that in the Code 

of Federal Regulations, the ‘‘Lists’’ are 

grouped as one list of endangered and 

threatened wildlife (50 CFR 17.11(h)) 

and one list of endangered and 

threatened plants (50 CFR 17.12(h)). 

However, the ‘‘Lists’’ referred to in the 

Act mean one list of endangered species 

(wildlife and plants) and one list of 

threatened species (wildlife and plants). 

Therefore, under the Act, expeditious 

progress includes actions to reclassify 

species—that is, either remove them 

from the list of threatened species and 

add them to the list of endangered 

species, or remove them from the list of 

endangered species and add them to the 

list of threatened species. 

As with our ‘‘precluded’’ finding, the 

evaluation of whether expeditious 

progress is being made is a function of 

the resources available and the 

competing demands for those funds. As 

discussed earlier, the FY 2020 

appropriations law included a spending 

cap of $20,318,000 for listing activities, 

and the FY 2019 appropriations law 

included a spending cap of $18,318,000 

for listing activities. 

As discussed below, given the limited 

resources available for listing, the 

competing demands for those funds, 

and the completed work catalogued in 

the tables below, we find that we are 

making expeditious progress in adding 

qualified species to the Lists. 

The work of the Service’s domestic 

listing program in FY 2019 and FY 2020 

(as of September 30, 2020) includes all 

three of the steps necessary for adding 

species to the Lists: (1) Identifying 

species that may warrant listing (90-day 

petition findings); (2) undertaking an 

evaluation of the best available 

scientific data about those species and 

the threats they face to determine 

whether or not listing is warranted (a 

status review and accompanying 12- 

month finding); and (3) adding qualified 

species to the Lists (by publishing 

proposed and final listing rules). We 

explain in more detail how we are 

making expeditious progress in all three 

of the steps necessary for adding 

qualified species to the Lists 

(identifying, evaluating, and adding 

species). Subsequent to discussing our 

expeditious progress in adding qualified 

species to the Lists, we explain our 

expeditious progress in removing from 

the Lists species that no longer require 

the protections of the Act. 

First, we are making expeditious 

progress in identifying species that may 

warrant listing. In FY 2019 and FY 2020 

(as of September 30, 2020), we 

completed 90-day findings on petitions 

to list 14 species. 

Second, we are making expeditious 

progress in evaluating the best scientific 

and commercial data available about 

species and threats they face (status 

reviews) to determine whether or not 

listing is warranted. In FY 2019 and FY 

2020 (as of September 30, 2020), we 

completed 12-month findings for 69 

species. In addition, we funded and 

worked on the development of 12- 

month findings for 34 species and 

proposed listing determinations for 9 

candidates. Although we did not 

complete those actions during FY 2019 

or FY 2020 (as of September 30, 2020), 

we made expeditious progress towards 

doing so by initiating and making 

progress on the status reviews to 

determine whether adding the species to 

the Lists is warranted. 

Third, we are making expeditious 

progress in adding qualified species to 

the Lists. In FY 2019 and FY 2020 (as 

of September 30, 2020), we published 

final listing rules for 7 species, 

including final critical habitat 

designations for 1 of those species and 

final protective regulations under the 

Act’s section 4(d) for 2 of the species. In 

addition, we published proposed rules 

to list an additional 20 species 

(including concurrent proposed critical 

habitat designations for 13 species and 

concurrent protective regulations under 

the Act’s section 4(d) for 14 species). 

The Act also requires that we make 

expeditious progress in removing 

species from the Lists that no longer 

require the protections of the Act. 

Specifically, we are making expeditious 

progress in removing (delisting) 

domestic species, as well as 

reclassifying endangered species to 

threatened species status (downlisting). 

This work is being completed under the 

Recovery program in light of the 

resources available for recovery actions, 

which are funded through the recovery 

line item in the budget of the 

Endangered Species Program. Because 

recovery actions are funded separately 

from listing actions, they do not factor 

into our assessment of preclusion; that 

is, work on recovery actions does not 

preclude the availability of resources for 

completing new listing work. However, 

work on recovery actions does count 

towards our assessment of making 

expeditious progress because the Act 

states that expeditious progress includes 

both adding qualified species to, and 

removing qualified species from, the 

Lists of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife and Plants. During FY 2019 

and FY 2020 (as of September 30, 2020), 

we finalized downlisting of 1 species, 

finalized delisting rules for 7 species, 

proposed downlisting of 7 species, and 

proposed delisting of 11 species. The 

rate at which the Service has completed 

delisting and downlisting actions in FY 

2019 and FY 2020 (as of September 30, 

2020) is higher than any point in the 

history of the Act. 

The tables below catalog the Service’s 

progress in FY 2019 and FY 2020 (as of 

September 30, 2020) as it pertains to our 

evaluation of making expeditious 

progress. Table 1 includes completed 

and published domestic listing actions; 

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 241 / Tuesday, December 15, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 81149 

Table 2 includes domestic listing 

actions funded and initiated in previous 

fiscal years and in FY 2020 that are not 

yet complete as of September 30, 2020; 

and Table 3 includes completed and 

published proposed and final 

downlisting and delisting actions for 

domestic species. 

TABLE 1—COMPLETED DOMESTIC LISTING ACTIONS IN FY 2019 AND FY 2020 

[As of September 30, 2020] 

Publication 

date Title Action(s) Federal Register citation 

10/9/2018 ....... Threatened Species Status for Coastal Distinct 

Population Segment of the Pacific Marten.

Proposed Listing— Threatened with Section 

4(d) Rule and 12-Month Petition Finding.

83 FR 50574–50582 

10/9/2018 ....... Threatened Species Status for Black-Capped 

Petrel With a Section 4(d) Rule.

Proposed Listing— Threatened with Section 

4(d) Rule and 12-Month Petition Finding.

83 FR 50560–50574 

10/9/2018 ....... 12-Month Petition Finding and Threatened 

Species Status for Eastern Black Rail With a 

Section 4(d) Rule.

Proposed Listing— Threatened with Section 

4(d) Rule and 12-Month Petition Finding.

83 FR 50610–50630 

10/9/2018 ....... Threatened Species Status With Section 4(d) 

Rule and Critical Habitat Designation for 

Slenderclaw Crayfish.

Proposed Listing— Threatened with Section 

4(d) Rule and Critical Habitat and 12-Month 

Finding.

83 FR 50582–50610 

10/11/2018 ..... Threatened Species Status With Section 4(d) 

Rule and Critical Habitat Designation for Atlantic Pigtoe.

Proposed Listing— Threatened with Section 

4(d) Rule and Critical Habitat and 12-Month 

Finding.

83 FR 51570–51609 

11/21/2018 ..... Endangered Species Status for the Candy 

Darter.

Final Listing—Endangered ................................ 83 FR 58747–58754 

12/19/2018 ..... 12-Month Findings on Petitions to List 13 Species as Endangered or Threatened Species.12-Month Petition Findings ................................ 83 FR 65127–65134 

12/28/2018 ..... Threatened Species Status for Trispot Darter .. Final Listing—Threatened .................................. 83 FR 67131–67140 

4/4/2019 ......... 12-Month Findings on Petitions to List Eight 

Species as Endangered or Threatened Species.

12-Month Petition Findings ................................ 84 FR 13237–13242 

4/4/2019 ......... 12-Month Petition Finding and Endangered 

Species Status for the Missouri Distinct Population Segment of Eastern Hellbender.

Proposed Listing— Endangered and 12-Month 

Petition Finding.

84 FR 13223–13237 

4/26/2019 ....... 90-Day Findings for Four Species (3 domestic 

species and 1 foreign species)*.

90-Day Petition Findings ................................... 84 FR 17768–17771 

5/22/2019 ....... Threatened Species Status with Section 4(d) 

Rule for Neuse River Waterdog and Endangered Species Status for Carolina Madtom 

and Proposed Designations of Critical Habitat.

Proposed Listings—Threatened Status with 

Section 4(d) Rule with Critical Habitat; Endangered Status with Critical Habitat and 12- 

Month Petition Findings.

84 FR 23644–23691 

8/13/2019 ....... Endangered Species Status for Franklin’s 

Bumble Bee.

Proposed Listing—Endangered and 12-Month 

Petition Finding.

84 FR 40006–40019 

8/15/2019 ....... 12-Month Findings on Petitions to List Eight 

Species as Endangered or Threatened Species.

12-Month Petition Findings ................................ 84 FR 41694–41699 

8/15/2019 ....... 90-Day Findings for Three Species ................... 90-Day Petition Findings ................................... 84 FR 41691–41694 

9/6/2019 ......... 90-Day Findings for Three Species ................... 90-Day Petition Findings ................................... 84 FR 46927–46931 

10/07/2019 ..... Twelve Species Not Warranted for Listing as 

Endangered or Threatened Species.

12-Month Petition Findings ................................ 84 FR 53336–53343 

10/21/2019 ..... Endangered Species Status for Barrens 

Topminnow.

Final Listing—Endangered ................................ 84 FR 56131–56136 

11/08/2019 ..... 12-Month Finding for the California Spotted 

Owl.

12-Month Petition Finding .................................. 84 FR 60371–60372 

11/21/2019 ..... Threatened Species Status for Meltwater 

Lednian Stonefly and Western Glacier 

Stonefly With a Section 4(d) Rule.

Final Listing—Threatened with Section 4(d) 

Rule.

84 FR 64210–64227 

12/06/2019 ..... Endangered Species Status for Beardless 

Chinchweed With Designation of Critical 

Habitat, and Threatened Species Status for 

Bartram’s Stonecrop With Section 4(d) Rule.

Proposed Listings —Endangered with Critical 

Habitat; Threatened with Section 4(d) Rule 

and 12-Month Petition Findings.

84 FR 67060–67104 

12/19/2019 ..... Five Species Not Warranted for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species.12-Month Petition Findings ................................ 84 FR 69707–69712 

12/19/2019 ..... 90-Day Findings for Two Species ..................... 90-Day Petition Findings ................................... 84 FR 69713–69715 

01/08/2020 ..... Threatened Species Status for the Hermes 

Copper Butterfly With 4(d) Rule and Designation of Critical Habitat.

Proposed Listing—Threatened with Section 

4(d) Rule and Critical Habitat.

85 FR 1018–1050 

01/08/2020 ..... Endangered Status for the Sierra Nevada Distinct Population Segment of the Sierra Nevada Red Fox.Proposed Listing—Endangered ......................... 85 FR 862–872 

05/05/2020 ..... Endangered Status for the Island Marble Butterfly and Designation of Critical Habitat.Final Listing—Endangered with Critical Habitat 85 FR 26786–26820 

05/15/2020 ..... Endangered Species Status for Southern Sierra Nevada Distinct Population Segment of 

Fisher.

Final Listing—Endangered ................................ 85 FR 29532–29589 

81150 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 241 / Tuesday, December 15, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1—COMPLETED DOMESTIC LISTING ACTIONS IN FY 2019 AND FY 2020—Continued 

[As of September 30, 2020] 

Publication 

date Title Action(s) Federal Register citation 

7/16/2020 ....... 90-Day Finding for the Dunes Sagebrush Lizard.90-Day Petition Finding ..................................... 85 FR 43203–43204 

7/22/2020 ....... 90-Day Findings for Two Species ..................... 90-Day Petition Findings ................................... 85 FR 44265–44267 

7/23/2020 ....... Four Species Not Warranted for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species.12-Month Petition Findings ................................ 85 FR 44478–44483 

8/26/2020 ....... Endangered Species Status for Marron Bacora 

and Designation of Critical Habitat.

Proposed Listing-Endangered with Critical 

Habitat and 12-Month Petition Finding.

85 FR 52516–52540 

9/1/2020 ......... Two Species Not Warranted for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species.12-Month Petition Findings ................................ 85 FR 54339–54342 

9/16/2020 ....... Findings on a Petition To Delist the Distinct 

Population Segment of the Western YellowBilled Cuckoo and a Petition To List the U.S. 

Population of Northwestern Moose**.

12-Month Petition Finding .................................. 85 FR 57816–57818 

9/17/2020 ....... Threatened Species Status for Chapin Mesa 

milkvetch and Section 4(d) Rule with Designation of Critical Habitat.

Proposed Listing-Threatened With Section 4(d) 

Rule and Critical Habitat.

85 FR 58224–58250 

9/17/2020 ....... Threatened Species Status for Big Creek crayfish and St. Francis River Crayfish and With 

Section 4(d) Rule with Designation of Critical 

Habitat.

Proposed Listings-Threatened With Section 

4(d) Rule and Critical Habitat.

85 FR 58192–58222 

9/29/2020 ....... Threatened Species Status for longsolid and 

round hickorynut mussel and Section 4(d) 

Rule With Designation of Critical Habitat, Not 

Warranted 12-Month Finding for purple Lilliput.

Proposed Listings-Threatened With Section 

4(d) Rule and Critical Habitat; 12-Month Petition Findings.

85 FR 61384–61458 

9/29/2020 ....... Threatened Species Status for Wright’s Marsh 

Thistle and Section 4(d) Rule With Designation of Critical Habitat.

Proposed Listing-Threatened With Section (4) 

Rule and Critical Habitat.

85 FR 61460–61498 

* 90-day finding batches may include findings regarding both domestic and foreign species. The total number of 90-day findings reported in this 

assessment of expeditious progress pertains to domestic species only. 

** Batched 12-month findings may include findings regarding listing and delisting petitions. The total number of 12-month findings reported in 

this assessment of expeditious progress pertains to listing petitions only. 

TABLE 2—DOMESTIC LISTING ACTIONS FUNDED AND INITIATED IN PREVIOUS FYS AND IN FY 2020 THAT ARE NOT YET

COMPLETE AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2020 

Species Action 

northern spotted owl ................................................................................. 12-month finding. 

false spike ................................................................................................. 12-month finding. 

Guadalupe fatmucket ............................................................................... 12-month finding. 

Guadalupe orb .......................................................................................... 12-month finding. 

Texas fatmucket ....................................................................................... Proposed listing determination or not warranted finding. 

Texas fawnsfoot ....................................................................................... Proposed listing determination or not warranted finding. 

Texas pimpleback ..................................................................................... Proposed listing determination or not warranted finding. 

South Llano Springs moss ....................................................................... 12-month finding. 

peppered chub .......................................................................................... 12-month finding. 

whitebark pine .......................................................................................... Proposed listing determination or not warranted finding. 

Key ringneck snake .................................................................................. 12-month finding. 

Rimrock crowned snake ........................................................................... 12-month finding. 

Euphilotes ancilla cryptica ........................................................................ 12-month finding. 

Euphilotes ancilla purpura ........................................................................ 12-month finding. 

Hamlin Valley pyrg ................................................................................... 12-month finding. 

longitudinal gland pyrg ............................................................................. 12-month finding. 

sub-globose snake pyrg ........................................................................... 12-month finding. 

Louisiana pigtoe ....................................................................................... 12-month finding. 

Texas heelsplitter ..................................................................................... 12-month finding. 

triangle pigtoe ........................................................................................... 12-month finding. 

prostrate milkweed ................................................................................... 12-month finding. 

alligator snapping turtle ............................................................................ 12-month finding. 

Black Creek crayfish ................................................................................. 12-month finding. 

bracted twistflower .................................................................................... Proposed listing determination or not warranted finding. 

Canoe Creek clubshell ............................................................................. 12-month finding. 

Clear Lake hitch ....................................................................................... 12-month finding. 

Doll’s daisy ............................................................................................... 12-month finding. 

frecklebelly madtom .................................................................................. 12-month finding. 

longfin smelt (San Francisco Bay-Delta DPS) ......................................... Proposed listing determination or not warranted finding. 

magnificent Ramshorn .............................................................................. Proposed listing determination or not warranted finding. 

Mt. Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan ............................................................ 12-month finding. 

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 241 / Tuesday, December 15, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 81151 

TABLE 2—DOMESTIC LISTING ACTIONS FUNDED AND INITIATED IN PREVIOUS FYS AND IN FY 2020 THAT ARE NOT YET

COMPLETE AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2020—Continued 

Species Action 

Ocmulgee skullcap ................................................................................... 12-month finding. 

Penasco least chipmunk .......................................................................... Proposed listing determination or not warranted finding. 

Puerto Rico harlequin butterfly ................................................................. Proposed listing determination or not warranted finding. 

Puget oregonian snail ............................................................................... 12-month finding. 

relict dace ................................................................................................. 12-month finding. 

Rocky Mountain monkeyflower ................................................................ 12-month finding. 

sickle darter .............................................................................................. 12-month finding. 

southern elktoe ......................................................................................... 12-month finding. 

southern white-tailed ptarmigan ............................................................... 12-month finding. 

tidewater amphipod .................................................................................. 12-month finding. 

tufted puffin ............................................................................................... 12-month finding. 

western spadefoot .................................................................................... 12-month finding. 

TABLE 3—COMPLETED DOMESTIC RECOVERY ACTIONS (PROPOSED AND FINAL DOWNLISTINGS AND DELISTINGS) IN FY 

2019 AND FY 2020 

[As of September 30, 2020] 

Publication 

date Title Action(s) Federal Register citation 

10/18/2018 ...... Removing Deseret Milkvetch (Astragalus desereticus) From the 

Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants.

Final Rule—Delisting ..................... 83 FR 52775–52786 

02/26/2019 ...... Removing the Borax Lake Chub From the List of Endangered 

and Threatened Wildlife.

Proposed Rule—Delisting ............. 84 FR 6110–6126 

03/15/2019 ...... Removing the Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.Proposed Rule—Delisting ............. 84 FR 9648–9687 

05/03/2019 ...... Reclassifying the American Burying Beetle From Endangered to 

Threatened on the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife With a 4(d) Rule.

Proposed Rule—Downlisting ......... 84 FR 19013–19029 

08/27/2019 ...... Removing Trifolium stoloniferum (Running Buffalo Clover) From 

the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants.

Proposed Rule—Delisting ............. 84 FR 44832–44841 

09/13/2019 ...... Removing the Foskett Speckled Dace From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.Final Rule—Delisting ..................... 84 FR 48290–48308 

10/03/2019 ...... Removal of the Monito Gecko (Sphaerodactylus micropithecus) 

From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.

Final Rule—Delisting ..................... 84 FR 52791–52800 

10/07/2019 ...... Removal of Howellia aquatilis (Water Howellia) From the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Plants.

Proposed Rule—Delisting ............. 84 FR 53380–53397 

10/09/2019 ...... Removing the Kirtland’s Warbler From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.Final Rule—Delisting ..................... 84 FR 54436–54463 

10/24/2019 ...... Removal of the Interior Least Tern From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.Proposed Rule—Delisting ............. 84 FR 56977–56991 

11/05/2019 ...... Removing Oenothera coloradensis (Colorado Butterfly Plant) 

From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants.

Final Rule—Delisting ..................... 84 FR 59570–59588 

11/26/2019 ...... Removing Bradshaw’s Lomatium From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants.Proposed Rule—Delisting ............. 84 FR 65067–65080 

11/26/2019 ...... Removal of the Nashville Crayfish From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.Proposed Rule—Delisting ............. 84 FR 65098–65112 

11/26/2019 ...... Reclassification of the Endangered June Sucker to Threatened 

With a Section 4(d) Rule.

Proposed Rule—Downlisting ......... 84 FR 65080–65098 

12/19/2019 ...... Reclassifying the Hawaiian Goose From Endangered to Threatened With a Section 4(d) Rule.Final Rule—Downlisting ................ 84 FR 69918–69947 

01/02/2020 ...... Removing the Hawaiian Hawk From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.Final Rule—Delisting ..................... 85 FR 164–189 

01/06/2020 ...... Removing the Kanab Ambersnail From the List of Endangered 

and Threatened Wildlife.

Proposed Rule—Delisting ............. 85 FR 487–492 

01/22/2020 ...... Reclassification of the Humpback Chub From Endangered to 

Threatened With a Section 4(d) Rule.

Proposed Rule—Downlisting ......... 85 FR 3586–3601 

03/10/2020 ...... Removing Lepanthes eltoroensis From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants.Proposed Rule—Delisting ............. 85 FR 13844–13856 

04/27/2020 ...... Removing Arenaria cumberlandensis (Cumberland Sandwort) 

From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants.

Proposed Rule—Delisting ............. 85 FR 23302–23315 

06/01/2020 ...... Removing San Benito Evening-Primrose (Camissonia benitensis) 

From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants.

Proposed Rule—Delisting ............. 85 FR 33060–33078 

06/11/2020 ...... Removing the Borax Lake Chub From the List of Endangered 

and Threatened Wildlife.

Final Rule—Delisting ..................... 85 FR 35574–35594 

7/24/2020 ........ Reclassification of Morro Shoulderband Snail (Helminthoglypta 

walkeriana) From Endangered to Threatened With a 4(d) Rule.

Proposed Rule—Downlisting ......... 85 FR 44821–44835 

8/19/2020 ........ Reclassification of Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat From Endangered 

To Threatened With a Section 4(d) Rule.

Proposed Rule—Downlisting ......... 85 FR 50991–51006 

81152 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 241 / Tuesday, December 15, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 3—COMPLETED DOMESTIC RECOVERY ACTIONS (PROPOSED AND FINAL DOWNLISTINGS AND DELISTINGS) IN FY 

2019 AND FY 2020—Continued 

[As of September 30, 2020] 

Publication 

date Title Action(s) Federal Register citation 

9/30/2020 ........ Reclassficiation of beach layia (Layia carnosa) From Endangered 

To Threatened With a Section 4(d) Rule.

Proposed Rule—Downlisting ......... 85 FR 61684–61700 

9/30/2020 ........ Reclassification of Virgin Islands Tree Boa From Endangered to 

Threatened With a Section 4(d) Rule.

Proposed Rule—Downlisting ......... 85 FR 61700–61717 

When a petitioned action is found to 

be warranted but precluded, the Service 

is required by the Act to treat the 

petition as resubmitted on an annual 

basis until a proposal or withdrawal is 

published. If the petitioned species is 

not already listed under the Act, the 

species becomes a ‘‘candidate’’ and is 

reviewed annually in the ‘‘candidate 

notice of review’’ (CNOR). The number 

of candidate species remaining in FY 

2020 is the lowest it has been since 

1975. For these species, we are working 

on developing a species status 

assessment, preparing proposed listing 

determinations, or preparing notwarranted 12-month findings. 

Another way that we have been 

expeditious in making progress in 

adding and removing qualified species 

to and from the Lists is that we have 

made our actions as efficient and timely 

as possible, given the requirements of 

the Act and regulations and constraints 

relating to workload and personnel. We 

are continually seeking ways to 

streamline processes or achieve 

economies of scale, such as batching 

related actions together for publication. 

Given our limited budget for 

implementing section 4 of the Act, these 

efforts also contribute toward our 

expeditious progress in adding and 

removing qualified species to and from 

the Lists. 

The northern spotted owl will remain 

listed as a threatened species, and we 

will continue to evaluate this subspecies 

as new information becomes available. 

Continuing review will determine if a 

change in status is warranted, including 

the need to make prompt use of 

emergency listing procedures. 

Under 50 CFR 17.31(a), threatened 

wildlife added to the List of Endangered 

and Threatened Wildlife on or prior to 

September 26, 2019, are provided all 

provisions of 50 CFR 17.21 for 

endangered wildlife, except 50 CFR 

17.21(c)(5). The northern spotted owl 

was granted the protections of an 

endangered species at the time it was 

listed as a threatened species in 1990 

(55 FR 26114–26194). Therefore, we 

conclude that reclassification will not 

provide any additional protections for 

the species as it already receives the 

protections of the provisions of 50 CFR 

17.21 for endangered wildlife. 

A detailed discussion of the basis for 

this finding can be found in the 

northern spotted owl species status 

report and other supporting documents 

(see ADDRESSES, above). A detailed 

discussion of the basis for this finding 

can be found in the northern spotted 

owl species assessment and other 

supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, 

above). 

New Information 

We intend that any proposed 

reclassification for the northern spotted 

owl will be as accurate as possible. 

Therefore, we will continue to accept 

additional information and comments 

from all concerned governmental 

agencies, the scientific community, 

industry, or any other interested party 

concerning this finding. We request that 

you submit any new information 

concerning the taxonomy of, biology of, 

ecology of, status of, or threats to the 

northern spotted owl to the person 

specified under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT, whenever it 

becomes available. New information 

will help us monitor this subspecies and 

make appropriate decisions about its 

conservation and status. We encourage 

local agencies and stakeholders to 

continue cooperative monitoring and 

conservation efforts. 

Authors 

The primary authors of this document 

are the staff members of the Fish and 

Wildlife Service’s Species Assessment 

Team. 

Authority 

The authority for this action is section 

4 of the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq.). 

Aurelia Skipwith, 

Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2020–27198 Filed 12–14–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 648 

[Docket No.: 201209–0334] 

RIN 0648–BK05 

Fisheries of the Northeastern United 

States; Omnibus Framework 

Adjustment To Modify the Mid-Atlantic 

Fishery Management Council’s Risk 

Policy 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: NMFS approves and 

implements changes to the Mid-Atlantic 

Fishery Management Council’s Risk 

Policy. This action is intended to adjust 

the Council’s risk policy by accepting a 

higher level of risk for stocks at or above 

biomass targets. These adjustments 

could lead to increases in catch limits 

for healthy fisheries managed by the 

Council. 

DATES: Effective December 15, 2020. 

ADDRESSES: The Mid-Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council developed an 

environmental assessment (EA) for this 

action that describes and analyzes these 

measures and other considered 

alternatives. Copies of the Risk Policy 

Omnibus Framework Adjustment, 

including the EA and information on 

the economic impacts of this 

rulemaking, are available upon request 

from Dr. Christopher M. Moore, 

Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic 

Fishery Management Council, Suite 201, 

800 North State Street, Dover, DE 19901. 

These documents are also accessible via 

the internet at http://www.mafmc.org. 

Copies of the small entity compliance 

guide are available from Michael 

Pentony, Regional Administrator, 

NMFS, Greater Atlantic Regional 

Fisheries Office, 55 Great Republic 

Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930–2298, or