Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 5, 2018 / Proposed Rules 45073 

overlap, or conflict with any other Federal 

rules. There are no known significant 

alternative approaches to the proposed rule 

that would meet the applicable requirement. 

The Regulatory Secretariat Division 

has submitted a copy of the IRFA to the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. A copy of the 

IRFA may be obtained from the 

Regulatory Secretariat Division. DoD, 

GSA and NASA invite comments from 

small business concerns and other 

interested parties on the expected 

impact of this rule on small entities. 

DoD, GSA, and NASA will also 

consider comments from small entities 

concerning the existing regulations in 

subparts affected by this rule consistent 

with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties 

must submit such comments separately 

and should cite 5 U.S.C. 610 (FAR Case 

2017–017) in correspondence. 

VII. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The proposed rule does not contain 

any information collection requirements 

that require the approval of the Office of 

Management and Budget under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

chapter 35). 

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 7 

Government procurement. 

Dated: August 30, 2018. 

William F. Clark, 

Director, Office of Government-wide 

Acquisition Policy, Office of Acquisition 

Policy, Office of Government-wide Policy. 

Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA are 

proposing to amend 48 CFR part 7 as set 

forth below: 

PART 7—ACQUISITION PLANNING 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 7 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. 

chapter 137; and 51 U.S.C. 20113. 

■ 2. Revise section 7.400 to read as 

follows: 

§ 7.400 Scope of subpart. 

This subpart provides guidance 

pertaining to the decision to acquire 

equipment by lease or purchase. It 

applies to both the initial acquisition of 

equipment and the renewal or extension 

of existing equipment leases. The term 

‘‘lease’’, as used in this subpart, applies 

to both the lease and rental of 

equipment. While there are some 

differences between renting and leasing 

in many industries, there is no standard 

distinction between both renting and 

leasing that spans across all industries. 

Rental agreements are typically for 

shorter periods of time than lease 

agreements. Additionally, maintenance 

requirements and financial terms (e.g., 

fees or payment terms) differ between a 

lease and a rental agreement. 

§ 7.401 [Amended] 

■ 2. Amend section 7.401 by removing 

from paragraph (a)(3) ‘‘rental payments’’ 

and adding ‘‘lease, or other periodic 

payments, however described,’’ in its 

place. 

■ 3. Amend section 7.403 by revising 

the section heading and paragraph (b), 

and adding paragraph (c) to read as 

follows: 

§ 7.403 General Services Administration 

assistance and OMB Guidance. 

* * * * * 

(b) Agencies may request information 

from the following GSA office: GSA 

FAS National Customer Service Center 

by phone at 1–800–488–3111 or by 

email at ncsccustomer.service@gsa.gov. 

Additional information to assist with 

deciding whether to purchase or lease 

equipment is available at https://

www.gsa.gov/acquisition/purchasingprograms/gsa-schedules/list-of-gsaschedules/schedule-51-vhardwaresuperstore/equipment-rental-andleasing. 

(c) See Special Guidance for Leasepurchase Analysis (Section 13 of OMB 

Circular A–94, also see 8.c.(2)) at 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/ 

whitehouse.gov/files/omb/circulars/ 

A94/a094.pdf and OMB Circular A–11 

Appendix B Budgetary Treatment of 

Lease-Purchases and Leases of Capital 

Assets at https://www.whitehouse.gov/ 

wp-content/uploads/2018/06/app_

b.pdf. 

[FR Doc. 2018–19177 Filed 9–4–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6820–EP–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–HQ–ES–2015–0019; 

4500090024] 

RIN 1018–BC78 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Reclassifying the Golden 

Conure From Endangered to 

Threatened With a Section 4(d) Rule 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 

12-month finding on a petition to delist 

or downlist the golden conure under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). The golden conure is a 

psittacine bird (parrots, parakeets, 

macaws, cockatoos, and others) endemic 

to the south Amazon Basin in Brazil. 

After review of the best available 

scientific and commercial information, 

we find that listing the golden conure as 

a threatened species is warranted. 

Accordingly, we propose to list it as a 

threatened species with a rule issued 

under section 4(d) of the Act. If we 

finalize this rule as proposed, it would 

reclassify the golden conure from 

endangered to threatened on the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

(List). Additionally, we are proposing to 

update the List to reflect the latest 

scientifically accepted taxonomy and 

nomenclature for the species as 

Guaruba guarouba, golden conure. 

DATES: We will accept comments 

received or postmarked on or before 

November 5, 2018. 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 

must receive requests for public 

hearings, in writing, at the address 

shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT by October 22, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by one of the following methods: 

(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, 

enter FWS–HQ–ES–2015–0019, which 

is the docket number for this 

rulemaking. Then, click on the Search 

button. On the resulting page, in the 

Search panel on the left side of the 

screen, under the Document Type 

heading, click on the Proposed Rules 

link to locate this document. You may 

submit a comment by clicking on 

‘‘Comment Now!’’ 

(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail 

or hand-delivery to: Public Comments 

Processing, Attn: FWS–HQ–ES–2015– 

0019; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls 

Church, VA 22041–3803. 

We request that you send comments 

only by the methods described above. 

We will post all comments on http://

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information you provide us (see Public 

Comments, below, for more 

information). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Don 

Morgan, Chief, Branch of Delisting and 

Foreign Species, Ecological Services, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: ES, 

5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 

22041–3803; telephone, 703–358–2171. 

If you use a telecommunications device 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
45074 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 5, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal 

Relay Service at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Information Requested 

Public Comments 

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 and 

information from other concerned 

governmental agencies, the scientific 

community, industry, or any other 

interested parties concerning this 

proposed rule. We particularly seek 

comments concerning: 

(1) Reasons why we should or should 

not reclassify the golden conure from an 

endangered species to a threatened 

species under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq.). 

(2) The golden conure’s biology, 

range, and population trends, including: 

(a) Biological or ecological 

requirements of the species, including 

habitat requirements for feeding, 

breeding, and sheltering; 

(b) Genetics and taxonomy; 

(c) Historical and current range, 

including distribution patterns; 

(d) Historical and current population 

levels, and current and projected trends; 

and 

(e) Past and ongoing conservation 

measures for the species, its habitat, or 

both. 

(3) Factors that may affect the 

continued existence of the species, 

which may include: 

(a) Habitat modification or destruction 

(e.g., information regarding future rates 

of deforestation or other forms of habitat 

loss or degradation within the known 

range of the golden conure); 

(b) Overutilization, including 

information regarding illegal collection 

and trade; 

(c) Disease or predation; 

(d) The inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms; or 

(e) Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting the species’ continued 

existence. 

(4) Biological, commercial trade, or 

other relevant data concerning any 

threats (or lack thereof) to this species 

and existing regulations that may be 

addressing those threats. 

(5) Information on the locations of any 

additional or newly discovered 

populations of this species. See 

Appendix B in the species status 

assessment report (SSA) for a list of 

known localities used by the golden 

conure (available under Docket No. 

FWS–HQ–ES–2015–0019 on http://

www.regulations.gov. 

(6) Information on the number of 

captive-bred golden conures in Brazil. 

(7) Information regarding current or 

future rates of deforestation in the 

Brazilian Amazon as they may correlate 

to current or projected gross domestic 

product (GDP) in that country. 

(8) The appropriateness of the 

conservation measures proposed under 

section 4(d) of the Act, including those 

that would allow the import and export 

of certain golden conures into and from 

the United States and certain acts in 

interstate commerce without a permit 

under the Act. 

Please include sufficient information 

with your submission (such as 

electronic copies of scientific journal 

articles or other publications, preferably 

in English) 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, will not be considered 

in making a determination, as section 

4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that 

determinations as to whether any 

species is an endangered or threatened 

species must be made ‘‘solely on the 

basis of the best scientific and 

commercial data available.’’ 

You may submit your 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 http:// 

www.regulations.gov, 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 http://www.regulations.gov. 

Comments and materials we receive, 

as well as supporting documentation we 

used in preparing this proposed rule, 

will be available for public inspection 

on http://www.regulations.gov, or by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Headquarters Office (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Public Hearing 

Section 4(b)(5)(E) of the Act provides 

for a public hearing on this proposal, if 

requested within 45 days of the date of 

publication of this proposed rule. 

Requests must be sent to the address 

shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT and received by the date 

specified in DATES. 

Peer Review 

The purpose of peer review is to 

ensure that our reclassification 

determination is based on scientifically 

sound data, assumptions, and analyses. 

In accordance with our joint policy on 

peer review published in the Federal 

Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), 

and our August 22, 2016, memorandum 

updating and clarifying the role of peer 

review of listing actions under the Act, 

we sought the expert opinions of five 

appropriate specialists regarding the 

SSA report that informed this proposed 

rule. The peer reviewers have expertise 

in (1) the life history of the golden 

conure, (2) birds of the Amazon, and (3) 

the effects of habitat degradation and 

deforestation on Amazonian birds. We 

received responses from four of the five 

peer reviewers, which we took into 

account in our SSA and this proposed 

rule. Their comments and suggestions 

can be found online at https://

www.fws.gov/endangered/improving_

ESA/peer_review_process.html. We 

invite any additional comments from 

the peer reviewers on the proposed rule 

during the public comment period on 

this proposed rule (see DATES, above); 

all comments received from peer 

reviewers will be available, along with 

other public comments, in the docket 

for this proposed rule at http://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–HQ–ES–2015–0019. 

Previous Federal Actions 

On May 22, 1975, the Fund for 

Animals, Inc., petitioned us to list 216 

taxa of plants and animals, including 

the ‘‘golden parakeet,’’ as an endangered 

species pursuant to the Act. On 

September 26, 1975, we proposed to list 

the ‘‘golden parakeet (Aratinga 

guaruba)’’ as endangered (40 FR 44329). 

On June 14, 1976 (41 FR 24062), we 

finalized the listing as endangered. 

On August 21, 2014, we received a 

petition from the American Federation 

of Aviculture, Inc. (AFA), requesting 

that the golden conure be removed from 

the List or reclassified as a threatened 

species. The AFA also requested that if 

we determined that downlisting to 

threatened status was warranted, we 

develop a rule under section 4(d) of the 

Act (also called a 4(d) rule) that would 

allow for import and export of certain 

golden conures into and from the 

United States, and interstate commerce 

of the species under certain 

circumstances. 

On April 10, 2015, we published in 

the Federal Register (80 FR 19259), a 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 5, 2018 / Proposed Rules 45075 

90-day finding for the 2014 petition, 

concluding that the petition provided 

substantial information indicating the 

petitioned action may be warranted, and 

we initiated a status review for this 

species. 

On July 29, 2017, the AFA filed a 

complaint under the Act to compel the 

Service to issue a 12-month finding 

regarding the AFA’s petition, pursuant 

to 16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(B). On November 

6, 2017, the AFA and the Service 

entered into a settlement agreement 

whereby the Service agreed to submit a 

12-month finding for the golden conure 

to the Federal Register for publication 

no later than September 1, 2018. This 

proposed rule constitutes the 12-month 

finding and our 5-year status review for 

the golden conure. 

Background 

Species Status Assessment (SSA) Report 

for the Golden Conure 

A thorough review of the taxonomy, 

life history, ecology, and overall 

viability of the golden conure is 

presented in the SSA Report (Service 

2018; available at Docket No. FWS–HQ– 

ES–2015–0019 on http://

www.regulations.gov). The following 

discussion is a summary of the 

information and analyses from the SSA 

Report. 

Current Conservation Status 

The golden conure is currently listed 

as endangered under the Act (41 FR 

24062; June 14, 1976) and the species is 

considered ‘‘Vulnerable’’ at the national 

level in Brazil (MMA 2014, p. 122). The 

International Union for the 

Conservation of Nature (IUCN) recently 

reclassified the species from endangered 

to vulnerable because its population is 

estimated to be larger than previously 

thought (Bird Life International (BLI) 

2017, unpaginated). IUCN’s 

‘‘vulnerable’’ listing acknowledges that 

the species nevertheless has a small 

estimated population that is expected to 

experience a rapid decline over the next 

three generations due to habitat loss and 

limited pressure from poaching (BLI 

2017, unpaginated). The species is also 

included in Convention on International 

Trade in Endangered Species of Wild 

Fauna and Flora (CITES) Appendix I 

(CITES 2018a, unpaginated). CITES is 

an international treaty for the 

conservation of wild fauna and flora 

subject to trade; species on CITES 

Appendix I are considered threatened 

with extinction and international trade 

is permitted only under exceptional 

circumstances, which generally 

precludes commercial trade (CITES 

2016, unpaginated). 

Species Description 

The golden conure is a large, 34- 

centimeter (13-inch), macaw-like bird 

with striking yellow plumage and green 

flight feathers (Laranjeiras 2011a, 

unpaginated; Parr and Juniper 2010, p. 

436). The sexes are similar in 

appearance, but in first-year juveniles 

the yellow color is variably streaked 

with green—most often on the back of 

the head, nape and chest (Forshaw 

2017, p. 223; Laranjeiras 2011a, 

unpaginated; Reynolds 2003, p. 10). 

Taxonomy 

The golden conure was first 

documented in 1788 (ITIS 2017, 

unpaginated) and was later noted in the 

manuscripts of European explorers to 

Brazil in the 18th and 19th centuries 

(Yamashita 2003, p. 38). It was 

originally placed in its own (monotypic) 

genus Guaruba, then subsequently 

placed in the genus Aratinga by some 

authors (Peters 1937; Pinto 1978; 

Forshaw 1989, as cited in Tavares et al. 

2004, p. 239), while others placed it in 

the genus Conurus (Salvadori 1891; 

Miranda Ribeiro 1920, as cited in 

Tavares et al. 2004, p. 239). 

Researchers have since noted that its 

behaviors, including reproduction and 

vocalization, differ markedly from those 

of Aratinga species and have 

recommended that the golden conure’s 

scientific name be returned to the 

monotypic genus Guaruba (Laranjeiras 

2011a, unpaginated; Sick 1990, p. 112). 

Additionally, recent genetic analyses 

indicate that the golden conure is more 

closely related to the red-shouldered 

macaw (Diopsittaca nobilis) and the 

blue-crowned parakeet (Thectocercus 

acuticaudatus) (Uranto ́wka and 

Mackiewicz 2017, entire), than to the 

Aratinga parakeets (Tavares et al. 2004, 

pp. 230, 236–237, 239). Therefore, the 

golden conure is recognized as Guaruba 

guarouba by (1) the Integrated 

Taxonomic Information System (ITIS 

2017, unpaginated); (2) the Brazilian 

Ornithological Records Committee 

(Piacentini et al. 2015, p. 163); (3) 

Taxonomy of Birds of the World 

(Clements et al. 2017, unpaginated); and 

(4) Birdlife International (BLI 2017, 

unpaginated). Based upon our review of 

the best available information, we 

recognize the golden conure as a valid 

full species in the monotypic genus 

Guaruba and we are proposing to 

correct its scientific name to Guaruba 

guarouba on the Federal List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

(see Proposed Technical Correction, 

below). 

Abundance and Distribution 

In general, the golden conure is 

relatively poorly studied and 

information on local abundance and 

distribution of populations throughout 

the range is limited (Laranjeiras 2011b, 

p. 303). An earlier global population 

estimate (i.e., from 2010 and earlier) 

indicated fewer than 2,500 individuals 

remained, but a 2011 estimate signaled 

the global population contained 10,875 

individuals within 174,000 square 

kilometers (km2) (67,182 square miles 

(mi2)) of suitable habitat (Laranjeiras 

2011b, p. 311). This estimate was 

derived using: (1) Occurrence data 

obtained after 1987, that extended the 

species’ known range considerably to 

the southwest; (2) a density estimate 

calculated from a conure survey in 

western Para ́ in 2007 (Laranjeiras 2011b, 

p. 311); and (3) estimates of suitable 

habitat within the known area of 

occurrence from a habitat modeling 

study in 2009 (Laranjeiras and CohnHaft 2009). However, because the 

golden conure has a patchy distribution 

and is poorly studied, more survey work 

would be required to produce better 

estimates. 

The species’ current known range 

includes portions of the following four 

states in Brazil (noted from east to west): 

(1) The western part of Maranha ̃o; (2) 

the central region of Para ́; (3) the 

extreme southeast of Amazonas; and (4) 

the northeastern portion of Rondoˆnia 

(Laranjeiras 2011a, unpaginated). 

Additionally, the species was recorded 

in a fifth state, the northern portion of 

Mato Grosso, in the 1990s (Lo 1995, 

entire), but there have been no recent 

sightings in that area (Moura in litt. 

2018; BLI 2016, p. 2; Laranjeiras 2011a, 

unpaginated; Laranjeiras and Cohn-Haft 

2009, p. 3; Albertani et al. 1997, p. 135). 

The species’ historical range once 

extended farther eastward (to more 

eastern portions of the states of Para ́ and 

Maranha ̃o), but the habitat there was 

mostly deforested in the 1970s and 

1980s (Laranjeiras and Cohn-Haft 2009, 

p. 5). The golden conure is believed to 

be extirpated from these regions (BLI 

2017, unpaginated; BLI 2016, p. 3; 

Laranjeiras and Cohn-Haft 2009, p. 5), 

which represented approximately 30 to 

35 percent of the historical range 

(Laranjeiras 2011a, unpaginated; 

Laranjeiras and Cohn-Haft 2009, p. 8). 

The species is limited to regions 

where extensive stands of tall 

Amazonian rainforest are still present 

(Oren and Novaes 1986, p. 331). 

Although the species can tolerate some 

disturbance in the forest, the golden 

conure is absent from landscapes with 

advanced deforestation; flocks 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
45076 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 5, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

disappear seasonally from the 

fragmented landscapes, indicating that 

they require intact forest (Laranjeiras 

2011a, unpaginated). 

The best estimate of the geographic 

distribution of the golden conure is 

based on recent records and habitat 

modeling (see Service 2018, Figures 5 

and 6, pp. 19–20; Laranjeiras 2011b, p. 

311; Laranjeiras and Cohn-Haft 2009, 

entire). The total current range of the 

golden conure is estimated to be no 

more than 340,000 km2 (131,275 mi2) 

(Laranjeiras and Cohn-Haft 2009, p. 3). 

The species’ distribution within this 

range is not continuous and is described 

as patchy—possibly associated with the 

distribution of specific nesting or food 

resources (Laranjeiras 2008, as cited in 

Laranjeiras and Cohn-Haft 2009, p. 6). 

The estimated suitable habitat for the 

golden conure within this range is 

174,000 km2 (67,182 mi2) (Laranjeiras 

2011b, p. 311). However, parrots can 

cross great gaps and are capable of 

flying long distances (Lees and Peres 

2009, pp. 284, 286); thus, it is possible 

that some of the recent records of the 

golden conure that extended the range 

represent vagrant groups (Moura in litt. 

2018). Because the species has a patchy 

distribution within its range, 

extrapolation of densities to estimate the 

global population is problematic, and 

population estimates throughout the 

range are needed (Laranjeiras 2011a, 

unpaginated). 

Habitat 

The golden conure lives in in Brazil’s 

lower Amazon basin, in an area south of 

the Amazon River, east of the Madeira 

River, and north of the Brazilian Shield 

(Laranjeiras and Cohn-Haft 2009, p. 9). 

The Brazilian Shield is a region formed 

of Precambrian crystalline rocks that 

may be exposed or covered by layers of 

sedimentary rocks (Buckup 2011, p. 

203). The species occupies primary (old 

growth) terra firme (unflooded) 

rainforest on undulating landscapes in 

the lowlands at elevation at or under 

300 meters (984 feet) (Sick 1997, as 

cited by Laranjeiras 2011a, 

unpaginated). However, the species has 

also has been recorded in the regrowth 

of secondary forests and in igapo ́

(seasonally flooded) forests while 

feeding (Laranjeiras 2011a, unpaginated, 

citing several sources; Laranjeiras 

2011b, pp. 308–309; Oren and Noveas 

1986, p. 332; Laranjeiras 2008a, as cited 

in Laranjeiras 2011a, unpaginated). The 

majority of golden conure groups appear 

to be resident (i.e., non-migratory), even 

in the post-reproductive period 

(Laranjeiras 2008, as cited in Forshaw 

2017, p. 226; Laranjeiras 2011a, 

unpaginated; Yamashita 2003, p. 38). 

The golden conure uses large, old 

growth, hardwood trees (Yamashita 

2003, p. 38) for cavity nesting (Oren and 

Novaes 1986, pp. 333–334). In most 

cases, the species uses the same tree for 

nesting and roosting (BLI 2016, p. 4; 

Laranjeiras 2011a, unpaginated; 

Yamashita 2003, p. 38). Most known 

nest and roost cavities have been found 

high in tall, standing, dead trees within 

a small, disturbed (cleared) area 

adjacent to continuous forest. The 

golden conure seems to prefer using 

isolated trees (i.e., some distance from a 

neighboring tree) for nesting likely 

because isolated trees provide better 

protection against terrestrial or arboreal 

predators (Laranjeiras 2011a, 

unpaginated; Kyle 2005, p. 3). To date, 

we are aware of 7 different species of 

hardwood trees used for nesting 

(Laranjeiras 2011b, p. 308; Silveira and 

Belmonte in press, unpaginated; Oren 

and Novaes 1986, p. 333; Lima et al. 

2014, p. 323) and more than 28 species 

of fruiting trees used for feeding 

(Service 2018, pp. 10, 60–61). 

Biology 

The golden conure is frugivorous 

(fruit-eating), and its diet varies 

throughout the year and across its 

distribution (Laranjeiras 2011a, 

unpaginated). The species eats whole 

fruit, seeds, pulp, buds and flowers, 

nectar, and peels; it will also feed on 

cultivated plants such as corn (Zea 

mays) and mangoes (Mangifera indica) 

(Laranjeiras 2011b, pp. 308–309; Oren 

and Noveas 1986, p. 332). 

Breeding and nesting take place 

during the wet months, generally from 

November or December through April 

(Forshaw 2017, p. 227; Laranjeiras 

2011a, unpaginated; Oren and Novaes 

1986, p. 332). The social structure and 

breeding behavior of the golden conure 

appear to be unique from that of other 

members of the parrot family in that the 

species engages in communal broodrearing. The golden conure remains in 

flocks made up of family groups or clans 

(averaging 10 individuals) (Laranjeiras 

2011a, unpaginated), and individuals in 

the group (referred to as ‘‘reproductive 

helpers’’) assist in rearing the young. 

Most other large parrots are believed to 

incubate and rear young in pairs 

(Albertani et al. 1997, pp. 135–136). 

The golden conure’s communal 

brood-rearing includes the use of one or 

two uncommon reproductive strategies 

where the flock is either made up of (1) 

multiple related nesting pairs with 

reproductive helpers (Oren and Novaes 

1986, p. 333), or (2) a single leading pair 

with juveniles from different 

generations acting as helpers (Reynolds 

2003, p. 12; Oren and Novaes 1986, p. 

333). Nest protection seems to be an 

important part of communal broodrearing, and a group will vigorously 

defend the nest in response to potential 

competitors or predators (Forshaw 2017, 

p. 228; Laranjeiras 2008a, as cited in 

Laranjeiras 2011a, unpaginated). 

Most of the information regarding 

development of the young is from 

captive birds. Eggs hatch within 28 to 30 

days (Arndt 1996, as cited by Forshaw 

2017, p. 227; Laranjeiras 2011a, 

unpaginated; Oren and Novaes 1986, p. 

333). Nestlings reach adult size in about 

60 days (Laranjeiras 2011a, 

unpaginated) and fledge at 

approximately 55–60 days post hatch 

(Arndt 1996, as cited by Forshaw 2017, 

p. 227). The post-reproductive period, 

when first year juveniles can be seen in 

the flocks at feeding sites in the wild, is 

from March or April to July or August 

(Laranjeiras 2011b, p. 304; Oren and 

Novaes 1986, p. 332). 

First-year juveniles always stay with 

the family group and can be easily 

identified by their green-streaked 

plumage (Yamashita 2003, p. 38). 

Juveniles attain adult plumage in a molt 

when they are about 1 year old 

(Laranjeiras 2011a, unpaginated). 

Fledged chicks and juveniles will beg 

for food from foraging adults (Kyle 2005, 

p. 4). Annual survival information is 

limited, but first-year juveniles 

represent no more than 13 percent of the 

individuals in flocks (Laranjeiras 2008a, 

as cited in Laranjeiras 2011a, 

unpaginated). In some areas (e.g., in 

eastern Para ́, where trapping for the 

illegal pet trade has occurred), the 

percentage of observed first-year 

juveniles in the flocks was zero 

(Reynolds 2003 as cited by Laranjeiras 

2011b, p. 309). 

In captivity, adults reach sexual 

maturity at about 3 years of age (Oren 

and Novaes 1986, p. 333), with the 

average age for successful breeding 

occurring between 6 and 8 years 

(Reynolds, 2003, p. 12). Lifespan for the 

golden conure in the wild is not known, 

although the generation length was 

estimated as 7.4 years (BLI 2016, 

unpaginated) and the maximum age 

recorded for the species in captivity was 

60 years with a median age of 14 years 

(calculated using adults ≥4 years; n = 

190) (Young et al. 2011, p. 35). 

Information is lacking on the species’ 

carrying capacity, birth rates, nesting 

success, and home range (broadly 

defined as confined areas where 

individuals conduct their day-to-day 

activities (Boitani and Fuller 2000, p. 

65). 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 5, 2018 / Proposed Rules 45077 

Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Species 

A species is an ‘‘endangered species’’ 

for purposes of the Act if it is in danger 

of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range and is a 

‘‘threatened species’’ if it is likely to 

become an endangered species within 

the foreseeable future throughout all or 

a significant portion of its range. Section 

4 of the Act and its implementing 

regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth 

the procedures for listing species, 

reclassifying species, or removing 

species from listed status. A species 

may be determined to be an endangered 

or threatened species due to one or more 

of the five listing factors described in 

section 4(a)(1) of the Act: (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. A 

species may be removed from listed 

status (i.e., ‘‘delisted’’) or reclassified on 

the same basis. Our analysis of threats 

is an evaluation of both the threats 

currently facing the species and the 

threats that are reasonably likely to 

affect the species in the foreseeable 

future without the Act’s protections. 

In our analysis, we considered 

conservation measures (primarily the 

use of protected areas) as part of the 

current condition and projected future 

scenarios to evaluate viability of the 

species (Service 2018, pp. 42–47). We 

generally define viability as the ability 

the golden conure to sustain 

populations in natural ecosystems and 

disturbed habitats over time. Using the 

SSA framework, we considered what 

the species needs to maintain viability 

by evaluating the species in terms of 

resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation (Wolf et al. 2015, entire). 

For further information on viability, see 

the SSA Report (http://

www.regulations.gov at Docket No. 

FWS–HQ–ES–2015–0019). 

When we listed the golden conure as 

endangered in 1976, the species was 

perceived to be declining in numbers 

due to any one the following factors, or 

a combination of all three factors: The 

present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat or range (Factor A); 

overutilization of the species for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes (Factor B); or the 

inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms (Factor D) (41 FR 24062; 

June 14, 1976). 

The golden conure presently faces the 

most risk from loss and degradation of 

its habitat from deforestation originating 

from multiple anthropogenic activities 

(Factor A) (BLI 2016, p. 4; IBAMA 2003 

and SEMA 2007, as cited by Laranjeiras 

2011a, unpaginated; Collar 1992, p. 5). 

Habitat loss and degradation is likely to 

be intensified by synergistic effects 

associated with the consequences of 

climate change (Staal et al. 2015, p. 2) 

(Factor E). Climate projections include 

increased temperatures, dryer 

conditions, and more extreme weather 

(including droughts), which have the 

potential to stress trees and cause tree 

mortality (Fearnside 2009, pp. 1003, 

1005). These conditions also increase 

the unintentional spread of fires, further 

contributing to deforestation (Fearnside 

2009, p. 1005). Additionally, the golden 

conure is still being illegally collected 

and traded within Brazil, at some 

unknown level, for the live pet bird 

trade (Factor B). These threats and other 

potential stressors are discussed in 

detail in the SSA Report and are 

summarized below. 

Habitat Loss—Deforestation 

Large-scale deforestation in the 

Amazon has occurred since the 1970s 

and 1980s concurrent with the growth 

of Brazil’s economy (GFA 2017, 

unpaginated). The Brazilian Amazon is 

approximately the size of Western 

Europe, and as of 2016, an area the size 

of France has been lost to deforestation 

(Fearnside 2017a, pp. 1, 3). 

Approximately 30 to 35 percent of the 

golden conure’s range has already been 

lost to deforestation, primarily in the 

eastern states of Para ́ and Maranha ̃o 

(Laranjeiras 2011a, unpaginated; 

Laranjeiras and Cohn-Haft 2009, p. 8), 

and another 23 to 30 percent of the 

golden conure’s habitat is predicted to 

be lost within 22 years or three 

generations (Bird et al. 2011 Appendix 

S1), 

The golden conure’s range partially 

overlaps what is known as the ‘‘arc of 

deforestation,’’ an area in the 

southeastern Amazon where rates of 

deforestation and forest fragmentation 

have been the highest (Prioste et al. 

2012, p. 701; Laranjeiras 2011a, 

unpaginated; Laranjeiras and Cohn-Haft 

2009, p. 8). After a long period of 

deforestation in the Amazon, rates 

dropped dramatically during the years 

from 2005 to 2011 (Alves et al. 2017, p. 

76; Fearnside 2017b, p. 1; Prodes 2017, 

unpaginated; Hochstetler and Viola 

2012, p. 759)). Deforestation declined 

from an annual average of about 21,000 

km2 (8,108 mi2) per year for the 5-year 

period between 2000 to 2004—to 7,000 

km2 (2,703 mi2) in 2009 (Petherick 2013, 

p. 8; Hochstetler and Viola 2012, p. 

759). 

Despite these declines, the total area 

deforested in Brazil’s Amazon has risen 

steadily since deforestation rates were 

first measured in 1988 (IPAM 2017, p. 

7 using PRODES 2017 data). More 

recently, deforestation rates are 

increasing again (Fearnside 2017b, p. 1; 

IPAM 2017, p. 15; Biderman and 

Nogueron 2016, unpaginated), as global 

demand for agricultural commodities 

continues to rise (Brando et al. 2016, 

abstract), and the ‘‘arc of deforestation’’ 

could continue to be a hotspot (Alves et 

al. 2017, p. 76). 

An area does not have to be mostly 

deforested to lose value as suitable 

habitat for forest-dependent species 

such as the golden conure. Deforestation 

itself creates isolation of remnant forest 

patches and forest edge effects (Barlow 

et al. 2016, p. 144; Ewers and Didham 

2006, pp. 123–124). Edge effects 

decrease habitat quality within 

remaining patches and the functional 

connectivity between them (Zurita et al. 

2012, p. 504, citing many sources). 

Additionally, disturbance within the 

forest remnant, such as selective logging 

and increased fires, changes forest 

structure and species composition, 

generally reducing biodiversity (Barlow 

et al. 2016, p. 144). 

Forest habitat degradation and 

fragmentation typically begin with road 

construction and subsequent human 

settlement. Activities resulting from 

human settlement include: (1) An 

increased network of unofficial roads; 

(2) logging; (3) crop production and 

cattle ranching; (4) increased fires; and 

(4) further infrastructure development, 

including more roads, dams and 

hydroelectric projects, and mining (GFA 

2018a, b, c, and d, unpaginated; GFA 

2017, unpaginated; Sonter et al. 2017, 

entire; Barber et al. 2014, entire; BLI 

2016, unpaginated; Yamashita 2003, p. 

38). 

Roads have a major effect on Amazon 

deforestation. Deforestation is much 

higher near roads (including unofficial 

roads) and rivers (Barber et al. 2014, 

entire). Nearly 95 percent of all 

deforestation occurred within 5.5 km 

(3.4 mi) of roads or 1 km (0.6 mi) of 

rivers (Barber et al. 2014, pp. 203, 205,

208). Unofficial roads are rapidly 

expanding in the region and contribute 

to further degradation, including 

logging, new colonization, forest 

fragmentation, and increased fire risk 

(Barber et al. 2014, p. 203). 

Logging in the Amazon was once 

restricted to areas bordering major rivers 

but the construction of highways and 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
45078 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 5, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

strategic access roads, coupled with the 

depletion of hardwood stocks in the 

south of Brazil, made logging an 

important, growing industry (Verı ́ssimo 

et al. 1992, p. 170). Logging operations 

typically occur on private lands claimed 

by ranchers, land speculators, and 

squatters who sell extraction rights to 

logging companies (GFA 2018a and b, 

unpaginated). After logging, the land 

may be clear-cut and burned, in 

preparation for crops (Reynolds 2003, p. 

10). Burning makes nutrient-deficient 

land temporarily nutrient-rich, but it 

will only yield crops for a few years, 

creating a cycle of more land clearing 

(Reynolds 2003, p. 10). Revenues from 

timber sales are also used to finance 

conversion of the land to cattle ranching 

(GFA 2018a, unpaginated). Although the 

Brazilian forest code requires private 

landowners in the Amazon to maintain 

80 percent of their land as forest, the 

code has been poorly enforced (GFA 

2018b, unpaginated), and full 

compliance has not been achieved 

(Azevedo et al. 2017, entire; see 

Conservation Measures and Regulatory 

Mechanisms, below). 

Logging on public lands is allowed 

via concessions where logging 

companies are granted logging rights for 

a fee (GFA 2018a, unpaginated). The 

concession system typically requires 

practices that minimize effects to the 

forest (e.g., rotation of harvest, 

minimum-tree-size standards, and 

targets for long-term sustainable yield) 

(GFA 2018a, unpaginated). However, 

the concession system is not currently 

working as intended and illegal logging 

in public protected areas remains a 

serious threat, particularly logging of 

mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla) (BLI 

2016, p. 5), a CITES Appendix II species 

(CITES 2018b). CITES Appendix II 

includes species that are not necessarily 

threatened with extinction, but for 

which trade must be controlled to avoid 

uses that are incompatible with their 

survival (CITES 2016, unpaginated). An 

example of illegal logging is that which 

occurs in Jamari National Forest, an area 

that is poorly protected and faces 

pressures from loggers, squatters, and 

poachers (Forshaw 2017, p. 224, F. 

Olmos in litt. 1999 as cited in BLI 2016, 

p. 5). 

Also, as of 2010, Brazil had only 

leased a small amount of private 

concession forest, and instead, had 

announced plans to sell large forest 

tracts (GFA 2018a, unpaginated). If 

these lands were to become privately 

owned, they would be subject to Brazil’s 

forest code and up to 20 percent could 

be legally deforested. Additionally, 

although selective logging and 

requirements for minimum tree sizes are 

intended to minimize effects to the 

forest, logging of larger trees is likely to 

have a greater effect on the golden 

conure because the species uses larger, 

older trees for its nesting and roosting 

(Yamashita 2003, p. 38). 

Expanding crop production and 

ranching are also major drivers of 

deforestation in the Amazon basin. Soy 

beans only grew in temperate climates 

until agricultural research generated 

new varieties that grow in the tropics. 

These innovations, coupled with the 

application of fertilizer, allowed for the 

expansion of soy farming into the 

Amazon beginning in the 1970s (GFA 

2018c, unpaginated). Soy beans are 

primarily used for cattle feed, and in 

1990s and early 2000s, high demand for 

beef created a ‘‘soy-cattle pasture 

deforestation dynamic,’’ where soy 

production replaced existing cattle 

pasture, and forced new deforestation 

into the Amazon for cattle ranching 

(GFA 2018c, unpaginated). In 2006, the 

soy industry, in response to pressure 

from consumers, retailers, and 

nongovernment organizations, instituted 

a soy moratorium in Brazil’s Amazon. 

The agreement curbs forest clearing for 

soy by blocking farms that violate the 

agreement from selling to companies 

that signed the soy moratorium (Gibbs et 

al. 2015, p. 377). In the 2 years 

preceding the moratorium, 

approximately 30 percent of soy 

expansion occurred through 

deforestation rather than by replacement 

of pasture or other previously cleared 

lands; by 2014, just 1 percent of soy 

expansion was responsible for 

deforestation in Brazil’s Amazon (Gibbs 

et al. 2015, p. 377). The soy moratorium 

was renewed indefinitely in 2016, or 

until it is no longer needed (Patin ̃ o 

2016, unpaginated). 

Cattle ranching is the largest cause of 

deforestation in every Amazon country 

and is responsible for about 80 percent 

of current deforestation rates (GFA 

2018d, unpaginated). Brazil is the 

largest beef exporter in the world, 

supplying about one quarter of the 

world market (GFA 2018d, 

unpaginated). Brazil’s Amazon supports 

about 200 million head of cattle on 

approximately 450,000 km2 (173,746 

mi2) of deforested land (GFA 2018d, 

unpaginated). Cattle from the Amazon 

are mostly sold in the domestic markets 

because some of the Amazon states have 

not been cleared for the presence of 

foot-and-mouth disease (Fearnside 

2017b, p. 14). Beginning in 1998, states 

in the south (non-Amazonian) were 

certified as free of foot-and-mouth 

disease (Kaimowitz et al. 2004, as cited 

by Fearnside 2017b, p. 14). The growing 

export market for beef from these 

southern states has indirectly increased 

the demand for Amazon beef for the 

domestic market (Fearnside 2017b, p. 

14). In 2015 and 2016, new markets for 

Brazilian beef were opened up via 

agreements with Russia, the United 

States, and China (Fearnside 2017b, p. 

14). The Chinese market, in particular, 

has significant potential demand for 

both beef and leather, with China being 

the world’s largest manufacturer of 

shoes (Fearnside 2017b, p. 16). 

Conversion of native forest for the 

cultivation of palm plantations for the 

production of palm oil is an emerging 

agricultural use in the region that is 

likely to further reduce the amount of 

habitat available to golden conure. Palm 

oil is in high demand and the industry 

is highly profitable (Lees et al. 2015, p. 

2). Increased palm oil production has 

the potential to create thousands of new 

jobs and raise regional standards of 

living in Brazil (Lees et al. 2015, p. 2). 

The Brazilian government plans to 

increase biofuel production in the next 

decade, driven primarily by demands 

for fuel (ethanol and biodiesel) (Villela 

et al. 2014, p. 273). Palm oil production 

has been touted as a ‘‘green fuel’’ from 

both a biodiversity and a climate change 

perspective because degraded lands 

(e.g., abandoned cattle pastures and 

mining areas) can be used for 

plantations (Lees et al. 2015, p. 2). 

However, a recent study of regional 

avian biodiversity in palm oil 

plantations concluded that they are as 

detrimental to avian biodiversity as 

other forms of agriculture such as cattle 

pasture (Lees et al. 2015, entire). 

Therefore, any native forest converted to 

palm plantations will result in habitat 

loss for the golden conure, and any 

degraded land that is planted for palm 

oil will not have the opportunity to 

regenerate or be restored to suitable 

habitat for the species. 

Increased fire risk results from human 

settlement and the activities noted 

above (Barber et al. 2014, p. 203) (see 

Projected Effects from Climate Change, 

below). Although use of fire for land 

management is now common in rural 

Amazonia (Malhi et al. 2008, p. 171), 

wildfires in the tropical forests of the 

Amazon were rare over the past 

millennia, and the trees are not adapted 

for fire (Fearnside 2009, p. 1005). 

Amazonian trees have thin bark, and 

fire heats the cambium under the bark 

at the base of the trunk, causing the tree 

to die (Fearnside 2009, p. 1005) and 

further contributing to deforestation. 

Hydroelectric dams are also a major 

contributor to deforestation in the 

Amazon. Areas affected by dams 

include both the area flooded by the 

dam and effects from the increased 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 5, 2018 / Proposed Rules 45079 

human settlement around the dam (GFA 

2018e, unpaginated). Brazil is the 

second-largest producer of 

hydroelectricity in the world (after 

China), and hydropower supplies about 

75 percent of Brazil’s electricity (GFA 

2018e, unpaginated; Fearnside 2017c, 

unpaginated). Numerous dams are 

under construction or planned in the 

Amazon basin. For example, the Belo 

Monte ‘‘mega dam’’ on the Xingu River, 

flooded 673 km2 (260 mi2) of lowlands 

and forest, and blocked 1,609 km (1,000 

mi) of the Xingu River (Fearnside 2017c, 

unpaginated). Recently the Brazilian 

Government announced an end to the 

construction of mega dams in the 

Amazon (Branford 2018, unpaginated), 

but smaller dams within the golden 

conure’s range are still under 

construction or planned (GFA 2018e, 

unpaginated; Fearnside 2017c, 

unpaginated; Nobre et al. 2016, p. 

10763). 

Mining for minerals also contributes 

to deforestation of the Amazon. In 

Brazil, mining has grown from 1.6 

percent of GDP in 2000, to 4.1 percent 

in 2011, and is projected to increase by 

a factor of 3 to 5 by 2030 (Brasil 

Ministe ́rio de Minas e Energia 2010, as 

cited by Ferreira et al. 2014, p. 706). In 

Brazil’s Amazon, mining leases, 

exploration permits, and concessions 

collectively encompass 1.65 million 

km2 (0.64 million mi2) of land, with 

about 60 percent located in the Amazon 

forest (Departamento Nacional de 

Produc ̧a ̃o Mineral 2012, as cited in 

Sonter et al. p. 1). Although mining is 

rapidly expanding in the region, to date, 

the environmental approval process for 

new mines or the expansion of existing 

projects does not consistently evaluate 

for off-lease effects of these projects, 

including the indirect or cumulative 

impacts to the surrounding forest 

(Sonter et al. 2017, p. 1). The total offlease effects of mining-induced 

deforestation can be 12 times greater 

than that from the leases alone (Sonter 

et al. 2017, p. 2). 

Deforestation Rates and Gross Domestic 

Product 

Annual deforestation rates in the 

Brazilian Amazon have always varied, 

but have generally been correlated with 

national economic growth as measured 

by GDP (Petherick 2013 p.7; Hochstetler 

and Viola 2012, p. 759). However, 

beginning in 2005, measures of 

deforestation and GDP have separated or 

‘‘decoupled’’ (Lapola et al. 2014, p. 27; 

Petherick 2013 p.7). The Amazon 

experienced dramatic reductions in 

annual average rates of deforestation 

from almost 21,000 km2 (8,108 mi2) 

between 2000 and 2004—to about 7,000 

km2 (2,703 mi2) in 2009 and 2010 

(Prodes 2017, unpaginated; Petherick 

2013, p. 8; Hochstetler and Viola 2012, 

p. 759) and 6,418 km2 (2,478 mi2) in 

2011 (Prodes 2017, unpaginated). 

During this same period, Brazil’s GDP 

rose steadily, indicating strong, 

sustained growth from an export 

commodity boom (Petherick 2013 p.7; 

Hochstetler and Viola 2012, pp. 759– 

760). 

The decoupling has been attributed to 

a number of factors with no clear 

consensus on which factor has been the 

most effective (Moutinho 2015, p. 2). 

Contributing factors include government 

strategies and policies for forest 

conservation (Assunc ̧a ̃o et al. 2012, p. 

697) such as: (1) The expansion of 

protected areas, which reduced the 

supply of unclaimed forest land 

(Nepstad et al. 2014, p. 1118); (2) an 

effort that began in 2007 to blacklist the 

worst deforesters; and (3) efforts to 

monitor and control municipalities with 

high levels of illegal deforestation 

through sanctions and restricted access 

to credit (Moutinho 2015, p. 3; 

Assunc ̧a ̃o et al. 2012, p. 698). 

Reductions in deforestation have also 

been attributed to market and social 

forces, such as decreases in the price of 

agricultural commodities (including soy 

and beef) in 2005 (Fearnside 2017b, p. 

1; Assunc ̧a ̃o et al. 2012, entire) and the 

2006 soy moratorium (Gibbs et al. 2015, 

pp. 377–378). Importantly, increased 

soy production from 2006 to 2010 was 

due to agricultural intensification 

practices (Lapola et al. 2014, p. 28) and 

expansion into previously cleared land 

in the Amazon (Nepstad et al. 2014, p. 

1121). Eventually cleared land that is 

suitable for soy production will become 

scarce, likely increasing deforestation 

pressure on the Amazon (Nepstad et al. 

2014, p. 1121). Although GDP is not 

presently a good predictor of Amazon 

deforestation (Fearnside 2017b, p. 14), 

as global population and food demands 

continue to rise (Beckman et al. 2017, p. 

i; Brando et al. 2016, abstract), it is 

possible that these measures could more 

closely correlate in the future. 

Brazil is one of the countries that 

currently has comparatively low 

productivity levels and is projected to 

grow faster as it catches up with more 

developed countries (Guardian 2012, 

unpaginated). Brazil is expected to 

remain among the top ten economies as 

rated by GDP based on purchasing 

power parity (GDP PPP) by 2050 (PWC 

Global 2016). GDP PPP measures the 

relative purchasing power of different 

countries’ currencies over the same 

types of goods and services, allowing for 

more accurate comparison of living 

standards (Euromonitor International 

2013, unpaginated). Forecasts vary for 

Brazil’s GDP PPP, with one forecast 

predicting that GDP PPP will rise 

steadily through 2050 (PWC Global 

2016, unpaginated), while a more recent 

forecast predicts that GDP PPP will 

stagnate then drop after about 2050 

(Knoema 2018, unpaginated). Therefore, 

if deforestation rates were to correlate 

more closely with GDP PPP in the 

future, in one scenario deforestation 

rates would steadily rise, and in the 

other scenario, deforestation rates 

would stabilize and then decline after 

about 2050. 

Projected Effects From Climate Change 

Changes in Brazil’s climate and 

associated changes to the landscape are 

likely to result in additional habitat loss 

for the golden conure. Across Brazil, 

temperatures are projected to increase 

and precipitation to decrease (Barros 

and Albernaz 2014, p. 811; Carabine and 

Lemma 2014, p. 11). The 2013 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change (IPCC) predicted that by 2100, 

South America will experience 

temperature increases ranging from 1.7 

to 6.7 degrees Celsius (°C) (3.06 to 12.06 

degrees Fahrenheit (°F)) under the 

medium and high emission scenarios 

and 1.0 to 1.5 °C (1.8 to 2.7 °F) under 

a low emissions scenario (Carabine and 

Lemma 2014, p. 10; Magrin et al. 2014, 

p. 1502). Projected changes in 

precipitation in South America vary by 

region, with rainfall reductions in the 

Amazon estimated with medium 

confidence (about a 5 out of 10 chance) 

(IPCC 2018, unpaginated; Carabine and 

Lemma 2014, p. 11; Magrin et al. 2014, 

p. 1502). 

Downscaled models, based, in part, 

on the earlier (2007) IPCC data, predict 

more severe changes, with the greatest 

warming and drying occurring over the 

Amazon rainforest, particularly after 

2040 (Marengo et al. 2011, pp. 8, 15, 27, 

39, 48; Fe ́res et al. 2009, p. 2). Estimates 

of temperature changes in the Amazon 

by the end of the 21st century (2090– 

2099) are 2.2 °C (4 °F) under a low 

greenhouse gas emission scenario and 

4.5 °C (8 °F) under a high-emission 

scenario (Marengo et al. 2011, p. 27). 

Increased temperatures of these 

amounts put the Amazon region at a 

high risk of forest loss and more 

frequent wildfires (Magrin et al. 2007, p. 

596). Some leading global circulation 

models indicate that extreme weather 

events, such as droughts, will increase 

in frequency or severity due to global 

warming. As a result, droughts in 

Amazonian forests could become more 

frequent in the future (Marengo et al. 

2011, p. 48). For example, the 2005 

drought in Amazonia was a 1-in-20-year 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
45080 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 5, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

event; however, those conditions may 

become a 1-in-2-year event by 2025, and 

a 9-in-10-year event by 2060 (Marengo 

et al. 2011, p. 28). Deforestation is 

greater under drought conditions due to 

more risk of fires (Marengo et al. 2011, 

p. 16). 

A number of large-scale drivers of 

environmental change (i.e., land-use 

change from deforestation and climate 

changes due to global warming) are 

operating simultaneously and 

interacting nonlinearly in the Amazon 

(Nobre et al. 2016, p. 10759). Thus, the 

risks to golden conure from 

deforestation will likely be intensified 

by synergistic effects associated with 

climate change (Staal et al. 2015, p. 2). 

The Amazon’s rainforest may have two 

‘‘tipping points’’: (1) A temperature 

increase of 4.0 °C (7.2 14;°F); or (2) 

deforestation exceeding 40 percent 

(Nobre et al. 2016, p. 10759). Once 

exceeded, these tipping points could 

cause large-scale shifts in the vegetation 

to a savanna (i.e., ‘‘savannization’’) 

mostly in the southern and eastern 

Amazon (Nobre et al. 2016, p. 10759) 

within the golden conure’s range. 

Similarly, a recent study that 

considered only the effects from global 

warming (i.e., absent deforestation) 

predicted that by the end of this 

century, some areas of rainforest will be 

replaced by deciduous forest and 

grassland in a moderate emissions 

scenario (RCP 4.5) and by all grassland 

in the high emissions scenario (RCP 8.5) 

(Lyra et al. 2016, entire). Although the 

projected outcomes of models are not 

definitive, any terra firme forest habitat 

that shifts from rainforest to other 

habitat types (e.g., savanna) would 

result in loss of habitat for the golden 

conure. 

Illegal Collection and Trade 

The golden conure is highly prized as 

an aviary bird and has been extensively 

trapped for both the domestic and 

international pet trade in the past (BLI 

2016, p. 5; Alves et al. 2013, p. 60; 

Laranjeiras 2011a, unpaginated; 

Yamashita 2003, p. 38; Snyder et al. 

2000, p. 132; Collar 1992, p. 304; Oren 

and Novaes 1986, pp. 329, 334–335). 

The international trade of wild 

neotropical parrots was significantly 

reduced during the 1990s due to (1) 

tighter enforcement of CITES 

regulations, (2) stricter measures under 

European Union legislation, (3) 

adoption of the Wild Bird Conservation 

Act (WBCA; 16 U.S.C. 4901 et seq.) in 

the United States, and (4) adoption of 

national legislation in various other 

countries (Snyder et al. 2000, p. 99). 

Although an illegal international trade 

of the golden conure for the pet trade 

occurred in the past, there is little 

evidence that this practice is continuing 

(Laranjeiras 2011a, unpaginated; 

Silveira and Belmonte 2005 in press, 

unpaginated). In contrast, the illegal 

domestic market for the species is still 

occurring at some level (Silveira and 

Belmonte in press, unpaginated). 

Historically, keeping birds was an 

important part of local indigenous 

tradition and culture (Carvalho 1951 

and Cascudo 1973, as cited by Alves et 

al. 2013, p. 54). Young golden conures 

were taken from the wild to raise as pets 

and for feathers, but now they are also 

sold to bird traders (Oren and Novaes 

1986, p. 335). Much of the area 

occupied by the golden conure is poor, 

and selling the birds for the domestic 

pet trade provides an extra source of 

income (Yamashita 2003, p. 39). 

There are mixed reports regarding the 

degree to which illegal capture of 

golden conures from the wild 

(‘‘poaching’’) is still occurring. The 

Brazilian Institute of Environment and 

Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA) 

has licensed and regulated bird breeding 

in an effort to reduce poaching (Alves et 

al. 2013, p. 61). As a result, several 

sources believe poaching is no longer a 

major concern for the species because 

trade is thought to mostly be from the 

substantial captive population, and thus 

does not significantly affect the wild 

population (Silveira in litt. 2012, Lees in 

litt. 2013, in BLI 2016, p. 5). Additional 

captive populations exist outside Brazil. 

There are CITES-registered captivebreeding operations for golden conures 

in the United Kingdom and the 

Philippines. 

However, some level of illegal capture 

and trade of the species is still 

occurring. For example, in 2016, 

approximately 57 golden conures were 

seized in Brazil (IBAMA 2017 as cited 

by Lima in litt. 2018). We have no 

seizure data from any other years, and 

this number may represent a year where 

seizures were high, but it demonstrates 

that domestic trafficking is occurring 

(Lima in litt. 2018). Captive rearing may 

not be a practical alternative to illegal 

trade, particularly in low-income areas 

because the price of commercially bred 

birds is approximately 10 times higher 

than wild-caught individuals (Renctas 

2001, as cited in Alves et al. 2013, p. 61; 

Machado 2002, as cited in Alves et al. 

2010, p. 155). 

Additionally, oversight of domestic 

wildlife-breeding facilities in Brazil is 

limited (Alves et al. 2010, entire), and 

many wild bird species declared to be 

captive-bred are actually born in the 

wild and traded under fraudulent 

documentation (Alves et al. 2013, p. 61). 

Although each Brazilian state has a 

wildlife center responsible for 

managing, licensing, and inspecting all 

categories of breeders, traders, and zoos 

(Kuhnen and Kanaan 2014, p. 125), 

most centers lack resources and funding 

(Padrone 2004, as cited in Kuhnen and 

Kanaan 2014, p. 125). Also, there are not 

enough inspections at market places and 

commercial breeding facilities to fight 

illegal domestic trade (Alves et al. 2010, 

pp. 154–155). 

The United States is a major importer 

of pet birds, yet relatively little trade in 

the golden conure has been observed. 

We reviewed all records of legal and 

intercepted illegal trade in the CITES 

annual trade records submitted by the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from 

1981 to 2016. During this 35-year 

period, 54 live golden conures were 

imported into the United States and 26 

were exported (UNEP–WCMC 2018, 

unpaginated). One record of illegal trade 

was reported in 1981, and involved the 

unlawful importation of a single animal 

from Brazil. Overall, the U.S. trade in 

the golden conure has been relatively 

low compared with other pet birds. 

Other Potential Stressors 

Other potential stressors to the golden 

conure include hunting and persecution 

(Factor B), and predation or disease 

(Factor C). The species is likely still 

hunted at low levels as a food source, 

and for feathers, and birds that raid 

crops may be shot by farmers (Oren and 

Novaes 1986, p. 335). However, we have 

no information about the rate that these 

activities may be occurring or the extent 

to which they may be affecting 

populations. Similarly, we have no 

information regarding diseases that may 

affect golden conures in the wild. 

Golden conures, including eggs and 

nestlings, are prey to a variety of native 

predators, including toucans (Oren and 

Novaes 1986, p. 334; Forshaw 2017, p. 

228), raptors (Laranjeiras 2008a, as cited 

in Laranjeiras 2011a, unpaginated; 

Silveira and Belmonte in press, 

unpaginated), monkeys, snakes, and the 

tayra (Eira barbara), an omnivorous 

weasel (Oren and Novaes 1986, p. 334). 

However, we have no information 

regarding the rates predation on the 

golden conure from these predators and 

how that may be affecting the conure. 

Conservation Measures and Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

The golden conure is considered 

‘‘Vulnerable’’ at the national level in 

Brazil (MMA 2014, p. 122). Like other 

wildlife species, conures and their 

nests, shelters, and breeding grounds are 

protected by Brazilian environmental 

laws (Clayton 2011, p. 4; Environmental 

Crimes law of Brazil (1999) as cited in 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 5, 2018 / Proposed Rules 45081 

MSU 2018, unpaginated; Official List of 

Brazilian Endangered Animal Species 

Order No. 1.522/1989 as cited in 

ECOLEX 2018; CFRB 2010, p. 150; Law 

No. 5.197/1967 as cited in LatinLawyer 

2018, unpaginated). Additionally, 

several Brazilian laws are designed to 

protect forests. Destruction and damage 

of forest reserves, cutting trees in forest 

reserves, and causing fire in forests, 

among other actions, without 

authorization are prohibited (Clayton 

2011, p. 5; Law No. 9.605/1998 as cited 

in LatinLawyer 2018, unpaginated). 

Protected areas have been emphasized 

as the best hope for the golden conure’s 

survival (e.g., in the Tapajos River 

region and the Gurupi Biological 

Preserve) (Laranjeiras and Cohn-Haft 

2009, pp. 1, 8; Silveira and Belmonte in 

press, unpaginated). The species occurs 

in nine areas recently designated as 

Important Bird Areas (IBAs) in Brazil 

(BLI 2018a–h, unpaginated; Lima et al. 

2014, p. 318; Laranjeiras 2011a, 

unpaginated; Devenish et al. 2009, pp. 

104–106). IBAs are places of 

international significance for the 

conservation of birds and other 

biodiversity (BLI 2018i, unpaginated). 

Levels of protection at IBAs vary from 

fully protected to no protections (BLI 

2018i, unpaginated). For example, the 

Gurupi IBA has partial protection while 

the Caxiuana ̃/Portel IBA has none 

(Service 2018, pp. 68–70; BLI 2018b, 

unpaginated; Devenish et al. 2009, pp. 

104–106). Additionally, the species’ 

predicted range overlaps with numerous 

other protected areas, also having 

various levels of protection (Service 

2018, pp. 68–70; Laranjeiras and CohnHaft 2009, p. 8). 

Various regulatory mechanisms (Law 

No. 11.516, Act No. 7.735, and Decree 

No. 78, as cited in ECOLEX 2018, 

unpaginated) and Law 6.938/1981 

(LatinLawyer 2018, unpaginated) direct 

Brazil’s federal and state agencies to 

promote the protection of lands and 

govern the formal establishment and 

management of protected areas to 

promote conservation of the country’s 

natural resources. These mechanisms 

generally aim to protect imperiled 

wildlife and plant species, genetic 

resources, overall biodiversity, and 

native ecosystems on federal, state, and 

privately owned lands (e.g., Law No. 

9.985, Law No. 11.132, Resolution No. 

4, and Decree No. 1.922, as cited in 

ECOLEX 2018, unpaginated). 

Protected Areas: Protected areas have 

traditionally formed the backbone of 

forest conservation in the Amazon 

Basin, and they still remain a vital 

conservation strategy (GFA 2018f, 

unpaginated). Brazil has the largest 

protected area network in the world. 

The National Protected Areas System 

(Federal Act 9.985/2000, as cited in 

LatinLawyer 2018, unpaginated) was 

established in 2000, and covers nearly 

2.2 million km2 (0.8 million mi2) or 12.4 

percent of the global total (WDPA, 2012 

as cited by Ferreira et al. 2014, p. 706). 

This extensive network of protected 

areas is intended to (1) preserve priority 

biodiversity conservation areas, (2) 

establish biodiversity corridors, and (3) 

protect portions of the 23 Amazonian 

ecoregions identified by World Wildlife 

Fund (Rylands and Brandon 2005, pp. 

612, 615; Silva, 2005, entire). Brazil’s 

Protected Areas may be categorized as 

‘‘strictly protected’’ or ‘‘sustainable use’’ 

based on their overall management 

objectives. Strictly protected areas 

include national parks, biological 

reserves, ecological stations, natural 

monuments, and wildlife refuges 

protected for educational and 

recreational purposes and scientific 

research. Protected areas of sustainable 

use (national forests, environmental 

protection areas, areas of relevant 

ecological interest, extractive reserves, 

fauna reserves, sustainable development 

reserves, and private natural heritage 

reserves) allow for different types and 

levels of human use with conservation 

of biodiversity as a secondary objective. 

By 2006, 1.8 million km2 (0.7 million 

mi2), or approximately 45 percent of 

Brazil’s Amazonian tropical forest, was 

under some level of protection as 

federal or state managed land, or 

designated as indigenous reserve 

(managed by indigenous communities) 

(Barber et al. 2014, p. 204). Of this, 19.2 

percent was strictly protected areas, and 

30.6 percent was comprised of federal 

and state sustainable use area, with 

indigenous reserves making up the 

remainder (Barber et al. 2014, p. 204). 

Indigenous lands are legally 

recognized areas where indigenous 

peoples have perpetual rights of access, 

use, withdrawal, management, and 

exclusion over the land and associated 

resources (GFW 2018, unpaginated). 

Indigenous communities sustainably 

use their forest land, and large-scale 

deforestation is prohibited (Barber et al. 

2014, p. 204). Indigenous communities 

practice shifting cultivation, trade nontimber forest products, and occasionally 

allow selective logging (GFA 2018g, 

unpaginated; Schwartzman and 

Zimmerman 2005, p. 721). 

To date, the golden conure has been 

found in numerous protected areas or 

IBAs, with a total area of approximately 

154,673 km2 (51,719 mi2) (Service 2018, 

pp 68–70). However, not all of the area 

represented contains suitable habitat for 

the species and several of the IBAs (39 

percent) presently have no protection 

(61,864 km2 (23,866 mi2). An additional 

26 percent of IBAs presently have just 

partial protection (40,582 km2 (15,669 

mi2) (Service 2018, pp 68–70). 

Despite significant efforts to designate 

and establish protected areas, funding 

and resources are limited and adequate 

enforcement of these areas is 

challenging. For example, the conure 

occurs in Jamari National Forest, which 

is poorly protected and faces pressures 

from loggers, squatters, and poachers 

(Forshaw 2017, p. 224, F. Olmos in litt. 

1999 as cited in BLI 2016, p. 5). 

Forest Code: Brazil’s forest code was 

created in 1965, and was subsequently 

changed in the 1990s via a series of 

presidential decrees (Soares-Filho et al. 

2014, p. 363). As of 2001, the forest code 

required landowners in the Amazon to 

conserve native vegetation on their rural 

properties by setting aside what is 

called a ‘‘legal reserve’’ of 80 percent of 

their property (i.e., with 20 percent 

available to be harvested) (Soares-Filho 

et al. 2014, p. 363). The forest code 

severely restricted deforestation on 

private properties but proved 

challenging to enforce, and full 

compliance has not been achieved (GFA 

2018b, unpaginated; Azevedo et al. 

2017, entire; Soares-Filho et al. 2014, p. 

363). For instance, the lack of registered 

property boundaries made it difficult to 

link deforestation to particular land 

owners, and the majority of 

deforestation from 2002 to 2009 (about 

69 percent) occurred on properties 

whose boundaries were not publicly 

registered (Azevedo et al. 2017, p. 

7653). 

In late 2012, a new forest code was 

approved that reduces restoration 

requirements by providing amnesty for 

previous illegal deforestation by smaller 

property holders (Soares-Filho et al. 

2014, p. 363). Under the older forest 

code, legal reserves that were illegally 

deforested were required to be restored 

at the landowner’s expense. The new 

forest code forgives the legal reserve 

debt of small properties (up to 440 

hectares (1,087 acres)) (Soares-Filho et 

al. 2014, p. 363). Although the 2012 

forest code reduced the restoration 

requirements, it also introduced 

measures that strengthen conservation 

including addressing (1) fire 

management, (2) forest carbon, and (3) 

payments for ecosystem services 

(Soares-Filho et al. 2014, p. 363). 

Additionally, the new forest code 

created an Environmental Reserve 

Quota where quota surplus on one 

property may be used to offset a legal 

reserve debt on another property within 

the same biome; this could create a 

market for forested lands, adding 

monetary value to native vegetation and 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
45082 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 5, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

potentially abating up to 56 percent of 

legal reserve debt (Soares-Filho et al. 

2014, p. 363). Proponents of the new 

forest code believe that it will act as an 

effective barrier to agricultural 

development, while others believe that 

amnesty will lead to the perception that 

illegal deforesters are unlikely to be 

prosecuted or could be forgiven in 

future land reforms (Soares-Filho et al. 

2014, pp. 363–364). 

Legal Captive Rearing and Trade: 

IBAMA has licensed and regulated 

breeding of native bird species, 

including golden conure, in an effort to 

reduce poaching (Alves et al. 2013, p. 

61). The captive population of golden 

conures in Brazil is believed to be about 

600 birds (Prioste et al. 2013, p. 146), 

and one breeder reported that in 8 years 

she reared nearly 600 birds (Weinzettl, 

in litt. 2015). Therefore, there is reason 

to believe that the captive population of 

golden conures in Brazil is at least 600 

birds or larger. Additional captive 

populations of golden conures exist as 

CITES-registered captive-breeding 

operations in the United Kingdom and 

the Philippines. Although we have no 

further information on these programs, 

the captive rearing of golden conures in 

Brazil is believed to have reduced the 

incidence of poaching of young golden 

conures from the wild (Silveira in litt. 

2012, Lees in litt. 2013, as cited in BLI 

2016, p. 5). 

Reintroduction: Captive rearing and 

reintroduction efforts have contributed 

to the recovery of other parrots in 

Central and South America but we 

know of only one attempt to reintroduce 

the golden conure to an area where it 

had been extirpated. The species was 

extirpated from the Bele ́m region of Para ́

in 1848 (Moura et al. 2014, p. 5). In 

2017, researchers reintroduced the 

golden conure to this area (at Utinga 

State Park in Bele ́m) (globo.com 2018, 

unpaginated). The project includes a 

post-release monitoring component 

(Moura in litt. 2018), but it is too soon 

to know whether or not the 

reintroduction has been successful. 

Additional Regulatory Mechanisms: 

‘‘Reducing Emissions from Deforestation 

and Forest Degradation’’ (REDD) is a 

‘‘payment for ecological services’’ 

initiative that creates a financial value 

for the carbon stored in forests (GFA 

2018h, unpaginated). The program 

offers incentives to developing countries 

to reduce emissions from forested lands 

and invest in low-carbon paths to 

sustainable development (GFA 2018h, 

unpaginated). REDD plus (REDD+) goes 

one step further by including objectives 

for (1) biodiversity conservation, (2) 

sustainable management of forests, and 

(3) improvements to forest governance 

and local livelihoods (GFA 2018h, 

unpaginated). Brazil is one of the most 

advanced countries in the world in 

REDD+ planning and maintains an 

‘‘Amazon Fund,’’ which receives 

compensation for reductions in 

deforestation. To date, the Norwegian 

government is the major donor and 

lesser donors include the government of 

Germany and the Brazilian oil company 

Petrobras (GFA 2018h, unpaginated). 

The successful funding and 

implementation of REDD+ is expected 

to reduce rates of deforestation in 

Brazil’s Amazon rainforest and would 

likely benefit the golden conure and its 

habitat. However, the initiative is in its 

early stages and is being hampered by 

numerous issues, particularly 

unresolved land-tenure problems (May 

et al. 2018, p. 44). 

The golden conure is protected under 

CITES, an international agreement 

between member governments to ensure 

that the international trade of CITESlisted plant and animal species is legal 

and does not threaten species’ survival. 

Under this treaty, CITES Parties 

(member countries or signatories) 

regulate the import, export, and reexport of specimens, parts, and products 

of CITES-listed plant and animal 

species. Brazil is a Party to CITES. Trade 

in CITES-listed plants and animals must 

be authorized through a licensing 

system of permits and certificates that 

are provided by the designated CITES 

Management Authority of each CITES 

Party. CITES includes three Appendices 

that list species meeting specific 

criteria. Depending on the Appendix in 

which they are listed, species are 

subject to various permitting 

requirements. 

The golden conure is listed in CITES 

Appendix I and receives the highest 

degree of protection. Species listed in 

this Appendix are those that are 

threatened with extinction and which 

are, or may be, affected by trade. 

Commercial trade in Appendix I 

wildlife species is strictly prohibited, 

except in limited circumstances 

provided by the treaty. However, 

commercial international trade may be 

allowed in certain circumstances where 

animals have been produced by CITESregistered captive-breeding operations. 

Trade in specimens from registered 

operations may be treated as if they 

were listed in CITES Appendix II, 

although they remain Appendix I listed 

specimens. Each shipment requires the 

issuance of both CITES export and 

import documents. There are two 

CITES-registered captive-breeding 

operations for the golden conure: one in 

the United Kingdom and the other in 

the Philippines. The United States may 

also allow non-commercial trade in this 

species on a case-by-case basis for 

approved purposes such as scientific, 

zoological, and educational activities. 

Two other laws in the United States 

apart from the Act provide protection 

from the illegal import of wild-caught 

birds into the United States: the Wild 

Bird Conservation Act (WBCA) and the 

Lacey Act (18 U.S.C. 42; 16 U.S.C. 3371 

et seq.). The WBCA was enacted in 

1992, to ensure that exotic bird species 

are not harmed by international trade 

and to encourage wild bird conservation 

programs in countries of origin. Under 

the WBCA and our implementing 

regulations (50 CFR 15.11), it is 

unlawful to import into the United 

States any exotic bird species listed 

under CITES except under certain 

circumstances. We may issue permits to 

allow import of listed birds for scientific 

research, zoological breeding or display, 

cooperative breeding, or personal pet 

purposes when the applicant meets 

certain criteria (50 CFR 15.22–15.25). 

The Lacey Act was originally passed 

in 1900, and was the first Federal law 

protecting wildlife. Today, it provides 

civil and criminal penalties for the 

illegal trade of animals and plants. 

Under the Lacey Act, in part, it is 

unlawful to (1) import, export, 

transport, sell, receive, acquire, or 

purchase any fish, or wildlife taken, 

possessed, transported, or sold in 

violation of any law, treaty, or 

regulation of the United States or in 

violation of any Indian tribal law; or (2) 

import, export, transport, sell, receive, 

acquire, or purchase in interstate or 

foreign commerce any fish or wildlife 

taken, possessed, transported, or sold in 

violation of any law or regulation of any 

State or in violation of any foreign law. 

Therefore, for example, because the take 

of wild-caught golden conures would be 

in violation of Brazil’s wildlife law, the 

subsequent import of the species would 

be in violation of the Lacey Act. 

Similarly, under the Lacey Act, it is 

unlawful to import, export, transport, 

sell, receive, acquire, or purchase 

specimens of these species traded 

contrary to CITES. 

Summary of Biological Status and 

Threats 

The best scientific and commercial 

information available indicates that the 

golden conure is more widespread and 

abundant than believed at the time of 

listing as endangered (BLI 2017, 

unpaginated; Bird et al. 2011, Appendix 

S1; Laranjeiras 2011b, p. 311; 

Laranjeiras and Cohn-Haft 2009, pp. 1, 

3) and that the threat from poaching for 

the pet trade (Factor B) has diminished 

(Silveira in litt. 2012, Lees in litt. 2013, 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 5, 2018 / Proposed Rules 45083 

in BLI 2016, p. 5; Snyder et al. 2000, p. 

99) but is still occurring at some 

unknown level. The global population is 

estimated at 10,875 individuals within 

174,000 km2 (67,182 mi2) of suitable 

habitat across a range of approximately 

340,000 km2 (131,275 mi2) (Laranjeiras 

2011b, p. 311; Laranjeiras and CohnHaft 2009, pp. 1, 3). Nevertheless, the 

population is regarded as small, and is 

believed to declining (BLI 2016, p. 1) 

primarily due to loss and degradation of 

its habitat from deforestation (Factor A) 

(BLI 2016, p. 4; IBAMA 2003 and SEMA 

2007, as cited by Laranjeiras 2011a, 

unpaginated; Collar 1992, p. 5). 

Although rates of deforestation have 

declined in recent decades, they are 

increasing again (Alves et al. 2017, p. 

76; Fearnside 2017b, p. 1; IPAM 2017, 

p. 15;Prodes 2017, unpaginated; 

Biderman and Nogueron 2016, 

unpaginated) and are projected to 

continue to increase (Bird et al. 2011, 

entire; Soares-Filho et al. 2006, p. 520) 

as the global demand for agricultural 

commodities continues to rise (Brando 

et al. 2016, abstract). Risks from 

deforestation will likely be intensified 

by synergistic effects associated with 

climate change (Staal et al. 2015, p. 2) 

(Factor E). Climate projections include 

increased temperatures, dryer 

conditions, and more frequent extreme 

weather (including droughts), which 

have the potential to stress trees and 

cause tree mortality (Fearnside 2009, 

pp. 1003, 1005). These conditions also 

increase the unintentional spread of 

fires, further contributing to 

deforestation (Fearnside 2009, p. 1005). 

Deforestation itself can cause regional 

shifts in the climate and is likely to 

operate together with the effects of 

climate change to negatively alter 

rainforest habitat. Although there are 

uncertainties in the various models, and 

projected outcomes are not definitive, 

any terra firme forest habitat that shifts 

from rainforest to other habitat types 

(e.g., savanna) would no longer be 

available to the golden conure. 

Although an illegal international trade 

of the golden conure occurred in the 

past, there is little evidence that this 

practice is continuing (Laranjeiras 

2011a, unpaginated; Silveira and 

Belmonte 2005 in press, unpaginated). 

In contrast, the golden conure continues 

to face an unknown level of pressure 

from poaching and illegal trade within 

Brazil (Factor B) (Silveira and Belmonte 

in press, unpaginated), particularly in 

poorer areas (Silveira and Belmonte in 

press, unpaginated; Alves et al. 2013, p. 

61). Captive golden conure breeding 

programs in Brazil have helped to limit 

poaching of wild golden conures 

(Silveira in litt. 2012, Lees in litt. 2013, 

in BLI 2016, p. 5). However, poaching 

of young conures for the illicit domestic 

pet trade in Brazil has the potential to 

negatively affect golden conure 

populations, especially if individuals 

are being collected from small or 

fragmented populations. Populationlevel effects could operate 

synergistically with effects from habitat 

loss or degradation to the further 

detriment of the species. 

Although existing conservation efforts 

and regulatory mechanisms appear to be 

substantial (e.g., Brazil has the largest 

protected area network in the world), at 

this time they do not adequately 

ameliorate threats to the golden conure 

(Factor D). Despite significant efforts to 

preserve the rainforest in Brazil’s 

Amazon basin, enforcement has proven 

to be challenging, and full compliance 

has not been achieved. Habitat loss due 

to deforestation is ongoing and is 

predicted to continue, resulting in 

global population declines of the golden 

conure (BLI 2016, p. 1; Bird et al. 2011 

Appendix S1). 

Proposed Determination of Species 

Status 

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

and its implementing regulations at 50 

CFR part 424, set forth the procedures 

for determining whether a species is an 

endangered species or threatened 

species and should be included on the 

Federal Lists of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife and Plants (listed). 

The Act defines an endangered species 

as any species that is ‘‘in danger of 

extinction throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range’’ and a threatened 

species as any species ‘‘that is likely to 

become endangered throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range within 

the foreseeable future.’’ Under section 

4(a)(1) of the Act, we determine whether 

a species is an endangered species or 

threatened species because of any one or 

a combination of the following: (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. 

Determination of Status Throughout All 

of Its Range 

As required by section 4(a)(1) of the 

Act, we conducted a review of the status 

of the golden conure and assessed the 

five factors to evaluate whether the 

species is endangered or threatened 

throughout all of its range. We 

examined the best scientific and 

commercial information available 

regarding the past, present, and future 

threats faced by the golden conure. We 

reviewed information presented in the 

2014 petition, information available in 

our files, information gathered through 

our 90-day finding in response to the 

petition, information gathered in our 

status review, and other available 

published and unpublished 

information. 

In considering what factors may 

constitute threats, we must look beyond 

the mere exposure of the species to the 

factor to determine whether the species 

responds to the factor in a way that 

causes actual impacts to the species. If 

there is exposure to the factor, but no 

response, or only a positive response, 

that factor is not a threat. If there is 

exposure and the species responds 

negatively, the factor may be a threat 

and we then attempt to determine if it 

may drive or contribute to the risk of 

extinction of the species such that the 

species warrants listing as an 

endangered or threatened species as 

those terms are defined by the Act. 

When we listed the golden conure as 

endangered in 1976, the species was 

perceived to be declining in numbers 

due to either Factor A, Factor B, or 

Factor D, or a combination of all three 

factors (41 FR 24062; June 14, 1976). At 

present, the best scientific and 

commercial information available on the 

range and abundance of the species 

indicates that the species is more 

widespread and abundant than 

previously believed and that the threat 

from overutilization for the pet trade 

(Factor B) has diminished (Silveira in 

litt. 2012, Lees in litt. 2013, in BLI 2016, 

p. 5; Snyder et al. 2000, p. 99). Habitat 

modeling studies have estimated that 

there are approximately 10,875 

individuals within 174,000 km2 (67,182 

mi2) of suitable habitat across a range of 

approximately 340,000 km2 (131,275 

mi2) (Laranjeiras 2011b, p. 311; 

Laranjeiras and Cohn-Haft 2009, pp. 1, 

3). 

Tighter enforcement of CITES, stricter 

European Union legislation, adoption of 

the WBCA in the United States, and 

adoption of national legislation in other 

countries have all helped to 

significantly curtail illegal international 

trade (Snyder et al. 2000, p. 99). In 

addition, government-authorized 

captive breeding programs in Brazil are 

thought to have curtailed the illegal 

domestic trade (Silveira in litt. 2012, 

Lees in litt. 2013, in BLI 2016, p. 5). 

Thus, after assessing the best available 

information and as a result of the 

aforementioned information, we 

conclude the golden conure is not 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
45084 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 5, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

currently in danger of extinction 

throughout its range. 

As described below, we next 

considered whether the golden conure 

is likely to become in danger of 

extinction throughout its range within 

the foreseeable future. The term 

‘‘foreseeable future’’ describes the extent 

to which we can reasonably rely on 

predictions about the future in making 

determinations about the future 

conservation status of the species. The 

golden conure has already lost 30 to 35 

of its historical range (Laranjeiras 2011a, 

unpaginated; Laranjeiras and Cohn-Haft 

2009, p. 8). We expect both the species’ 

global population and its habitat to 

decline an additional 23 to 30 percent 

in 22 years (Service 2018, pp. 42–46; 

Bird et al. 2011 Appendix S1). 

Additionally, habitat loss and 

degradation is likely to be intensified by 

synergistic effects associated with the 

consequences of climate change (Service 

2018, pp. 42–46; Staal et al. 2015, p. 2). 

There is a strong likelihood of warming 

to at least 1.5 to 2.0 °C (3.6 °F) in Latin 

America by the end of the Century 

(Carabine and Lemma 2014, p. 8), and 

downscaled estimates for the Amazon 

over the same time period (i.e., by the 

end of the Century) indicate 

temperature increases of 2.2 °C (4 °F) 

under a low greenhouse gas emission 

scenario and 4.5 °C (8 °F) under a highemission scenario (Marengo et al. 2011, 

p. 27). Increased temperatures of these 

amounts put the Amazon region at a 

high risk of forest loss and more 

frequent wildfires (Magrin et al. 2007, p. 

596). Downscaled models, based, in 

part, on the earlier (2007) IPCC data, 

predict severe changes (increased 

warming and drying) over the Amazon 

rainforest, particularly after 2040 

(Marengo et al. 2011, pp. 8, 15, 27, 39, 

48; Fe ́res et al. 2009, p. 2). Additionally, 

some leading global-circulation models 

indicate that extreme weather events, 

such as droughts, will increase in 

frequency, with drought becoming a 9- 

in-10-year event, by 2060 (Marengo et 

al. 2011, p. 28) further contributing to 

deforestation due to more risk from fires 

(Marengo et al. 2011, p. 16). Therefore, 

based on the best available data, we 

assessed foreseeable future to be 22 to 

42 years (or approximately three to six 

generations of the golden conure). We 

based the lower end of this range (22 

years) on the peer-reviewed work by 

Bird et al. 2011, relating to deforestation 

and declines in the population. We 

based the upper end of this range (42 

years) on peer-reviewed studies 

predicting effects from climate change 

(such as drought) on deforestation after 

about 2040 to 2060 (Marengo et al. 2011, 

pp. 8, 15, 27, 28, 39, 48; Fe ́res et al. 

2009, p. 2). We conclude that it is 

reasonable to rely on the predictions 

made in these peer-reviewed studies in 

making determinations about the future 

conservation status of the golden 

conure. 

Although the golden conure is now 

known to be more widespread and 

abundant than previously thought, the 

species remains relatively rare. It occurs 

only within the southern basin of 

Brazil’s Amazon, and much of this area 

is in the ‘‘arc of deforestation’’ and is 

threatened by loss and degradation of its 

rainforest habitat from deforestation. 

Effects from deforestation are 

exacerbated by the projected effects 

from climate change. Additionally, even 

though government-authorized captive 

breeding programs in Brazil are thought 

to have curtailed the illegal domestic 

trade, some unknown level of illegal 

collection and trade is ongoing, 

particularly within Brazil (Silveira and 

Belmonte in press, unpaginated). 

Existing regulatory mechanisms and 

conservation efforts do not currently 

adequately ameliorate threats to the 

golden conure (Factor D). The factors 

identified above continue to affect the 

golden conure such that it is likely to 

become in danger of extinction within 

the foreseeable future throughout all of 

its range. Based on the best available 

scientific studies and information 

assessing land-use trends, lack of 

enforcement of laws, predicted 

landscape changes under climatechange scenarios, and predictions about 

how those threats may impact the 

golden conure, we conclude that the 

species is likely to be in danger of 

extinction in the foreseeable future 

throughout all of its range. Accordingly, 

we find that the golden conure meets 

the definition of a ‘‘threatened species’’ 

under the Act, and we are proposing to 

list the golden conure as threatened 

throughout its range. 

Significant Portion of Its Range 

Under the Act and our implementing 

regulations, a species warrants listing if 

it is endangered or threatened. 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)). Because 

we have determined that the golden 

conure is threatened throughout all of 

its range, under the Final Policy on 

Interpretation of the Phrase ‘‘Significant 

Portion of Its Range’’ in the Endangered 

Species Act’s Definitions of 

‘‘Endangered Species and ‘‘Threatened 

Species’’ (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014) 

(SPR Policy), if a species warrants 

listing throughout all of its range, no 

portion of the species’ range can be a 

‘‘significant’’ portion of its range. 

Proposed 4(d) Rule 

When a species is listed as 

endangered, certain actions are 

prohibited under section 9 of the Act 

and our regulations at 50 CFR 17.21. 

These include, among others, 

prohibitions on take within the United 

States, within the territorial seas of the 

United States, or upon the high seas; 

import; export; and shipment in 

interstate or foreign commerce in the 

course of a commercial activity. 

Exceptions to the prohibitions for 

endangered species may be granted in 

accordance with section 10 of the Act 

and our regulations at 50 CFR 17.22. 

The Act does not specify particular 

prohibitions and exceptions to those 

prohibitions for threatened species. 

Instead, under section 4(d) of the Act, 

the Secretary of the Interior, as well as 

the Secretary of Commerce depending 

on the species, was given the discretion 

to issue such regulations as deemed 

necessary and advisable to provide for 

the conservation of such species. The 

Secretary also has the discretion to 

prohibit by regulation with respect to 

any threatened species any act 

prohibited under section 9(a)(1) of the 

Act. For the golden conure, the Service 

is exercising our discretion to propose a 

rule under section 4(d) of the Act. If this 

proposed rule is adopted, we will 

incorporate all prohibitions and 

provisions of 50 CFR 17.31 and 17.32, 

except that import and export of certain 

golden conures into and from the 

United States and certain acts in 

interstate commerce will be allowed 

without a permit under the Act, as 

explained below. 

Import and Export 

The proposed 4(d) rule imposes a 

prohibition on imports and exports (by 

incorporating 50 CFR 17.31), but creates 

exceptions for certain golden conures. 

Shipments of captive specimens (i.e., 

not taken from the wild) may include 

live and dead golden conures and parts 

and products, including the import and 

export of personal pets and research 

samples. The proposed 4(d) rule would 

adopt the existing conservation 

regulatory requirements of CITES and 

the WBCA as the appropriate regulatory 

provisions for the import and export of 

these golden conure specimens. 

This 4(d) rule proposes to allow a 

person to import or export, into and 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 5, 2018 / Proposed Rules 45085 

from the United States, captive 

specimens, without a permit issued 

under the Act, provided that the export 

is authorized under CITES and the 

import is authorized under CITES and 

the WBCA. The import would require a 

CITES document issued by the foreign 

Management Authority indicating a 

source code of ‘‘C’’, ‘‘D’’, or ‘‘F.’’ 

Exporters of captive birds would need to 

provide a signed and dated statement 

from the breeder of the bird, along with 

documentation that identifies the source 

of their breeding stock in order to obtain 

a CITES export permit from the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service’s Division of 

Management Authority. Exporters of 

captive-bred birds must provide a 

signed and dated statement from the 

breeder of the bird confirming its 

captive-bred status, and documentation 

on the source of the breeder’s breeding 

stock. The source codes of C, D, and F 

for CITES permits and certificates are as 

follows: 

• Source Code C: Animals bred in 

captivity in accordance with Resolution 

Conf. 10.16 (Rev.), as well as parts and 

derivatives thereof, exported under the 

provisions of Article VII, paragraph 5 of 

the Convention. 

• Source Code D: Appendix I animals 

bred in captivity for commercial 

purposes in operations included in the 

Secretariat’s Register, in accordance 

with Resolution Conf. 12.10 (Rev. 

CoP15), and Appendix I plants 

artificially propagated for commercial 

purposes, as well as parts and 

derivatives thereof, exported under the 

provisions of Article VII, paragraph 4, of 

the Convention. 

• Source Code F: Animals born in 

captivity (F1 or subsequent generations) 

that do not fulfill the definition of ‘‘bred 

in captivity’’ in Resolution Conf. 10.16 

(Rev.), as well as parts and derivatives 

thereof. 

The proposed 4(d) rule would not 

allow any U.S. import or export of 

golden conures that are taken from the 

wild; such birds must continue to meet 

the requirements of 50 CFR 17.31 and 

17.32, including obtaining a permit 

under the Act, with the following 

exception. This 4(d) rule proposes to 

allow a person to import or export a 

wild golden conure specimen if the 

specimen was held in captivity prior to 

the date the species was listed in CITES 

Appendix I (i.e., prior to the date that 

CITES entered into force on July 1, 

1975, with ‘‘golden parakeet’’ (i.e., the 

golden conure) listed in Appendix I) 

and provided that it meets all the 

requirements of CITES and WBCA. If a 

specimen was taken from the wild and 

held in captivity prior to that date (July 

1, 1975), the exporter would need to 

provide documentation as part of the 

application for a U.S. CITES 

preconvention certificate. Examples of 

documentation may include: (1) A copy 

of the original CITES permit indicating 

when the bird was removed from the 

wild, (2) veterinary records, or (3) 

museum specimen reports. 

Additionally, consistent with the 4(d) 

regulations for other species in the 

parrot family at 50 CFR 17.41 (c), the 

prohibitions on take would apply and 

the 4(d) rule would require a permit 

under the Act for any activity that could 

take a golden conure. Our regulations at 

50 CFR 17.3 establish that take, when 

applied to captive wildlife, does not 

include generally accepted animal 

husbandry practices, breeding 

procedures, or provisions of veterinary 

care for confining, tranquilizing, or 

anesthetizing, when such practices are 

not likely to result in injury to the 

wildlife. 

We assessed the conservation needs of 

the golden conure in light of the broad 

protections provided to the species 

under CITES and the WBCA. As noted 

above in Summary of Factors Affecting 

the Species, some level of poaching for 

illegal trade of golden conures is 

occurring within Brazil (Silveira and 

Belmonte in press, unpaginated) but 

there is little evidence that this practice 

occurs at the international level 

(Laranjeiras 2011a, unpaginated; 

Silveira and Belmonte 2005 in press, 

unpaginated). The best available 

commercial data indicate that tighter 

enforcement of CITES, stricter European 

Union legislation, adoption of the 

WBCA in the United States, and 

adoption of national legislation in other 

countries have all helped to 

significantly curtail illegal international 

trade (Snyder et al. 2000, p. 99). 

Therefore, illegal international trade is 

not likely to be occurring at levels that 

negatively affect the golden conure 

population. Additionally, legal 

international trade of the species is not 

currently occurring at levels that affect 

the golden conure population. 

Therefore, we find that the import and 

export requirements of the proposed 

4(d) rule provide the necessary and 

advisable conservation measures that 

are needed for this species. This 

proposed 4(d) rule, if made final, would 

streamline the permitting process for 

these types of activities by deferring to 

existing laws that are protective of 

golden conures in the course of import 

and export. 

Interstate Commerce 

Under the proposed 4(d) rule, a 

person may deliver, receive, carry, 

transport, or ship a golden conure in 

interstate commerce in the course of a 

commercial activity, or sell or offer to 

sell in interstate commerce a golden 

conure without a permit under the Act. 

At the same time, the prohibitions on 

take under 50 CFR 17.21 would apply 

under this proposed 4(d) rule, and any 

interstate commerce activities that could 

incidentally take golden conure or 

otherwise constitute prohibited acts in 

foreign commerce would require a 

permit under 50 CFR 17.32. 

Between 1981 and 2016, persons 

within the United States imported 54 

golden conures and exported 26; all 

were reported as live captive-bred birds 

except two exported birds that 

originated from an unknown source and 

one imported bird seized upon import 

(UNEP–WCMC 2018, unpaginated; 

Service 2018, p. 33). These imports and 

exports were made for commercial, 

captive-breeding, zoological, and 

personal purposes (UNEP–WCMC 2018, 

unpaginated; Service 2018, p. 33). We 

have no information to indicate that 

interstate commerce activities in the 

United States are associated with threats 

to the golden conure or would 

negatively affect any efforts aimed at the 

recovery of wild populations of the 

species. Therefore, because (1) acts in 

interstate commerce within the United 

States have not been found to threaten 

the golden conure, (2) the species is 

otherwise protected in the course of 

interstate and foreign commercial 

activities under the take provisions set 

forth at 50 CFR 17.31, and (3) 

international trade of this species 

appears to be effectively regulated under 

CITES, we find this proposed 4(d) rule 

contains all the prohibitions and 

authorizations necessary and advisable 

for the conservation of the golden 

conure. 

Proposed Technical Correction 

Sections 50 CFR 17.11(c) and 17.12(b) 

of Title 50 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations direct us to use the most 

recently accepted scientific name of any 

wildlife or plant species, respectively, 

that we have determined to be an 

endangered or threatened species. The 

golden conure currently appears on the 

List as the ‘‘golden parakeet’’ (Aratinga 

guarouba). However, in this proposed 

rule, we refer to the species by the 

common name ‘‘golden conure’’ and, 

based on the best available scientific 

information regarding the species’ 

taxonomy, we use the scientific name 

Guaruba guarouba. Both ‘‘golden 

conure’’ and ‘‘golden parakeet’’ are 

common names associated with 

Guaruba guarouba. We find that the 

best available scientific information 

available supports the designation of the 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
45086 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 5, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

golden conure to its own genus 

(Guaruba). Therefore, we propose to 

update the List to reflect this change in 

the scientific name for golden conure. 

The basis for this taxonomic change is 

supported by published studies in peerreviewed journals (e.g., Uranto ́wka and 

Mackiewicz 2017, entire; Tavares et al. 

2004, pp. 230, 236–237, 239; Sick 1990, 

p. 112). Accordingly, we propose to 

correct the scientific name of the species 

under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 

1531 et seq.) by changing the name as 

currently listed (i.e., golden parakeet 

(Aratinga guarouba)) to the corrected 

species name (i.e., golden conure or 

golden parakeet (Guaruba guarouba)). 

We note that we are not required to 

propose such a technical correction and 

can generally make such a change in a 

direct final rule. We determined it more 

efficient, however, to include the 

technical correction in this proposal. 

Effects of This Rule 

If this proposed rule is made final, it 

would revise 50 CFR 17.11(h) to 

reclassify the golden conure from 

endangered to threatened on the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. 

Additionally, if the proposed 4(d) rule 

is adopted in a final rule, the Service 

will incorporate all prohibitions and 

provisions of 50 CFR 17.31 and 17.32, 

except that import and export of certain 

golden conures into and from the 

United States and certain acts in 

interstate commerce will be allowed 

without a permit under the Act. In 

addition, if the proposed taxonomic 

change is made final, we will revise the 

List of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife to change the species’ scientific 

name to Guaruba guarouba, and its 

common name to golden conure 

(=golden parakeet). 

Required Determinations 

Clarity of the Rule 

We are required by Executive Orders 

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 feel 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. 

National Environmental Policy Act (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 

We have determined that we do not 

need to prepare an environmental 

assessment, as defined under the 

authority of the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969, in connection with 

regulations adopted under section 4(a) 

of the Endangered Species Act. We 

published a notice outlining our reasons 

for this determination in the Federal 

Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 

49244). 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited in 

this rulemaking is available on the 

internet at http://www.regulations.gov 

under Docket No. FWS–HQ–ES–2015– 

0019 or upon request (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). Authors 

The primary authors of this proposed 

rule are the staff members of the Branch 

of Delisting and Foreign Species, 

Ecological Services Program, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Wildlife. 

Proposed Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we propose to amend 

part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 

50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 

as set forth below: 

PART 17—ENDANGERED AND 

THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS 

■ 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. 

■ 2. Amend § 17.11(h), the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, 

by: 

■ a. Removing the entry for ‘‘Parakeet, 

golden’’ under BIRDS; and 

■ b. Adding an entry for ‘‘Conure, 

golden (=golden parakeet)’’ in 

alphabetical order under BIRDS to read 

as follows: 

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

Common name Scientific name Where listed Status Listing citations and applicable rules 

*******

BIRDS 

*******

Conure, golden, (=golden parakeet).Guaruba 

guarouba.

Wherever found T 41 FR 24062, 6/14/1976; [Federal Register citation of final 

rule]; 50 CFR 17.41(c) 4d. 

* * * * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 17.41 by revising 

paragraph (c) introductory text and 

paragraph (c)(2)(ii) introductory text, 

and by adding paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(D) to 

read as follows: 

§ 17.41 Special rules—birds. 

* * * * * 

(c) The following species in the parrot 

family: Salmon-crested cockatoo 

(Cacatua moluccensis), yellow-billed 

parrot (Amazona collaria), white 

cockatoo (Cacatua alba), and the golden 

conure (Guaruba guarouba). 

* * * * * 

(2) * * * 

(ii) Specimens held in captivity prior 

to certain dates: You must provide 

documentation to demonstrate that the 

specimen was held in captivity prior to 

the applicable date specified in 

paragraphs (c)(2)(ii)(A), (B), (C), or (D) of 

this section. Such documentation may 

include copies of receipts, accession or 

veterinary records, CITES documents, or 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 5, 2018 / Proposed Rules 45087 

wildlife declaration forms, which must 

be dated prior to the specified dates. 

* * * * * 

(D) For golden conures: July 1, 1975 

(the date CITES entered into force with 

the ‘‘golden parakeet’’ (i.e., the golden 

conure) listed in Appendix I). 

* * * * * 

Dated: August 3, 2018. 

James W. Kurth, 

Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Exercising the Authority of the 

Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2018–19153 Filed 9–4–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS