Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 27 / Thursday, February 8, 2024 / Proposed Rules 8629 

that the station provides an average of 

at least three hours per week of locally 

originated programming. This paragraph 

does not apply to TV translator or radio 

translator or booster stations. 

(1) For purposes of this provision, 

locally originated programming is 

programming produced either 

(i) [W]ithin the station’s community 

of license; 

(ii) [A]t any location within the 

principal community contour of any 

AM, FM, or TV broadcast station 

licensed to the station’s community of 

license; or 

(iii) [W]ithin 25 miles from the 

reference coordinates of the center of its 

community of license as described in 

§ 73.208(a)(1). 

(2) For purposes of this provision, 

locally originated programming is 

defined as: 

(i) Programming that was created 

within the area defined in paragraph 

(c)(1) of this section. Programming that 

contains video or audio recordings that 

were made at locations outside the area 

defined in paragraph (c)(1) of this 

section qualifies as locally originated 

programming as long as the program 

also includes some other element of 

local creation that takes place in the 

area defined in paragraph (c)(1) of this 

section, including program scripting, 

recording (video or audio) at a studio or 

other location in the local market, 

editing, or other activity. 

(ii) Locally originated programming 

does not include: the broadcast of 

repetitive or automated programs or 

time-shifted recordings of non-local 

programming whatever its source; a 

local program that has been broadcast 

twice, even if the licensee broadcasts 

the program on a different day or makes 

small variations in the program 

thereafter. In addition, with respect to 

television stations, locally originated 

programming is programming 

containing simultaneous video and 

audio programming where the audio 

portion of the programming directly 

relates to the video portion of the 

program. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2024–02039 Filed 2–7–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2023–0261; 

FF09E21000 FXES1111090FEDR 245] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 90-Day Finding for the 

Kings River Pyrg 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notification of petition finding 

and initiation of status review. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 

90-day finding on a petition to add the 

Kings River pyrg (Pyrgulopsis 

imperialis) to the List of Endangered 

and Threatened Wildlife under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). Based on our review, we 

find that the petition to list the Kings 

River pyrg presents substantial scientific 

or commercial information indicating 

that the petitioned action may be 

warranted. Therefore, with the 

publication of this document, we 

announce that we are initiating a status 

review to determine whether the 

petitioned action is warranted. To 

ensure that the status review is 

comprehensive, we request scientific 

and commercial data and other 

information regarding Kings River pyrg 

and factors that may affect its status. 

Based on the status review, we will 

issue a 12-month petition finding, 

which will address whether or not the 

petitioned action is warranted, in 

accordance with the Act. 

DATES: This finding was made on 

February 8, 2024. As we commence our 

status review, we seek any new 

information concerning the status of, or 

threats to, the Kings River pyrg or its 

habitats. Any information we receive 

during the course of our status review 

will be considered. 

ADDRESSES: 

Supporting documents: A summary of 

the basis for the petition finding 

contained in this document is available 

on https://www.regulations.gov in 

Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2023–0261. In 

addition, this supporting information is 

available by contacting the appropriate 

person, as specified in FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Status reviews: If you have new 

scientific or commercial data or other 

information concerning the status of, or 

threats to, the Kings River pyrg or its 

habitat, please provide those data or 

information by one of the following 

methods: 

(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: https://

www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, 

enter FWS–R8–ES–2023–0261, which is 

the docket number for this action. Then, 

click on the ‘‘Search’’ button. After 

finding the correct document, you may 

submit information by clicking on 

‘‘Comment.’’ If your information will fit 

in the provided comment box, please 

use this feature of https://

www.regulations.gov, as it is most 

compatible with our information review 

procedures. If you attach your 

information as a separate document, our 

preferred file format is Microsoft Word. 

If you attach multiple comments (such 

as form letters), our preferred format is 

a spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel. 

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

to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: 

FWS–R8–ES–2023–0261, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, MS: PRB/3W, 5275 

Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041– 

3803. 

We request that you send information 

only by the methods described above. 

We will post all information we receive 

on https://www.regulations.gov. This 

generally means that we will post any 

personal information you provide us. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Justin Barrett, Deputy Field Supervisor, 

Reno Fish and Wildlife Office, 

telephone: 775–861–6300, email: justin_

barrett@fws.gov. Individuals in the 

United States who are deaf, deafblind, 

hard of hearing, or have a speech 

disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or 

TeleBraille) to access 

telecommunications relay services. 

Individuals outside the United States 

should use the relay services offered 

within their country to make 

international calls to the point-ofcontact in the United States. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

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

and its implementing regulations in title 

50 of the Code of Federal Regulations 

(50 CFR part 424) set forth the 

procedures for adding species to, 

removing species from, or reclassifying 

species on the Federal Lists of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants (Lists or List) in 50 CFR part 

17. Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires 

that we make a finding on whether a 

petition to add a species to the List (i.e., 

‘‘list’’ a species), remove a species from 

the List (i.e., ‘‘delist’’ a species), or 

change a listed species’ status from 

endangered to threatened or from 

threatened to endangered (i.e., 

‘‘reclassify’’ a species) presents 

substantial scientific or commercial 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
8630 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 27 / Thursday, February 8, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

information indicating that the 

petitioned action may be warranted. To 

the maximum extent practicable, we are 

to make this finding within 90 days of 

our receipt of the petition and publish 

the finding promptly in the Federal 

Register. 

Our regulations establish that 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information with regard to a 90-day 

petition finding refers to credible 

scientific or commercial information in 

support of the petition’s claims such 

that a reasonable person conducting an 

impartial scientific review would 

conclude that the action proposed in the 

petition may be warranted (50 CFR 

424.14(h)(1)(i)). A positive 90-day 

petition finding does not indicate that 

the petitioned action is warranted; the 

finding indicates only that the 

petitioned action may be warranted and 

that a full review should occur. 

A species may be determined to be an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species because of one or more of the 

five factors described in section 4(a)(1) 

of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1)). The 

five factors are: 

(a) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range 

(Factor A); 

(b) Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes (Factor B); 

(c) Disease or predation (Factor C); 

(d) The inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms (Factor D); and 

(e) Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence (Factor 

E). 

These factors represent broad 

categories of natural or human-caused 

actions or conditions that could have an 

effect on a species’ continued existence. 

In evaluating these actions and 

conditions, we look for those that may 

have a negative effect on individuals of 

the species, as well as other actions or 

conditions that may ameliorate any 

negative effects or may have positive 

effects. 

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

general to actions or conditions that are 

known to, or are reasonably likely to, 

affect individuals of a species 

negatively. The term ‘‘threat’’ includes 

actions or conditions that have a direct 

impact on individuals (direct impacts), 

as well as those that affect individuals 

through alteration of their habitat or 

required resources (stressors). The term 

‘‘threat’’ may encompass—either 

together or separately—the source of the 

action or condition, or the action or 

condition itself. However, the mere 

identification of any threat(s) may not 

be sufficient to compel a finding that the 

information in the petition is substantial 

information indicating that the 

petitioned action may be warranted. The 

information presented in the petition 

must include evidence sufficient to 

suggest that these threats may be 

affecting the species to the point that the 

species may meet the definition of an 

endangered species or threatened 

species under the Act. 

If we find that a petition presents 

such information, our subsequent status 

review will evaluate all identified 

threats by considering the individual-, 

population-, and species-level effects 

and the expected response by the 

species. We will evaluate individual 

threats and their expected effects on the 

species, then analyze the cumulative 

effect of the threats on the species as a 

whole. We also consider the cumulative 

effect of the threats in light of those 

actions and conditions that are expected 

to have positive effects on the species— 

such as any existing regulatory 

mechanisms or conservation efforts that 

may ameliorate threats. It is only after 

conducting this cumulative analysis of 

threats and the actions that may 

ameliorate them, and the expected effect 

on the species now and in the 

foreseeable future, that we can 

determine whether the species meets 

the definition of an endangered species 

or threatened species under the Act. 

If we find that a petition presents 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating that the 

petitioned action may be warranted, the 

Act requires that we promptly 

commence a review of the status of the 

species, and we will subsequently 

complete a status review in accordance 

with our prioritization methodology for 

12-month findings (81 FR 49248; July 

27, 2016). 

We note that designating critical 

habitat is not a petitionable action under 

the Act. Petitions to designate critical 

habitat (for species without existing 

critical habitat) are reviewed under the 

Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 

551 et seq.) and are not addressed in 

this finding (see 50 CFR 424.14(j)). To 

the maximum extent prudent and 

determinable, any proposed critical 

habitat will be addressed concurrently 

with a proposed rule to list a species, if 

applicable. 

Summary of Petition Finding 

Species and Range 

Kings River pyrg (Pyrgulopsis 

imperialis); Humboldt County, Nevada. 

Evaluation of Information Summary 

On October 31, 2023, we received a 

petition from the Western Watersheds 

Project, requesting that the Kings River 

pyrg, an endemic springsnail found in 

Humboldt County, Nevada, be listed as 

an endangered species or a threatened 

species and critical habitat be 

designated for this species under the 

Act. The petition clearly identified itself 

as such and included the requisite 

identification information for the 

petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(c). 

This finding addresses the petition. 

Finding 

We reviewed the petition, sources 

cited in the petition, and other readily 

available information (within the 

constraints of the Act and 50 CFR 

424.14(h)(1)). We considered the 

credible information that the petition 

provided regarding effects of the threats 

that fall within factors under the Act’s 

section 4(a)(1) as potentially 

ameliorated or exacerbated by any 

existing regulatory mechanisms or 

conservation efforts. Based on our 

review of the petition and readily 

available information regarding spring 

modification (Factor A), we find that the 

petition presents substantial scientific 

or commercial information indicating 

that listing the Kings River pyrg may be 

warranted. The petition presents 

credible information that all 13 known 

springs occupied by the Kings River 

pyrg exhibited signs of habitat 

disturbance during 2018 surveys and 

that the flows of 4 occupied springs 

have already been modified. 

The petition discusses several 

additional threats, which could 

ultimately result in spring modification 

and impacts to Kings River pyrg habitat. 

These threats include livestock grazing, 

roads, drought, climate change, and the 

Thacker Pass Lithium Mine. The current 

State of Nevada Division of 

Environmental Protection (NDEP) Water 

Pollution Control permit for the Thacker 

Pass Lithium Mine does not authorize 

mining below the groundwater table 

(NDEP 2022), which as written, may 

significantly reduce the potential for 

spring modification from this project. 

The petitioners also presented 

information suggesting that nonnative 

aquatic species, small population size 

and limited distribution, and the 

species’ lack of mobility may be threats 

to the Kings River pyrg. We will fully 

evaluate all potential threats to the 

species during our 12-month status 

review, pursuant to the Act’s 

requirement to review the best scientific 

and commercial information available 

when making that finding. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 27 / Thursday, February 8, 2024 / Proposed Rules 8631 

The basis for our finding on this 

petition and other information regarding 

our review of the petition can be found 

as an appendix at https://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R8–ES–2023–0261 under the 

Supporting Documents section. 

Conclusion 

On the basis of our evaluation of the 

information presented in the petition 

under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we 

have determined that the petition 

summarized above for the Kings River 

pyrg presents substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

the petitioned action may be warranted. 

We are, therefore, initiating a status 

review of the species to determine 

whether the action is warranted under 

the Act. At the conclusion of the status 

review, we will issue a finding, in 

accordance with section 4(b)(3)(B) of the 

Act, as to whether the petitioned action 

is not warranted, warranted, or 

warranted but precluded by pending 

proposals to determine whether any 

species is an endangered species or a 

threatened species. 

Authors 

The primary authors of this document 

are staff members of the Pacific 

Southwest Region, Ecological Services 

Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Authority 

The authority for this action is the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

Martha Williams, 

Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2024–02620 Filed 2–7–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 20 

[Docket No. FWS–HQ–MB–2023–0113; 

FF09M32000–234–FXMB1231099BPP0] 

RIN 1018–BG63 

Migratory Bird Hunting; Proposed 

2024–25 Migratory Game Bird Hunting 

Regulations (Preliminary) 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (Service or we) proposes to 

establish hunting regulations for certain 

migratory game birds for the 2024–25 

hunting season. Through an annual 

rulemaking process, we prescribe 

outside limits (which we refer to as 

frameworks) within which States may 

select hunting seasons. This proposed 

rule provides the regulatory schedule, 

describes the proposed regulatory 

alternatives for the 2024–25 general 

duck seasons, and provides preliminary 

proposals that vary from the 2023–24 

hunting season regulations. Migratory 

bird hunting seasons provide 

opportunities for recreation and 

sustenance; aid Federal, State, and 

Tribal governments in the management 

of migratory game birds; and permit 

harvests at levels compatible with 

migratory game bird population status 

and habitat conditions. 

DATES: Comments: You may comment 

on the general duck season regulatory 

alternatives and other preliminary 

proposals for the 2024–25 season until 

March 11, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: Comments: You may submit 

comments on the proposals by one of 

the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments 

on Docket No. FWS–HQ–MB–2023– 

0113. 

• U.S. mail: Public Comments 

Processing, Attn: FWS–HQ–MB–2023– 

0113; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 

MS: PRB/3W; 5275 Leesburg Pike; Falls 

Church, VA 22041–3803. 

We will not accept emailed or faxed 

comments. We will post all comments 

on https://www.regulations.gov. This 

generally means that your entire 

submission—including any personal 

identifying information—will be posted 

on the website. See Public Comments, 

below, for more information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jerome Ford, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Department of the Interior, 

(703) 358–2606; jerome_ford@fws.gov. 

For a summary of the rule, please see 

the ‘‘rule summary document’’ in docket 

FWS–HQ–MB–2023–0113 on https://

www.regulations.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Process for Establishing Annual 

Migratory Game Bird Hunting 

Regulations 

Background 

Migratory game birds are those bird 

species so designated in conventions 

between the United States and several 

foreign nations for the protection and 

management of these birds. Under the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA; 16 

U.S.C. 703–712), the Secretary of the 

Interior is authorized to determine when 

‘‘hunting, taking, capture, killing, 

possession, sale, purchase, shipment, 

transportation, carriage, or export of any 

such bird, or any part, nest, or egg’’ of 

migratory game birds can take place, 

and to adopt regulations for this 

purpose (16 U.S.C. 704(a)). These 

regulations are written after giving due 

regard to ‘‘the zones of temperature and 

to the distribution, abundance, 

economic value, breeding habits, and 

times and lines of migratory flight of 

such birds’’ (16 U.S.C. 704(a)) and are 

updated annually. This responsibility 

has been delegated to the Service as the 

lead Federal agency for managing and 

conserving migratory birds in the 

United States. However, migratory bird 

management is a cooperative effort of 

Federal, State, and Tribal governments. 

The Service annually develops 

migratory game bird hunting regulations 

by establishing the frameworks, or 

outside limits, for season dates, season 

lengths, shooting hours, bag and 

possession limits, and areas where 

migratory game bird hunting may occur. 

These frameworks are necessary to 

allow harvest at levels compatible with 

migratory game bird population status 

and habitat conditions. After the 

frameworks are established, States may 

select migratory game bird hunting 

seasons within the frameworks. States 

may always be more conservative in 

their selections than the frameworks, 

but never more liberal. The annual 

process of developing migratory game 

bird hunting regulations concludes 

when we establish the State season 

selections as Federal regulations under 

title 50 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, part 20, subpart K. 

Acknowledging regional differences 

in hunting conditions, the Service has 

administratively divided the United 

States into four Flyways for the primary 

purpose of managing migratory game 

birds. Each Flyway (Atlantic, 

Mississippi, Central, and Pacific) has a 

Flyway Council, a formal organization 

generally composed of one member 

from each State within the Flyway, as 

well as Provinces in Canada that share 

migratory bird populations with the 

Flyway. The Flyway Councils, 

established through the Association of 

Fish and Wildlife Agencies, also assist 

in researching and providing migratory 

game bird management information for 

Federal, State, Tribal, and Provincial 

governments, as well as private 

conservation entities and the general 

public. 

Overview of the Rulemaking Process 

The process for adopting migratory 

game bird hunting regulations, which 

are set forth at 50 CFR part 20, is 

constrained by three primary factors. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1