81388 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

(e) * * * 

TABLE 5—STATE OF OREGON AIR QUALITY CONTROL PROGRAM—NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS AND QUASIREGULATORY MEASURES

Name of SIP provision 

Applicable 

geographic or 

nonattainment 

area 

State submittal date EPA approval date Explanations 

*******

Section 5—Control Strategies for Attainment and Nonattainment Areas 

*******

Oregon Regional Haze State Implementation.

Plan Revision for the Second 

Planning Period (2018–2028).

Statewide .......... 4/29/2022 and 11/22/2023 ............ 10/8/2024, [INSERT FIRST PAGE 

OF FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION].

*******

[FR Doc. 2024–22603 Filed 10–7–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[FXES1111090FEDR–245–FF09E21000] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 90-Day Findings for 8 

Species 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notification of petition findings 

and initiation of status reviews. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce 90- 

day findings on eight petitions to add 

species to the Lists of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife and Plants under 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). Based on our review, we 

find that the petitions to list the Crater 

Lake newt (Taricha granulosa 

mazamae), Florida intertidal firefly 

(Micronaspis floridana), Iowa skipper 

(Atrytone arogos iowa), San Francisco 

Estuary population of white sturgeon 

(Acipenser transmontanus), and Tecopa 

bird’s beak (Chloropyron tecopense) 

present substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

the petitioned actions may be 

warranted. Therefore, with the 

publication of this document, we 

announce that we are initiating status 

reviews of these species to determine 

whether the petitioned actions are 

warranted. To ensure that the status 

reviews are comprehensive, we request 

scientific and commercial data and 

other information regarding the species 

and factors that may affect their status. 

Based on the status reviews, we will 

issue 12-month petition findings, which 

will address whether or not the 

petitioned actions are warranted in 

accordance with the Act. We further 

find that the petitions to list Betta 

miniopinna, long-tailed macaque 

(Macaca fascicularis), and southern pigtailed macaque (Macaca nemestrina) do 

not present substantial information 

indicating the petitioned action may be 

warranted. Therefore, we are not 

initiating status reviews of Betta 

miniopinna, long-tailed macaque, or 

southern pig-tailed macaque. 

DATES: These findings were made on 

October 8, 2024. As we commence our 

status reviews, we seek any new 

information concerning the status of, or 

threats to, the Crater Lake newt, Florida 

intertidal firefly, Iowa skipper, San 

Francisco Estuary population of white 

sturgeon, and Tecopa bird’s beak, or 

their habitats. Any information we 

receive during the course of our status 

reviews will be considered. 

ADDRESSES: 

Supporting documents: Summaries of 

the basis for the petition findings 

contained in this document are 

available on https://www.regulations.

gov under the appropriate docket 

number (see tables under 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION). 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 Crater Lake newt, Florida 

intertidal firefly, Iowa skipper, San 

Francisco Estuary population of white 

sturgeon, or Tecopa bird’s beak, or their 

habitats, please provide those data or 

information by one of the following 

methods listed below. 

(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: https:// 

www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, 

enter the appropriate docket number 

(see table 1 under SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION). 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: 

[Insert appropriate docket number; see 

table 1 under SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION], 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 

(see Information Submitted for a Status 

Review, below). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 81389 

Species common name Contact person 

Betta miniopinna ................................... Rachel London, Manager, Branch of Delisting and Foreign Species, Ecological Services Headquarters, 

703–358–2491, rachel_london@fws.gov. 

Crater Lake newt .................................. Jennie Land, Field Supervisor, Klamath Falls Fish and Wildlife Office, 541–885–8481, jennie_land@

fws.gov. 

Florida intertidal firefly .......................... Lourdes Mena, Classification and Recovery Division Manager, Florida Ecological Services Office, 904– 

731–3134, lourdes_mena@fws.gov. 

Iowa skipper ......................................... Jason Luginbill, Project Leader, Kansas Ecological Services Field Office, 785–313–0772, jason_

luginbill@fws.gov. 

Long-tailed macaque ............................ Rachel London, Manager, Branch of Delisting and Foreign Species, Ecological Services Headquarters, 

703–358–2491, rachel_london@fws.gov. 

San Francisco Estuary population of 

white sturgeon.

Donald Ratcliff, Field Supervisor, San Francisco Bay-Delta Fish and Wildlife Office, 916–930–5632, 

donald_ratcliff@fws.gov. 

Southern pig-tailed macaque ............... Rachel London, Manager, Branch of Delisting and Foreign Species, Ecological Services Headquarters, 

703–358–2491, rachel_london@fws.gov. 

Tecopa bird’s beak ............................... Scott Sobiech, Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, 760–431–9440, scott_sobiech@

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: 

Information Submitted for a Status 

Review 

You may submit your comments and 

materials concerning the status of, or 

threats to, the Crater Lake newt, Florida 

intertidal firefly, Iowa skipper, San 

Francisco Estuary population of white 

sturgeon, or Tecopa bird’s beak, or their 

habitats, by one of the methods listed in 

ADDRESSES. We request that you send 

comments only by the methods 

described in ADDRESSES. Please include 

sufficient information with your 

submission (such as scientific journal 

articles or other publications) to allow 

us to verify any scientific or commercial 

information you include. 

If you submit information via https:// 

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 https://www.regulations.gov. 

Comments and materials we receive, 

as well as supporting documentation we 

used in preparing these findings, will be 

available for public inspection on 

https://www.regulations.gov. 

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 

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. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
81390 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

Summaries of Petition Findings 

The petition findings contained in 

this document are listed in the tables 

below, and the basis for each finding, 

along with supporting information, is 

available on https://

www.regulations.gov under the 

appropriate docket number. 

TABLE 1—INTERNET SEARCH INFORMATION FOR SUBSTANTIAL FINDINGS FOR FIVE SPECIES

Common name Docket No. URL to docket on https://www.regulations.gov 

Crater Lake newt ............................................................ FWS–R8–ES–2024–0025 https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FWS-R8-ES-2024-0025 

Florida intertidal firefly .................................................... FWS–R4–ES–2024–0026 https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FWS-R4-ES-2024-0026 

Iowa skipper .................................................................... FWS–R6–ES–2023–0226 https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FWS-R6-ES-2023-0226 

San Francisco Estuary population of white sturgeon ..... FWS–R8–ES–2024–0049 https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FWS-R8-ES-2024-0049 

Tecopa bird’s beak ......................................................... FWS–R8–ES–2023–0256 https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FWS-R8-ES-2023-0256 

TABLE 2—INTERNET SEARCH INFORMATION FOR NOT-SUBSTANTIAL FINDINGS FOR THREE SPECIES

Common name Docket No. URL to docket on https://www.regulations.gov 

Betta miniopinna ............................................................. FWS–HQ–ES–2023–0229 https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FWS-HQ-ES-2023- 

0229 

Long-tailed macaque ...................................................... FWS–HQ–ES–2023–0228 https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FWS-HQ-ES-2023- 

0228 

Southern pig-tailed macaque .......................................... FWS–HQ–ES–2023–0227 https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FWS-HQ-ES-2023- 

0227 

Evaluation of a Petition To List Betta 

miniopinna 

Species and Range 

Betta miniopinna; Bintan Island of the 

Riau Archipelago, Indonesia. 

Petition History 

On July 6, 2023, we received a 

petition dated July 5, 2023, from the 

Center for Biological Diversity and the 

Monitor Conservation Research Society, 

requesting that Betta miniopinna be 

emergency listed as a threatened species 

or an endangered 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). 

Listing a species on an emergency basis 

is not a petitionable action under the 

Act, and the question of when to list on 

an emergency basis is left to the 

discretion of the Service. If the Service 

determines that the standard for 

emergency listing in section 4(b)(7) of 

the Act is met, the Service may exercise 

that discretion to take an emergency 

listing action at any time. Therefore, we 

are considering the July 5, 2023, petition 

as a petition to list the B. miniopinna. 

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 the individual and 

cumulative effects of 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, 

sources cited in the petition, and other 

readily available information, we find 

that the petition does not provide 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating that listing the B. 

miniopinna as a threatened species or 

an endangered species may be 

warranted. 

The petitioner provided credible 

information indicating potential threats 

to individuals of the species due to 

habitat loss and degradation and 

collection and trade. The petitioner also 

provided credible information that the 

existing regulatory mechanisms may be 

inadequate to address those potential 

threats. Although the petition did 

provide credible information regarding 

deforestation at less than one percent 

per year countrywide, the reference 

investigated deforestation across the 

entire country and did not mention 

either peat swamp forest, the specific 

habitat type for the species, or Bintan 

Island, the only island the species is 

known to exist. Furthermore, the 

references provided in the petition that 

discussed peat swamp forests did not 

include Bintan Island, the island where 

B. miniopinna currently exists. The 

petition did not link this general 

deforestation to effects on the species. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 81391 

Therefore, the petition does not present 

credible information to support the 

claim that habitat loss and degradation 

is having a negative impact on the 

population(s) of the species. 

Additionally, regarding trade, the 

petitioners only presented information 

from a brief Google search on the trade 

of the species. While this brief search 

presents evidence of some illegal trade 

in wild specimens of the species, 

without more thorough information on 

the amount of trade of wild-caught B. 

miniopinna and abundance estimates, 

the petition does not present credible 

information to support the claim that 

trade is having a negative impact on the 

population(s) of the species. Credible 

sources cited in the petition do not 

provide substantial information 

indicating that threats identified by the 

petitions may have synergistic or 

cumulative effects on the population 

such that the petitioned action may be 

warranted for B. miniopinna. 

The basis for our finding on this 

petition and other information regarding 

our review of the petition can be found 

at https://www.regulations.gov under 

Docket No. FWS–HQ–ES–2023–0229 

under the Supporting Documents 

section. 

Evaluation of a Petition To List Crater 

Lake Newt 

Species and Range 

Crater Lake newt (Taricha granulosa 

mazamae); Crater Lake, Klamath 

County, Oregon. 

Petition History 

On November 28, 2023, we received 

a petition from the Center for Biological 

Diversity, requesting that the Crater 

Lake newt (Taricha granulosa 

mazamae) be emergency listed as an 

endangered 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). 

The petitioners additionally requested 

that the Service immediately protect 

Crater Lake newts with its emergency 

listing authority under 16 U.S.C. 

1533(b)(7). Because the Act does not 

provide for petitions to emergency list, 

we are considering it as a petition to list 

the Crater Lake newt. Listing a species 

on an emergency basis is not a 

petitionable action under the Act, and 

the question of when to list on an 

emergency basis is left to the discretion 

of the Service. If the Service determines 

that the standard for emergency listing 

in section 4(b)(7) of the Act is met, the 

Service may exercise that discretion to 

take an emergency listing action at any 

time. 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 

predation by introduced species 

(particularly by signal crayfish 

(Pacifastacus leniusculus)) (Factor C), 

we find that the petition presents 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating that listing the 

Crater Lake newt may be warranted. The 

petitioners also presented information 

suggesting habitat and food web 

alteration by signal crayfish, climate 

change, reduced effective population 

size, and range restriction may be 

threats to the Crater Lake newt. We will 

fully evaluate these potential threats 

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. 

The basis for our finding on this 

petition and other information regarding 

our review of the petition can be found 

at https://www.regulations.gov under 

Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2024–0025 

under the Supporting Documents 

section. 

Evaluation of a Petition To List Florida 

Intertidal Firefly 

Species and Range 

Florida intertidal firefly (Micronaspis 

floridana): Florida (Brevard, Broward, 

Charlotte, Citrus, Collier, Dixie, 

Hernando, Hillsborough, Indian River, 

Levy, Manatee, Miami-Dade, Monroe, 

Pasco, Pinellas, Saint Lucie, Sarasota, 

and Volusia Counties) and the Bahamas. 

Petition History 

On March 28, 2023, we received a 

petition from the Xerces Society for 

Invertebrate Conservation, requesting 

that the Florida intertidal firefly 

(Micronaspis floridana) be listed as an 

endangered 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 the effects of 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 wetland 

destruction or loss and modified 

hydrology (Factor A), we find that the 

petition presents substantial scientific 

or commercial information indicating 

that listing the Florida intertidal firefly 

may be warranted. The petition also 

presented information on the following 

potential threats to Florida intertidal 

firefly: sea level rise, habitat 

fragmentation, modification of marsh 

and mangrove habitats for mosquito 

control, coastal eutrophication, harmful 

algal blooms, hypoxia, overutilization, 

nematode infection, predators, light 

pollution, pesticides, invasive species, 

small populations, ocean acidification 

impacts on prey, and increased 

temperature and extreme temperature 

events, and increased intensity and 

proportion of severe storms. We will 

fully evaluate these potential threats 

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. 

The basis for our finding on this 

petition and other information regarding 

our review of the petition can be found 

at https://www.regulations.gov under 

Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2024–0026 

under the Supporting Documents 

section. 

Evaluation of a Petition To List Iowa 

Skipper 

Species and Range 

Iowa skipper (Atrytone arogos iowa); 

mid-continent prairie in Arkansas, 

Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, 

Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, 

Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, 

South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming. 

Petition History 

On March 28, 2023, we received a 

petition from the Center for Food Safety, 

requesting that the Iowa Skipper 

(Atrytone arogos iowa) be listed as a 

threatened species or an endangered 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
81392 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 habitat 

loss and fragmentation (Factor A) and 

prairie management (Factor A), we find 

that the petition presents substantial 

scientific or commercial information 

indicating that listing the Iowa skipper 

may be warranted. The petitioners also 

presented information suggesting 

pesticides, invasive species, climate 

change, and small, isolated populations 

may be threats to the Iowa skipper. We 

will fully evaluate these potential 

threats 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. 

The basis for our finding on this 

petition and other information regarding 

our review of the petition can be found 

at https://www.regulations.gov under 

Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2023–0226 

under the Supporting Documents 

section. 

Evaluation of a Petition To List LongTailed Macaque 

Species and Range 

Long-tailed macaque (Macaca 

fascicularis); Brunei Darussalam, 

Cambodia, Hong Kong of China, Nicobar 

Islands of India, Indonesia, Lao People’s 

Democratic Republic, Malaysia, 

Mauritius, Myanmar, Palau, Papua New 

Guinea, Philippines, Singapore, 

Thailand, Timor-Leste, and Vietnam. 

Petition History 

On April 12, 2023, we received a 

petition requesting that long-tailed 

macaque (Macaca fascicularis) be listed 

as a threatened species or an 

endangered species under the Act from 

People for the Ethical Treatment of 

Animals, Lisa Jones-Engel, Birute ̇ Mary 

Galdikas, Jane Goodall, Action for 

Primates, Born Free USA, Sarah Kite, 

Nedim C. Buyukmihci, Angela Grimes, 

Liz Tyson-Griffin, The Macaque 

Coalition, Ecoflix, Ian Redmond, 

International Primate Protection League, 

Wildlife Alliance, Physicians 

Committee for Responsible Medicine, 

Michael Schillaci, One Voice, Abolicio ́n 

Viviseccio ́n, Sam Shanee, Gemunu de 

Silva, Northwest Animal Rights 

Network, Pam Mendosa, Phoenix Zones 

Initiative, Hope Ferdowsian, ACP, 

Nikhil Kulkarni, Neotropical Primate 

Conservation, EMS Foundation, Tim 

Ajax, Rise for Animals, Wildlife Friends 

Foundation Thailand, Douc Langur 

Foundation, Fundacion Entropika, 

Angela Maldonado, Animal Defenders 

International, World Animal Protection, 

Paula Pebsworth, and Japan AntiVivisection Association. 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 the individual and 

cumulative 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 

the effects of habitat loss and 

degradation (Factor A), collection and 

hunting (Factor B), disease (Factor C), 

and culling and sterilization (Factor E), 

we find that the petition does not 

provide substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

listing the long-tailed macaque as a 

threatened or an endangered species 

may be warranted. While we found that 

the petition provided documentation of 

negative impacts to individual 

macaques from these potential threats, 

the petition did not present credible 

information to support impacts to 

populations or the species as a whole 

due to these potential threats, either 

separately or cumulatively, such that 

the species may warrant listing. 

The basis for our finding on this 

petition and other information regarding 

our review of the petition can be found 

at https://www.regulations.gov under 

Docket No. FWS–HQ–ES–2023–0228 

under the Supporting Documents 

section. 

Evaluation of a Petition To List San 

Francisco Estuary Population of White 

Sturgeon 

Species and Range 

White sturgeon [petitioned ‘‘San 

Francisco Estuary Distinct Population 

Segment’’] (Acipenser transmontanus) 

(= San Francisco Estuary white 

sturgeon); Sacramento and San Joaquin 

Rivers in California. 

Petition History 

On December 6, 2023, we received a 

petition from San Francisco Baykeeper, 

The Bay Institute, Restore the Delta, and 

California Sportfishing Protection 

Alliance, requesting that the San 

Francisco Estuary white sturgeon 

population (Acipenser transmontanus) 

be listed as a threatened distinct 

population segment (DPS) 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 harmful 

algal blooms (Factor E), we find that the 

petition presents substantial scientific 

or commercial information indicating 

that listing the San Francisco Estuary 

population of white sturgeon as a DPS 

may be warranted. The petitioners also 

presented information suggesting dams, 

water diversions, entrainment mortality, 

recreational harvest, poaching, 

pollution, climate change, proposed 

hatchery supplementation, ship strikes, 

and dredging may be threats to the San 

Francisco Estuary white sturgeon. We 

will fully evaluate these potential 

threats during our 12-month status 

review, pursuant to the Act’s 

requirement to review the best scientific 

and commercial information available 

when making our 12-month finding. 

The basis for our finding on this 

petition and other information regarding 

our review of the petition can be found 

at https://www.regulations.gov under 

Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2024–0049 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 81393 

under the Supporting Documents 

section. 

Evaluation of a Petition To List 

Southern Pig-Tailed Macaque 

Species and Range 

Southern pig-tailed macaque (Macaca 

nemestrina); Brunei Darussalam, 

Indonesia (Kalimantan, Sumatra), 

Malaysia (Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah, 

Sarawak), and Thailand. 

Petition History 

On April 12, 2023, we received a 

petition requesting that southern pigtailed macaque (Macaca nemestrina) be 

listed as a threatened species or an 

endangered species under the Act from 

People for the Ethical Treatment of 

Animals, Lisa Jones-Engel (Ph.D.), 

Birute Mary Galdikas (Ph.D.), Jane 

Goodall (Ph.D.), Action for Primates, 

Born Free USA, Sarah Kite, Nedim 

Buyukmihci (Ph.D.), Angela Grimes, Liz 

Tyler-Griffin (Ph.D.), The Macaque 

Coalition, Ecoflix, Ian Redmond (Ph.D.), 

International Primate Protection League, 

Wildlife Alliance, the Physicians 

Committee for Responsible Medicine, 

Michael Schillaci (Ph.D.), One Voice, 

Abolicion Vivseccion, Sam Shanee 

(Ph.D.), Gemunu de Silva, Northwest 

Animal Rights Network, Pam Mendosa, 

Phoenix Zones Initiative, Hope 

Ferdowsian (Ph.D.), Nikhil Kulkarni 

(Ph.D.), Neotropical Primate 

Conservation, The EMS Foundation, 

Tim Ajax, Rise for Animals, Wildlife 

Friends Foundation Thailand, Douc 

Langur Foundation, Fundacion 

Entropika, Angela Maldonado (Ph.D.), 

Animal Defenders International, World 

Animal Protection, Paula Pebsworth, 

and The Japan Anti-Vivisection 

Association. 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 the individual and 

cumulative effects of 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, 

sources cited in the petition, and other 

readily available information, we find 

that the petition does not provide 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating that listing the 

southern pig-tailed macaque as a 

threatened species or an endangered 

species may be warranted. While we 

found that the petition provided 

documentation of negative impacts to 

individual macaques from these 

potential threats, the petition did not 

present credible information to support 

impacts to populations or the species 

and the petition did not present credible 

information to support impacts to 

populations or the species as a whole 

due to these potential threats, either 

separately or cumulatively, such that 

the species may warrant listing. 

The basis for our finding on this 

petition and other information regarding 

our review of the petition can be found 

at https://www.regulations.gov under 

Docket No. FWS–HQ–ES–2023–0227 

under the Supporting Documents 

section. 

Evaluation of a Petition To List Tecopa 

Bird’s Beak 

Species and Range 

Tecopa bird’s beak (Chrloropyron 

tecopense); Esmeralda and Nye Counties 

in Nevada and Inyo County in 

California. 

Petition History 

On September 26, 2023, we received 

a petition from the Center for Biological 

Diversity, requesting that Tecopa bird’s 

beak (Chrloropyron tecopense) be listed 

as a threatened species or an 

endangered 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 

hydrological alteration and groundwater 

extraction related to agriculture and 

exurban sprawl (Factor A), we find that 

the petition presents substantial 

scientific or commercial information 

indicating that listing the Tecopa bird’s 

beak may be warranted. The petitioners 

also presented information suggesting 

off-road vehicles, non-native ungulate 

grazing, herbivory, climate change, and 

invasive species, as well as other 

potential effects from geothermal power 

production and mineral exploration and 

development, may be threats to the 

Tecopa bird’s beak. We will fully 

evaluate these potential threats 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. 

The basis for our finding on this 

petition and other information regarding 

our review of the petition can be found 

at https://www.regulations.gov under 

Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2023–0256 

under the Supporting Documents 

section. 

Conclusion 

On the basis of our evaluation of the 

information presented in the petitions 

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

have determined that the petitions 

summarized above for the Crater Lake 

newt, Florida intertidal firefly, Iowa 

skipper, San Francisco Estuary 

population of white sturgeon, and 

Tecopa bird’s beak present substantial 

scientific or commercial information 

indicating that the petitioned actions 

may be warranted. We are, therefore, 

initiating status reviews of these species 

to determine whether the actions are 

warranted under the Act. At the 

conclusion of the status reviews, we 

will issue findings, in accordance with 

section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act, as to 

whether the petitioned actions are not 

warranted, warranted, or warranted but 

precluded by pending proposals to 

determine whether any species is an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species. In addition, we have 

determined that the petitions 

summarized above for Betta 

miniopinna, long-tailed macaque, and 

southern pig-tailed macaque do not 

present substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

the petitioned actions may be 

warranted. We are, therefore, not 

initiating status reviews for these 

species in response to the petitions. 

Authors 

The primary authors of this document 

are staff members of the Ecological 

Services Program, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
81394 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 8, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

Authority 

The authority for these actions 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. 2024–22914 Filed 10–7–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 679 

[Docket No. 24034–0068; RTID 0648–XE347] 

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone Off Alaska; Reallocation of Atka 

Mackerel in the Bering Sea and 

Aleutian Islands Management Area 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary rule; reallocation. 

SUMMARY: NMFS is reallocating the 

projected unused amount of the 2024 

Atka mackerel incidental catch 

allowance (ICA) for the Bering Sea 

subarea and Eastern Aleutian district 

(BS/EAI) to the Amendment 80 

cooperative allocation for the BS/EAI in 

the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 

management area (BSAI). This action is 

necessary to allow the 2024 total 

allowable catch of Atka mackerel in the 

BSAI to be fully harvested. 

DATES: Effective October 7, 2024 

through 2400 hours, A.l.t., December 31, 

2024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steve Whitney, 907–586–7228. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS 

manages the groundfish fishery in the 

BSAI according to the Fishery 

Management Plan for Groundfish of the 

Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 

Management Area (FMP) prepared by 

the North Pacific Fishery Management 

Council under authority of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act). Regulations 

governing fishing by U.S. vessels in 

accordance with the FMP appear at 

subpart H of 50 CFR parts 600 and 679. 

The 2024 Atka mackerel ICA for the 

BS/EAI is 800 metric tons (mt) and the 

2024 Atka mackerel total allowable 

catch allocated to the Amendment 80 

cooperative for the BS/EAI is 25,081 mt 

as established by the final 2024 and 

2025 harvest specifications for 

groundfish in the BSAI (89 FR 17287, 

March 11, 2024). 

The Administrator, Alaska Region, 

NMFS, has determined that 700 mt of 

the Atka mackerel ICA for the BS/EAI 

will not be harvested. Therefore, in 

accordance with § 679.91(f), NMFS 

reallocates 700 mt of Atka mackerel 

from the BS/EAI ICA to the BS/EAI 

Amendment 80 cooperative allocation 

in the BSAI. In accordance with 

§ 679.91(f), NMFS will reissue the 

cooperative quota permit for the 

reallocated Atka mackerel following the 

procedures set forth in § 679.91(f)(3). 

The harvest specifications for Atka 

mackerel included in the harvest 

specifications for groundfish in the 

BSAI (89 FR 17287, March 11, 2024) are 

revised as follows: 100 mt of Atka 

mackerel for the BS/EAI ICA and 25,781 

mt of Atka mackerel for the Amendment 

80 cooperative allocation for the BS/ 

EAI. Table 7 is revised and republished 

in its entirety as follows: 

TABLE 7—FINAL 2024 SEASONAL AND SPATIAL ALLOWANCES, GEAR SHARES, CDQ RESERVE, INCIDENTAL CATCH

ALLOWANCE, AND AMENDMENT 80 ALLOCATIONS OF THE BSAI ATKA MACKEREL TAC 

[Amounts are in metric tons] 

Sector 1 Season 234

2024 Allocation by area 

Eastern Aleutian 

District/Bering Sea 

Central Aleutian 

District 5

Western Aleutian 

District 

TAC ..................................................... n/a ....................................................... 32,260 16,754 23,973 

CDQ reserve ....................................... Total .................................................... 3,452 1,793 2,565 

A ......................................................... 1,726 896 1,283 

Critical Habitat .................................... n/a 538 770 

B ......................................................... 1,726 896 1,283 

Critical Habitat .................................... n/a 538 770 

Non-CDQ TAC .................................... n/a ....................................................... 28,808 14,961 21,408 

ICA ...................................................... Total .................................................... 100 75 20 

Jig 6 ..................................................... Total .................................................... 140 ................................ ................................

BSAI trawl limited access ................... Total .................................................... 2,787 1,489 ................................

A ......................................................... 1,393 744 ................................

Critical Habitat .................................... n/a 447 ................................

B ......................................................... 1,393 744 ................................

Critical Habitat .................................... n/a 447 ................................

Amendment 80 sector ........................ Total .................................................... 25,781 13,398 21,388 

A ......................................................... 12,891 6,699 10,694 

Critical Habitat .................................... n/a 4,019 6,416 

B ......................................................... 12,891 6,699 10,694 

Critical Habitat .................................... n/a 4,019 6,416 

Note: Seasonal or sector apportionments may not total precisely due to rounding. 1Section 679.20(a)(8)(ii) allocates the Atka mackerel total allowable catches (TACs), after subtracting the community development quota 

(CDQ) reserves, ICAs, and jig gear allocation, to the Amendment 80 and BSAI trawl limited access sectors. The allocation of the Initial total allowable catch (ITAC) for Atka mackerel to the Amendment 80 and BSAI trawl limited access sectors is established in table 33 to 50 CFR part 

679 and § 679.91. The CDQ reserve is 10.7 percent of the TAC for use by CDQ participants (see § 679.20(b)(1)(ii)(C)). 2Sections 679.20(a)(8)(ii)(A) and 679.22(a) establish temporal and spatial limitations for the Atka mackerel fishery. 

3The seasonal allowances of Atka mackerel for the CDQ reserve, BSAI trawl limited access sector, and Amendment 80 sector are 50 percent 

in the A season and 50 percent in the B season. 4Section 679.23(e)(3) authorizes directed fishing for Atka mackerel with trawl gear during the A season from January 20 to June 10 and the B 

season from June 10 to December 31. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1