16442 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 23, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Public Law 104–4); 

• Does not have federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications and will not 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, Volatile organic compounds. 

(Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) 

Dated: March 18, 2022. 

KC Becker, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2022–06172 Filed 3–22–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R3–ES–2021–0140; 

FF09E21000 FXES1111090FEDR 223] 

RIN 1018–BG14 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Endangered Species 

Status for Northern Long-Eared Bat 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 

reclassify the northern long-eared bat 

(Myotis septentrionalis), a bat species 

found in all or portions of 37 U.S. 

States, the District of Columbia, and 

much of Canada, as an endangered 

species under the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973, as amended (Act). The 

northern long-eared bat is currently 

listed as a threatened species with an 

accompanying rule issued under section 

4(d) of the Act (‘‘4(d) rule’’). This 

document complies with a court order, 

which requires the Service to make a 

new listing decision for the northern 

long-eared bat. After a review of the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information, we find that the northern 

long-eared bat meets the Act’s definition 

of an endangered species. Accordingly, 

we propose to list the northern longeared bat as an endangered species 

under the Act. If we finalize this rule as 

proposed, it would reclassify this 

species as an endangered species on the 

List of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife and remove its species-specific 

4(d) rule. Additionally, this proposed 

rule serves as our 5-year review of the 

species. We also are notifying the public 

that we have scheduled an 

informational meeting followed by a 

public hearing on the proposed rule. 

DATES: We will accept comments 

received or postmarked on or before 

May 23, 2022. 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. 

Public informational meeting and 

public hearing: We will hold a public 

informational meeting from 6:00 p.m. to 

7:30 p.m., Central Time, followed by a 

public hearing from 7:30 p.m. to 8:30 

p.m., Central Time, on April 7, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by one of the following methods: 

(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: https://

www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, 

enter FWS–R3–ES–2021–0140. Then, 

click on the Search button. On the 

resulting page, in the panel on the left 

side of the screen, under the Document 

Type heading, check the Proposed Rule 

box to locate this document. You may 

submit a comment by clicking on 

‘‘Comment.’’ 

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

to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: 

FWS–R3–ES–2021–0140, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, MS: PRB/3W, 5275 

Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041– 

3803. 

We request that you send comments 

only by the methods described above. 

We will post all comments on https:// 

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information you provide us (see 

Information Requested, below, for more 

information). 

Public informational meeting and 

public hearing: The public 

informational meeting and the public 

hearing will be held virtually using the 

Zoom platform. See Public Hearing, 

below, for more information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Shauna Marquardt, Field Supervisor, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Minnesota Wisconsin Ecological 

Services Field Office, 4101 American 

Boulevard East, Bloomington, MN 

55425; telephone 952–252–0092. 

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 Requested 

We intend that any final action 

resulting from this proposed rule will be 

based on the best scientific and 

commercial data available and be as 

accurate and as effective as possible. 

Therefore, we request comments or 

information from other governmental 

agencies, Native American Tribes, the 

scientific community, industry, or any 

other interested parties concerning this 

proposed rule. 

We particularly seek comments 

concerning: 

(1) The species’ biology, range, and 

population trends, including: 

(a) Biological or ecological 

requirements of the species, including 

habitat requirements for feeding, 

breeding, and sheltering; 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 23, 2022 / Proposed Rules 16443 

(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. 

(2) Factors that may affect the 

continued existence of the species, 

which may include habitat modification 

or destruction, overutilization, disease, 

predation, the inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms, or other natural 

or manmade factors. 

(3) 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. 

(4) Additional information concerning 

the historical and current status, range, 

distribution, and population size of this 

species, including the locations of any 

additional populations of this species. 

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. 

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 a 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 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 this proposed rule, 

will be available for public inspection 

on https://www.regulations.gov. 

Because we will consider all 

comments and information we receive 

during the comment period, our final 

determination may differ from this 

proposal. Based on the new information 

we receive (and any comments on that 

new information), we may conclude that 

the species should remain listed as a 

threatened species instead of 

reclassified as an endangered species, or 

we may conclude that the species does 

not warrant listing as either an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species. 

Public Hearing 

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

a public hearing on this proposal, if 

requested. For the immediate future, we 

will provide these public hearings using 

webinars that will be announced on the 

Service’s website, in addition to the 

Federal Register. The use of these 

virtual public hearings is consistent 

with our regulations at 50 CFR 

424.16(c)(3). See DATES and ADDRESSES

for information on a public hearing that 

we have scheduled for this rulemaking 

action. 

Previous Federal Actions 

On October 2, 2013, we proposed to 

list the northern long-eared bat as an 

endangered species under the Act (78 

FR 61046); please refer to that proposed 

rule for a detailed description of 

previous Federal actions concerning this 

species. 

On January 16, 2015, we proposed to 

create a 4(d) rule to provide measures 

that are necessary and advisable to 

provide for the conservation of the 

northern long-eared bat should we 

determine the species warrants listing as 

a threatened species under the Act (80 

FR 2371). That document also reopened 

the public comment period on the 

October 2, 2013, proposed rule for 

another 60 days, ending on March 17, 

2015. 

On April 2, 2015, we finalized a rule 

listing the northern long-eared bat as a 

threatened species and established an 

interim 4(d) rule for the species (80 FR 

17974). We solicited public comment on 

the interim 4(d) rule for 90 days, ending 

on July 1, 2015. On January 14, 2016, we 

finalized the 4(d) rule for the northern 

long-eared bat (81 FR 1900). On April 

27, 2016, we published a not-prudent 

determination for critical habitat (81 FR 

24707). 

A January 28, 2020, court order 

requires the Service to make a new 

listing decision for the northern longeared bat (Center for Biological Diversity 

v. Everson, 435 F. Supp. 3d. 69 (D.D.C. 

2020)). The court order remanded our 

April 2, 2015, listing decision (80 FR 

17974) but did not vacate that rule. This 

document complies with the court 

order. 

Supporting Documents 

A species status assessment (SSA) 

team prepared an SSA report for the 

northern long-eared bat (Service 2021, 

entire). The SSA report represents a 

compilation of the best scientific and 

commercial data available concerning 

the status of the species, including the 

impacts of past, present, and future 

factors (both negative and beneficial) 

affecting the species. 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 

species experts regarding the SSA 

report. We received responses from 

three of the five experts. We also sent 

the SSA report to approximately 150 

State, Federal, Tribal, and other (for 

example, nongovernmental 

organizations) partners with expertise in 

bat biology or threats to the species for 

review. We received reviews from 

approximately 35 partners. 

Proposed Listing Determination 

Background 

A thorough review of the taxonomy, 

life history, and ecology of the northern 

long-eared bat is presented in the SSA 

report (Service 2021, entire). 

The northern long-eared bat is a wideranging bat species found in 37 States 

(Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, 

Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, 

Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, 

Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, 

Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, 

Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New 

Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, 

North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, 

Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, 

South Carolina, South Dakota, 

Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, West 

Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming), the 

District of Columbia, and 8 Canadian 

provinces. The species typically 

overwinters in caves or mines and 

spends the remainder of the year in 

forested habitats. As its name suggests, 

the northern long-eared bat is 

distinguished by its long ears, 

particularly as compared to other bats in 

its genus, Myotis. The bat is medium to 

dark brown on its back, with dark 

brown ears and wings, and tawny to 

pale-brown fur on its ventral side. Its 

weight ranges from approximately 5 to 

8 grams (0.2 to 0.3 ounces). Female 

northern long-eared bats produce a 

maximum of one pup per year; 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
16444 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 23, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

therefore, loss of one pup results in 

missing one year of recruitment for a 

female. 

The individual, population-level, and 

species-level needs of the northern longeared bat are summarized below in 

tables 1–3. For additional information, 

please see the SSA report (Service 2021, 

chapter 2). 

TABLE 1—THE ECOLOGICAL REQUISITES FOR SURVIVAL AND REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS OF NORTHERN-LONG-EARED BAT

INDIVIDUALS

Life stage 

Season 

Spring Summer Fall Winter 

Pups (non-flying juveniles)......................................................... Roosting habitat with suitable conditions for lactating females and 

for pups to stay warm and protected from predators while 

adults are foraging.

Juveniles ..................... ........................................................ Other maternity colony members 

(colony dynamics, 

thermoregulation), and suitable 

roosting and foraging habitat 

near abundant food and water 

resources.

Suitable roosting and foraging 

habitat near abundant food and 

water resources.

Habitat with suitable conditions for prolonged bouts 

of torpor and shortened 

periods of arousal. 

All adults ..................... Suitable roosting and foraging 

habitat near abundant food and 

water resources, and habitat 

connectivity and open-air space 

for safe migration between winter and summer habitats.

Summer roosts and foraging habitat near abundant food and 

water resources.

Suitable roosting and foraging 

habitat near abundant food and 

water resources, cave and/or 

mine entrances or other similar 

locations (for example, culvert, 

tunnel) for conspecifics to swarm 

and mate, and habitat 

connectivity and open-air space 

for safe migration between winter and summer habitats.

Habitat with suitable conditions for prolonged bouts 

of torpor and shortened 

periods of arousal. 

Reproductive females ........................................................ Other maternity colony members 

(colony dynamics), a network of 

suitable roosts (i.e., multiple 

summer roosts in close proximity) near conspecifics, and foraging habitat near abundant 

food and water resources.

TABLE 2—POPULATION-LEVEL REQUISITES FOR A HEALTHY NORTHERN LONG-EARED BAT POPULATION

Parameter Requirements 

Population growth rate, λ ......................................................................... At a minimum, λ must be ≥1 for a population to remain stable over 

time. 

Population size, N .................................................................................... Sufficiently large N to allow for essential colony dynamics and to be 

adequately resilient to environmental fluctuations. 

Winter roosting habitat ............................................................................. Safe and stable winter roosting sites with suitable microclimates. 

Migration habitat ....................................................................................... Safe space to migrate between spring/fall habitat and winter roost 

sites. 

Spring and fall roosting, foraging, and commuting (i.e., traveling between habitat types) habitat.A matrix of habitat of sufficient quality and quantity to support bats as 

they exit hibernation (lowest body condition) or as they enter hibernation (need to put on body fat). 

Summer roosting, foraging, and commuting habitat ................................ A matrix of habitat of sufficient quality and quantity to support maternity 

colonies. 

TABLE 3—SPECIES-LEVEL ECOLOGY: REQUISITES FOR LONG-TERM VIABILITY

[Ability to maintain self-sustaining populations over a biologically meaningful timeframe] 

3 Rs Requisites for long-term 

viability Description 

Resiliency (populations able to withstand 

stochastic events).

Healthy populations across a diversity of 

environmental conditions.

Self-sustaining populations are demographically, genetically, and physiologically robust, and have enough 

suitable habitat. 

Redundancy (number and distribution of 

populations to withstand catastrophic 

events).

Multiple and sufficient distribution of populations within areas of unique variation 

(representation units).

Sufficient number and distribution of populations to 

guard against population losses. 

Representation (genetic and ecological diversity to maintain adaptive potential).Maintain adaptive diversity of the species Populations maintained across a range of behavioral, 

physiological, ecological, and environmental diversity. 

Maintain evolutionary processes .............. Maintain evolutionary drivers—gene flow, natural selection—to mimic historical patterns. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 23, 2022 / Proposed Rules 16445 

Regulatory and Analytical Framework 

Regulatory Framework 

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

and its implementing regulations (50 

CFR part 424) set forth the procedures 

for determining whether a species is an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species. The Act defines an 

‘‘endangered species’’ as a species that 

is in danger of extinction throughout all 

or a significant portion of its range, and 

a ‘‘threatened species’’ as a species that 

is likely to become an endangered 

species within the foreseeable future 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range. The Act requires that we 

determine whether any species is an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species because of any of the following 

factors: 

(A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; 

(B) Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; 

(C) Disease or predation; 

(D) The inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms; or 

(E) Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. 

These factors represent broad 

categories of natural or human-caused 

actions or conditions that could have an 

effect on a species’ continued existence. 

In evaluating these actions and 

conditions, we look for those that may 

have a negative effect on individuals of 

the species, as well as other actions or 

conditions that may ameliorate any 

negative effects or may have positive 

effects. 

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

general to actions or conditions that are 

known to or are reasonably likely to 

negatively affect individuals of a 

species. The term ‘‘threat’’ includes 

actions or conditions that have a direct 

impact on individuals (direct impacts), 

as well as those that affect individuals 

through alteration of their habitat or 

required resources (stressors). The term 

‘‘threat’’ may encompass—either 

together or separately—the source of the 

action or condition or the action or 

condition itself. 

However, the mere identification of 

any threat(s) does not necessarily mean 

that the species meets the statutory 

definition of an ‘‘endangered species’’ or 

a ‘‘threatened species.’’ In determining 

whether a species meets either 

definition, we must evaluate all 

identified threats by considering the 

expected response by the species, and 

the effects of the threats—in light of 

those actions and conditions that will 

ameliorate the threats—on an 

individual, population, and species 

level. We evaluate each threat and its 

expected effects on the species, then 

analyze the cumulative effect of all of 

the threats on the species as a whole. 

We also consider the cumulative effect 

of the threats in light of those actions 

and conditions that will have positive 

effects on the species, such as any 

existing regulatory mechanisms or 

conservation efforts. The Secretary 

determines whether the species meets 

the definition of an ‘‘endangered 

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

after conducting this cumulative 

analysis and describing the expected 

effect on the species now and in the 

foreseeable future. 

The Act does not define the term 

‘‘foreseeable future,’’ which appears in 

the statutory definition of ‘‘threatened 

species.’’ Our implementing regulations 

at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a 

framework for evaluating the foreseeable 

future on a case-by-case basis. The term 

‘‘foreseeable future’’ extends only so far 

into the future as the Service can 

reasonably determine that both the 

future threats and the species’ responses 

to those threats are likely. In other 

words, the foreseeable future is the 

period of time in which we can make 

reliable predictions. ‘‘Reliable’’ does not 

mean ‘‘certain’’; it means sufficient to 

provide a reasonable degree of 

confidence in the prediction. Thus, a 

prediction is reliable if it is reasonable 

to depend on it when making decisions. 

It is not always possible or necessary 

to define foreseeable future as a 

particular number of years. Analysis of 

the foreseeable future uses the best 

scientific and commercial data available 

and should consider the timeframes 

applicable to the relevant threats and to 

the species’ likely responses to those 

threats in view of its life-history 

characteristics. Data that are typically 

relevant to assessing the species’ 

biological response include speciesspecific factors such as lifespan, 

reproductive rates or productivity, 

certain behaviors, and other 

demographic factors. 

Analytical Framework 

The SSA report documents the results 

of our comprehensive biological review 

of the best scientific and commercial 

data regarding the status of the northern 

long-eared bat, including an assessment 

of the potential threats to the species. 

The SSA report does not represent a 

decision by the Service on whether the 

species should be proposed for listing as 

an endangered or threatened species 

under the Act. However, it does provide 

the scientific basis that informs our 

regulatory decisions, which involve the 

further application of standards within 

the Act and its implementing 

regulations and policies. The following 

is a summary of the key results and 

conclusions from the SSA report; the 

full SSA report can be found at Docket 

No. FWS–R3–ES–2021–0140 on https:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

To assess the northern long-eared 

bat’s viability, we used the three 

conservation biology principles of 

resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, 

pp. 306–310). Briefly, resiliency 

supports the ability of the species to 

withstand environmental and 

demographic stochasticity (for example, 

wet or dry or warm or cold years), 

redundancy supports the ability of the 

species to withstand catastrophic events 

(for example, droughts, large pollution 

events), and representation supports the 

ability of the species to adapt over time 

to long-term changes in the environment 

(for example, climate changes). In 

general, the more resilient and 

redundant a species is and the more 

representation it has, the more likely it 

is to sustain populations over time, even 

under changing environmental 

conditions. Using these principles, we 

identified the species’ ecological 

requirements for survival and 

reproduction at the individual, 

population, and species levels, and 

described the beneficial and risk factors 

influencing the species’ viability. 

The SSA process can be categorized 

into three sequential stages. During the 

first stage, we evaluated the individual 

species’ life-history needs. The next 

stage involved an assessment of the 

historical and current condition of the 

species’ demographics and habitat 

characteristics, including an 

explanation of how the species arrived 

at its current condition. The final stage 

of the SSA involved making predictions 

about the species’ responses to positive 

and negative environmental and 

anthropogenic influences. Throughout 

all of these stages, we used the best 

available information to characterize 

viability as the ability of a species to 

sustain populations in the wild over 

time. We use this information to inform 

our regulatory decision. 

Summary of Biological Status and 

Threats 

In this discussion, we review the 

biological condition of the northern 

long-eared bat and its resources, and the 

threats that influence the species’ 

current and future condition, in order to 

assess the species’ overall viability and 

the risks to that viability. For a full 

description, see the SSA report (Service 

2021, entire). 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
16446 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 23, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

Although there are other stressors 

affecting the northern long-eared bat, 

the primary factor influencing its 

viability is white-nose syndrome (WNS), 

a disease of bats caused by a fungal 

pathogen. Some of the other factors that 

influence the northern long-eared bat’s 

viability (though to a far lesser extent 

than the influence of WNS) include 

wind energy mortality, effects from 

climate change, and habitat loss. These 

stressors and their effects to the 

northern long-eared bat are summarized 

below: 

• WNS has been the foremost stressor 

on the northern long-eared bat for more 

than a decade. The fungus that causes 

the disease, Pseudogymnoascus 

destructans (Pd), invades the skin of 

bats. Infection leads to increases in the 

frequency and duration of arousals 

during hibernation and eventual 

depletion of fat reserves needed to 

survive winter, and results in mortality. 

Since its discovery in New York in 

2006, Pd has been confirmed (or 

presumed) in 37 States and 7 Canadian 

provinces. There is no known mitigation 

or treatment strategy to slow the spread 

of Pd or to treat WNS in bats. WNS has 

caused estimated northern long-eared 

bat population declines of 97–100 

percent across 79 percent of the species’ 

range. 

• Wind energy-related mortality of 

the northern long-eared bat is a stressor 

at local and regional levels, where 

northern long-eared bat populations 

have been impacted by WNS. In 2020, 

northern long-eared bats were at risk 

from wind mortality in approximately 

49 percent of their range, based on the 

areas where wind turbines were in place 

and operating (using known northern 

long-eared bat occurrences, average 

migration distance, and the spatial 

distribution of wind turbines) (Service 

2021, p. iv). Most bat mortality at wind 

energy projects is caused by direct 

collisions with moving turbine blades. 

• Climate change variables, such as 

changes in temperature and 

precipitation, may influence the 

northern long-eared bat’s resource 

needs, such as suitable roosting habitat 

for all seasons, foraging habitat, and 

prey availability. Although a changing 

climate may provide some benefit to the 

northern long-eared bat, overall negative 

impacts are anticipated, especially at 

local levels. 

• Habitat loss (including but not 

limited to forest conversion or 

hibernacula disturbance or destruction) 

may include loss of suitable roosting or 

foraging habitat, resulting in longer 

flights between suitable roosting and 

foraging habitats due to habitat 

fragmentation, fragmentation of 

maternity colony networks, and direct 

injury or mortality. Loss or modification 

of winter roosts (i.e., making 

hibernaculum no longer suitable) can 

result in impacts to individuals or at the 

population level. However, habitat loss 

alone is not considered to be a key 

stressor at the species level, and habitat 

does not appear to be limiting. 

In evaluating current conditions of the 

northern long-eared bat, we used the 

best available data. Winter hibernacula 

counts provide the most consistent, 

long-term, reliable trend data and 

provide the most direct measure of WNS 

impacts. We also used summer data in 

evaluating population trends, although 

the availability and quality of summer 

data varies temporally and spatially. 

Available evidence, including both 

winter and summer data, indicates 

northern long-eared bat abundance has 

and will continue to decline 

substantially under current 

demographic and stressor conditions, 

primarily driven by the effects of WNS. 

As part of our assessment of the current 

condition of northern long-eared bat’s 

representation, we identified and 

delineated the variation across the 

northern long-eared bat’s range into 

geographical representation units 

(RPUs) using the following proxies: 

Variation in biological traits, genetic 

diversity, peripheral populations, 

habitat niche diversity, and steep 

environmental gradients. 

Winter abundance (from known 

hibernacula) has declined rangewide (49 

percent) and declined across all but one 

RPU (declines range from 0 to 90 

percent). The number of extant winter 

colonies also declined rangewide (by 81 

percent) and across all RPUs (40–88 

percent). There has also been a 

noticeable shift towards smaller colony 

sizes, with a 96–100 percent decline in 

the number of large hibernacula (≥100 

individuals) across the RPUs (figure 1.). 

We created projections (highest 

plausible and lowest plausible 

scenarios) for the species using its 

current condition and the current rates 

of mortality from WNS effects and wind 

energy. Rangewide abundance is 

projected to decline by 95 percent and 

the spatial extent to decline by 75 

percent from historical conditions by 

2030. Declines continue to be driven by 

the catastrophic effects of WNS. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 23, 2022 / Proposed Rules 16447 

Declining trends in abundance and 

extent of occurrence are also evident 

across much of the northern long-eared 

bat’s summer range. Rangewide 

occupancy has declined by 80 percent 

from 2010–2019. Data collected from 

mobile acoustic transects found a 79 

percent decline in rangewide relative 

abundance from 2009–2019, and 

summer mist-net captures declined by 

43–77 percent (across RPUs) compared 

to pre-WNS capture rates. 

As discussed above, multiple data 

types and analyses indicate downward 

trends in northern long-eared bat 

population abundance and distribution 

over the last 14 years, and the best 

available information indicates that this 

downward trend will continue. 

Northern long-eared bat abundance 

(winter and summer), number of 

occupied hibernacula, spatial extent, 

and summer habitat occupancy across 

the range and within all RPUs are 

decreasing. Since the occurrence of 

WNS, northern long-eared bat 

abundance has steeply declined, leaving 

populations with small numbers of 

individuals. At these low population 

sizes, colonies are vulnerable to 

extirpation from stochastic events and 

the deleterious effects of reduced 

population sizes such as limiting 

natural selection processes and 

decreased genetic diversity. 

Furthermore, small populations 

generally cannot rescue one another 

from such a depressed state because of 

the northern long-eared bat’s low 

reproduction output (one pup per year) 

and its high philopatry (tending to 

return to a particular area). These 

inherent life-history traits limit the 

ability of populations to recover from 

low abundances. Consequently, effects 

of small population sizes exacerbate the 

effects of current and future declines 

due to continued exposure to WNS, 

mortality from wind turbines, and 

impacts associated with habitat loss and 

climate change. 

Therefore, northern long-eared bat’s 

resiliency is greatly compromised in its 

current condition. Because northern 

long-eared bat’s abundance and spatial 

extent have so dramatically declined, it 

has also become more vulnerable to 

catastrophic events. In other words, its 

redundancy has also declined 

dramatically. The steep and continued 

declines in abundance have likely led to 

reductions in genetic diversity, and 

thereby reduced northern long-eared bat 

adaptive capacity, and a decline in the 

species’ overall representation. 

Moreover, at its current low abundance, 

loss of genetic diversity will likely 

accelerate. Consequently, limited 

natural selection processes and 

decreased genetic diversity will further 

lessen the species’ ability to adapt to 

novel changes and exacerbate declines 

due to continued exposure to WNS, 

mortality from wind turbines, and 

impacts associated with habitat loss and 

climate change. Thus, even without 

further WNS spread and additional 

wind energy development (northern 

long-eared bat’s current condition), its 

viability is likely to continue to rapidly 

decline over the next 10 years. 

Future Condition 

As part of the SSA, we also developed 

two future condition scenarios to 

capture the range of uncertainties 

regarding future threats and the 

projected responses by the northern 

long-eared bat. Our scenarios included a 

plausible highest impact scenario and a 

plausible lowest impact scenario for 

each primary threat. Because we 

determined that the current condition of 

the northern long-eared bat is consistent 

with an endangered species (see 

Determination of Species Status, below), 

we are not presenting the results of the 

future scenarios in this proposed rule. 

Please refer to the SSA report (Service 

2021) for the full analysis of future 

scenarios. 

We note that, by using the SSA 

framework to guide our analysis of the 

scientific information documented in 

the SSA report, we have not only 

analyzed individual effects on the 

species, but we have also analyzed their 

potential cumulative effects. We 

incorporate the cumulative effects into 

our SSA analysis when we characterize 

the current and future condition of the 

species. To assess the current and future 

condition of the species, we undertake 

an iterative analysis that encompasses 

and incorporates the threats 

individually and then accumulates and 

evaluates the effects of all the factors 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1EP23MR22.000</GPH>
16448 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 23, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

that may be influencing the species, 

including threats and conservation 

efforts. Because the SSA framework 

considers not just the presence of the 

factors, but to what degree they 

collectively influence risk to the entire 

species, our assessment integrates the 

cumulative effects of the factors and 

replaces a standalone cumulative effects 

analysis. 

Conservation Efforts and Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

Below is a brief description of 

conservation measures and regulatory 

mechanisms currently in place. Please 

see the SSA report for a more detailed 

description (Service 2021, Appendix 4). 

Multiple national and international 

efforts are underway in an attempt to 

reduce the impacts of WNS. Despite 

these efforts, there are no proven 

measures to reduce the severity of 

impacts of WNS. More than 100 State 

and Federal agencies, Tribes, 

organizations, and institutions are 

engaged in this collaborative work to 

combat WNS and conserve affected bats. 

Partners from all 37 States in the 

northern long-eared bat’s range, Canada, 

and Mexico are engaged in 

collaborations to conduct disease 

surveillance, population monitoring, 

and management actions in preparation 

for or response to WNS. 

To reduce bat fatalities, some wind 

facilities ‘‘feather’’ turbine blades (i.e., 

pitch turbine blades parallel with the 

prevailing wind direction to slow 

rotation speeds) at low wind speeds at 

times when bats are more likely to be 

present. The wind speed at which the 

turbine blades begin to generate 

electricity is known as the ‘‘cut-in 

speed,’’ and this can be set at the 

manufacturer’s recommended speed or 

at a higher threshold, typically referred 

to as curtailment. The effectiveness of 

feathering below various cut-in speeds 

differs among sites and years (Arnett et 

al. 2013, entire; Berthinussen et al. 

2021, pp. 94–106); nonetheless, most 

studies have shown all-bat (based on 

dead bats detected from all bat species) 

fatality reductions of greater than 50 

percent associated with raising cut-in 

speeds by 1.0–3.0 meters per second (m/ 

s) above the manufacturer’s cut-in speed 

(Arnett et al. 2013, entire; USFWS 

unpublished data). The effectiveness of 

curtailment at reducing fatality rates 

specifically for the northern long-eared 

bat has not been documented. 

All States have active forestry 

programs with a variety of goals and 

objectives. Several States have 

established habitat protection buffers 

around known Indiana bat hibernacula 

that will also serve to benefit other bat 

species by maintaining sufficient quality 

and quantity of swarming habitat. Some 

States conduct some of their forest 

management activities in the winter 

within known listed bat home ranges as 

a measure that would protect maternity 

colonies and non-volant (non-flying) 

pups during summer months. 

Depending on the type and timing of 

activities, forest management can be 

beneficial to bat species (for example, 

maintaining or increasing suitable 

roosting and foraging habitat). Forest 

management that results in 

heterogeneous (including forest type, 

age, and structural characteristics) 

habitat may benefit tree-roosting bat 

species such as northern long-eared bat 

(Silvis et al. 2016, p. 37). Silvicultural 

practices can meet both male and female 

northern long-eared bats’ roosting 

requirements by maintaining largediameter snags in early stages of decay, 

while allowing for regeneration of 

forests (Lacki and Schwierjohann 2001, 

p. 487). 

Many State and Federal agencies, 

conservation organizations, and land 

trusts have installed bat-friendly gates to 

protect important hibernation sites. All 

known hibernacula within national 

grasslands and forestlands of the Rocky 

Mountain Region of the U.S. Forest 

Service (USFS) are closed during the 

winter hibernation period, primarily 

due to the threat of WNS, although this 

will reduce disturbance to bats in 

general inhabiting these hibernacula 

(USFS 2013, unpaginated). Because of 

concern over the importance of bat 

roosts, including hibernacula, the 

American Society of Mammalogists 

developed guidelines for protection of 

roosts, many of which have been 

adopted by government agencies and 

special interest groups (Sheffield et al. 

1992, p. 707). Also, regulations, such as 

the Federal Cave Resources Protection 

Act (16 U.S.C. 4301 et seq.), protect 

caves on Federal lands by limiting 

access to some caves, thereby reducing 

disturbance. Finally, many Indiana bat 

hibernacula have been gated, and some 

have been permanently protected via 

acquisition or easement, which provides 

benefits to other bats that also use the 

sites, including the northern long-eared 

bat. 

The northern long-eared bat is listed 

as endangered under Canada’s Species 

at Risk Act (COSEWIC 2013, entire). In 

addition, the northern long-eared bat 

receives varying degrees of protection 

through State laws, which designate the 

species as endangered in 9 States 

(Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, 

Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts, 

Missouri, New Hampshire, and 

Vermont); as threatened in 10 States 

(Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, 

New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, 

Tennessee, Virginia, and Wisconsin); 

and as a species of special concern in 10 

States (Alabama, Iowa, Michigan, 

Minnesota, Mississippi, Oklahoma, 

South Carolina, South Dakota, West 

Virginia, and Wyoming). 

Determination of Northern Long-Eared 

Bat Status 

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

and its implementing regulations (50 

CFR part 424) set forth the procedures 

for determining whether a species meets 

the definition of an endangered species 

or a threatened species. The Act defines 

an ‘‘endangered species’’ as a species in 

danger of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range, and a 

‘‘threatened species’’ as a species likely 

to become an endangered species within 

the foreseeable future throughout all or 

a significant portion of its range. The 

Act requires that we determine whether 

a species meets the definition of an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species because of any of the following 

factors: (A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) 

the inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; or (E) other natural or 

manmade factors affecting its continued 

existence. 

Status Throughout All of Its Range 

WNS has been the foremost stressor 

on the northern long-eared bat for more 

than a decade and continues to be 

currently. The fungus that causes the 

disease, Pd, invades the skin of bats and 

leads to infection that increases the 

frequency and duration of arousals 

during hibernation that eventually 

deplete the fat reserves needed to 

survive winter and results in mortality. 

There is no known mitigation or 

treatment strategy to slow the spread of 

Pd or to treat WNS in bats. WNS has 

caused estimated northern long-eared 

bat population declines of 97–100 

percent across 79 percent of the species’ 

range (Factor C). Winter abundance 

(from known hibernacula) has declined 

rangewide (49 percent) and declined 

across all but one RPU (declines range 

from 0 to 90 percent), and the number 

of extant winter colonies also declined 

rangewide (81 percent) and across all 

RPUs (40–88 percent). There has also 

been a noticeable shift towards smaller 

colony sizes, with a 96–100 percent 

decline in the number of large 

hibernacula (≥100 individuals). 

Rangewide summer occupancy has 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 23, 2022 / Proposed Rules 16449 

declined by 80 percent from 2010–2019. 

Summer data collected from mobile 

acoustic transects found a 79 percent 

decline in rangewide relative abundance 

from 2009–2019, and summer mist-net 

captures declined by 43–77 percent 

(across RPUs) compared to pre-WNS 

capture rates. We created projections for 

the species using its current condition 

and the current rates of mortality from 

WNS effects and wind energy. 

Rangewide abundance is projected to 

decline by 95 percent and the spatial 

extent is projected to decline by 75 

percent from historical conditions by 

2030. 

As a result of these steep population 

declines, the northern long-eared bat’s 

resiliency is greatly compromised in its 

current condition. Because the northern 

long-eared bat’s abundance and spatial 

extent substantially declined, its 

redundancy has decreased such that 

northern long-eared bats are more 

vulnerable to catastrophic events. The 

northern long-eared bat’s representation 

has also been reduced, as the steep and 

continued declines in abundance have 

likely led to reductions in genetic 

diversity, and thereby reduced the 

northern long-eared bat’s adaptive 

capacity. Further, the projected 

widespread reduction in the 

distribution of occupied hibernacula 

under current conditions will lead to 

losses in the diversity of environments 

and climatic conditions occupied, 

which will impede natural selection and 

further limit the northern long-eared 

bat’s ability to adapt to changing 

environmental conditions. Moreover, at 

its current low abundance, loss of 

genetic diversity via genetic drift will 

likely accelerate. Consequently, limiting 

natural selection process and decreasing 

genetic diversity will further lessen the 

northern long-eared bat’s ability to 

adapt to novel changes (currently 

ongoing as well as future changes) and 

exacerbate declines due to continued 

exposure to WNS and other stressors. 

Thus, even without further Pd spread 

and additional pressure from other 

stressors, the northern long-eared bat’s 

viability has declined substantially and 

is expected to continue to rapidly 

decline over the near term. 

Current population trends and status 

indicate this species is currently in 

danger of extinction. The species 

continues to experience the catastrophic 

effects of WNS and the compounding 

effect of other stressors from which 

extinction is now a plausible outcome 

under the current conditions. Therefore, 

the species meets the Act’s definition of 

an endangered species rather than of a 

threatened species. Thus, after assessing 

the best available information, we 

determine that the northern long-eared 

bat is in danger of extinction throughout 

all of its range. 

Status Throughout a Significant Portion 

of Its Range 

Under the Act and our implementing 

regulations, a species may warrant 

listing if it is in danger of extinction or 

likely to become so in the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range. We have 

determined that the northern long-eared 

bat is in danger of extinction throughout 

all of its range and accordingly did not 

undertake an analysis of any significant 

portion of its range. Because the 

northern long-eared bat warrants listing 

as endangered throughout all of its 

range, our determination does not 

conflict with the decision in Center for 

Biological Diversity v. Everson, 2020 WL 

437289 (D.D.C. Jan. 28, 2020), because 

that decision related to significant 

portion of the range analyses for species 

that warrant listing as threatened, not 

endangered, throughout all of their 

range. 

Determination of Status 

Our review of the best available 

scientific and commercial information 

indicates that the northern long-eared 

bat meets the Act’s definition of an 

endangered species. Therefore, we 

propose to list the northern long-eared 

bat as an endangered species in 

accordance with sections 3(6) and 

4(a)(1) of the Act. 

Available Conservation Measures 

Conservation measures provided to 

species listed as endangered or 

threatened species under the Act 

include recognition, recovery actions, 

requirements for Federal protection, and 

prohibitions against certain practices. 

Recognition through listing results in 

public awareness, and conservation by 

Federal, State, Tribal, and local 

agencies, private organizations, and 

individuals. The Act encourages 

cooperation with the States and other 

countries and calls for recovery actions 

to be carried out for listed species. The 

protection required by Federal agencies 

and the prohibitions against certain 

activities are discussed, in part, below. 

The primary purpose of the Act is the 

conservation of endangered and 

threatened species and the ecosystems 

upon which they depend. The ultimate 

goal of such conservation efforts is the 

recovery of these listed species, so that 

they no longer need the protective 

measures of the Act. Section 4(f) of the 

Act calls for the Service to develop and 

implement recovery plans for the 

conservation of endangered and 

threatened species. The recovery 

planning process involves the 

identification of actions that are 

necessary to halt or reverse the species’ 

decline by addressing the threats to its 

survival and recovery. The goal of this 

process is to restore listed species to a 

point where they are secure, selfsustaining, and functioning components 

of their ecosystems. 

Recovery planning consists of 

preparing draft and final recovery plans, 

beginning with the development of a 

recovery outline, and making it 

available to the public within 30 days of 

a final listing determination. The 

recovery outline guides the immediate 

implementation of urgent recovery 

actions and describes the process to be 

used to develop a recovery plan. 

Revisions of the plan may be done to 

address continuing or new threats to the 

species, as new substantive information 

becomes available. The recovery plan 

also identifies recovery criteria for 

review of when a species may be ready 

for reclassification from endangered to 

threatened (‘‘downlisting’’) or removal 

from protected status (‘‘delisting’’), and 

methods for monitoring recovery 

progress. Recovery plans also establish 

a framework for agencies to coordinate 

their recovery efforts and provide 

estimates of the cost of implementing 

recovery tasks. Recovery teams 

(composed of species experts, Federal 

and State agencies, nongovernmental 

organizations, and stakeholders) are 

often established to develop recovery 

plans. When completed, the recovery 

outline, draft recovery plan, and the 

final recovery plan will be available on 

our website (https://www.fws.gov/ 

species/northern-bat-myotisseptentrionalis), or from our Minnesota 

Wisconsin Ecological Services Field 

Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT). 

Implementation of recovery actions 

generally requires the participation of a 

broad range of partners, including other 

Federal agencies, States, Tribes, 

nongovernmental organizations, 

businesses, and private landowners. 

Examples of recovery actions include 

habitat restoration (for example, 

restoration of native vegetation), 

research, captive propagation and 

reintroduction, and outreach and 

education. The recovery of many listed 

species cannot be accomplished solely 

on Federal lands because their range 

may occur primarily or solely on nonFederal lands. To achieve recovery of 

these species requires cooperative 

conservation efforts on private, State, 

and Tribal lands. 

For listed species, funding for 

recovery actions is available from a 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
16450 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 23, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

variety of sources, including Federal 

budgets, State programs, and cost-share 

grants for non-Federal landowners, the 

academic community, and 

nongovernmental organizations. In 

addition, pursuant to section 6 of the 

Act, the States of Alabama, Arkansas, 

Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, 

Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, 

Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, 

Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, 

Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, 

Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, 

New York, North Carolina, North 

Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, 

Rhode Island, South Carolina, South 

Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, 

West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming 

will continue to be eligible for Federal 

funds to implement management 

actions that promote the protection or 

recovery of the northern long-eared bat. 

Information on our grant programs that 

are available to aid species recovery can 

be found at: https://www.fws.gov/grants. 

Please let us know if you are 

interested in participating in recovery 

efforts for this species. Additionally, we 

invite you to submit any new 

information on this species whenever it 

becomes available and any information 

you may have for recovery planning 

purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT). 

Section 7(a) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies to evaluate their 

actions with respect to any species that 

is proposed or listed as an endangered 

or threatened species and with respect 

to its critical habitat, if any is 

designated. Regulations implementing 

this interagency cooperation provision 

of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 

402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies to confer with the 

Service on any action that is likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of a 

species proposed for listing or result in 

destruction or adverse modification of 

proposed critical habitat. If a species is 

listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of 

the Act requires Federal agencies to 

ensure that activities they authorize, 

fund, or carry out are not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

the species or destroy or adversely 

modify its critical habitat. If a Federal 

action may affect a listed species or its 

critical habitat, the responsible Federal 

agency must enter into consultation 

with the Service. 

Federal agency actions within the 

species’ habitat that may require 

conference or consultation or both as 

described in the preceding paragraph 

include, but are not limited to, 

management and any other landscapealtering activities on Federal lands 

administered by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, 

Bureau of Land Management, National 

Park Service, and other Federal 

agencies; issuance of section 404 Clean 

Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) 

permits by the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers; and construction and 

maintenance of roads or highways by 

the Federal Highway Administration. 

The Act and its implementing 

regulations set forth a series of general 

prohibitions and exceptions that apply 

to endangered wildlife. The prohibitions 

of section 9(a)(1) of the Act, codified at 

50 CFR 17.21, make it illegal for any 

person subject to the jurisdiction of the 

United States to take (which includes 

harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, 

wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or 

to attempt any of these) endangered 

wildlife within the United States or on 

the high seas. In addition, it is unlawful 

to import; export; deliver, receive, carry, 

transport, or ship in interstate or foreign 

commerce in the course of commercial 

activity; or sell or offer for sale in 

interstate or foreign commerce any 

species listed as an endangered species. 

It is also illegal to possess, sell, deliver, 

carry, transport, or ship any such 

wildlife that has been taken illegally. 

Certain exceptions apply to employees 

of the Service, the National Marine 

Fisheries Service, other Federal land 

management agencies, and State 

conservation agencies. 

We may issue permits to carry out 

otherwise prohibited activities 

involving endangered wildlife under 

certain circumstances. Regulations 

governing permits are codified at 50 

CFR 17.22. With regard to endangered 

wildlife, a permit may be issued for the 

following purposes: For scientific 

purposes, to enhance the propagation or 

survival of the species, and for 

incidental take in connection with 

otherwise lawful activities. The statute 

also contains certain exemptions from 

the prohibitions, which are found in 

sections 9 and 10 of the Act. 

It is our policy, as published in the 

Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 

34272), to identify to the maximum 

extent practicable at the time a species 

is listed, those activities that would or 

would not constitute a violation of 

section 9 of the Act. The intent of this 

policy is to increase public awareness of 

the effect of a proposed listing on 

proposed and ongoing activities within 

the range of the species proposed for 

listing. 

At this time, we are unable to identify 

specific activities that would not be 

considered to result in a violation of 

section 9 of the Act because the 

northern long-eared bat occurs in a 

variety of habitat conditions across its 

range and it is likely that site-specific 

conservation measures may be needed 

for activities that may directly or 

indirectly affect the species. 

Based on the best available 

information, the following activities 

may potentially result in a violation of 

section 9 of the Act if they are not 

authorized in accordance with 

applicable law; this list is not 

comprehensive: 

(1) Unauthorized collecting, handling, 

possessing, selling, delivering, carrying, 

or transporting of the species, including 

import or export across State lines and 

international boundaries, except for 

properly documented antique 

specimens of these taxa at least 100 

years old, as defined by section 10(h)(1) 

of the Act. 

(2) Incidental take of the species 

without authorization pursuant to 

section 7 or section 10(a)(1)(B) of the 

Act. 

(3) Disturbance or destruction (or 

otherwise making a hibernaculum no 

longer suitable) of known hibernacula 

due to commercial or recreational 

activities during known periods of 

hibernation. 

(4) Unauthorized destruction or 

modification of suitable forested habitat 

(including unauthorized grading, 

leveling, burning, herbicide spraying, or 

other destruction or modification of 

habitat) in ways that kills or injures 

individuals by significantly impairing 

the species’ essential breeding, foraging, 

sheltering, commuting, or other 

essential life functions. 

(5) Unauthorized removal or 

destruction of trees and other natural 

and manmade structures being used as 

roosts by the northern long-eared bat 

that results in take of the species. 

(6) Unauthorized release of biological 

control agents that attack any life stage 

of this taxon. 

(7) Unauthorized removal or 

exclusion from buildings or artificial 

structures being used as roost sites by 

the species, resulting in take of the 

species. 

(8) Unauthorized building and 

operation of wind energy facilities 

within areas used by the species, which 

results in take of the species. 

(9) Unauthorized discharge of 

chemicals, fill, or other materials into 

sinkholes, which may lead to 

contamination of known northern longeared bat hibernacula. 

Questions regarding whether specific 

activities would constitute a violation of 

section 9 of the Act should be directed 

to the Minnesota Wisconsin Ecological 

Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 23, 2022 / Proposed Rules 16451 

Effects of This Rule 

If this rule is adopted as proposed, it 

would reclassify the northern long-eared 

bat from a threatened species to an 

endangered species on the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. It 

would also remove the species-specific 

section 4(d) rule for the northern longeared bat, because 4(d) rules apply only 

to species listed as threatened species 

under the Act. The Act’s full suite of 

prohibitions and exceptions to those 

prohibitions for endangered species (see 

sections 9 and 10 of the Act) would then 

apply to the northern long-eared bat. 

Public Hearings 

We have scheduled a public 

informational meeting with a public 

hearing on this proposed rule for the 

northern long-eared bat. We will hold 

the public informational meeting and 

public hearing on the date and time 

listed above under Public informational 

meeting and public hearing in DATES. 

We are holding the public informational 

meeting and public hearing via the 

Zoom online video platform and via 

teleconference so that participants can 

attend remotely. For security purposes, 

registration is required. To listen and 

view the meeting and hearing via Zoom, 

listen to the meeting and hearing by 

telephone, or provide oral public 

comments at the public hearing by 

Zoom or telephone, you must register. 

For information on how to register, or if 

you encounter problems joining Zoom 

the day of the meeting, visit https://

www.fws.gov/species/northern-batmyotis-septentrionalis. Registrants will 

receive the Zoom link and the telephone 

number for the public informational 

meeting and public hearing. If 

applicable, interested members of the 

public not familiar with the Zoom 

platform should view the Zoom video 

tutorials (https://support.zoom.us/hc/ 

en-us/articles/206618765-Zoom-videotutorials) prior to the public 

informational meeting and public 

hearing. 

The public hearing will provide 

interested parties an opportunity to 

present verbal testimony (formal, oral 

comments) regarding this proposed rule. 

While the public informational meeting 

will be an opportunity for dialogue with 

the Service, the public hearing is not: It 

is a forum for accepting formal verbal 

testimony. In the event there is a large 

attendance, the time allotted for oral 

statements may be limited. Therefore, 

anyone wishing to make an oral 

statement at the public hearing for the 

record is encouraged to provide a 

prepared written copy of their statement 

to us through the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal, or U.S. mail (see ADDRESSES, 

above). There are no limits on the length 

of written comments submitted to us. 

Anyone wishing to make an oral 

statement at the public hearing must 

register before the hearing https://

www.fws.gov/species/northern-batmyotis-septentrionalis. The use of a 

virtual public hearing is consistent with 

our regulations at 50 CFR 424.16(c)(3). 

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 

environmental assessments and 

environmental impact statements, as 

defined under the authority of the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not 

be prepared in connection with listing 

a species as an endangered or 

threatened species under 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). This 

position was upheld by the U.S. Court 

of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 

(Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 

1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 

U.S. 1042 (1996)). 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994 

(Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive 

Order 13175 (Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments), and the Department of 

the Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we 

readily acknowledge our responsibility 

to communicate meaningfully with 

recognized Federal Tribes on a 

government-to-government basis. In 

accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 

of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal 

Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust 

Responsibilities, and the Endangered 

Species Act), we readily acknowledge 

our responsibilities to work directly 

with Tribes in developing programs for 

healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that 

Tribal lands are not subject to the same 

controls as Federal public lands, to 

remain sensitive to Indian culture, and 

to make information available to Tribes. 

We solicited information, provided 

updates, and invited participation in the 

SSA process in emails sent to Tribes, 

nationally, in April 2020 and November 

2020. We will continue to work with 

Tribal entities during the development 

of the northern long-eared bat final 

listing determination. 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited in 

this rulemaking is available on the 

internet at https://www.regulations.gov 

and upon request from the Minnesota 

Wisconsin Ecological Services Field 

Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this proposed 

rule are staff members of the Fish and 

Wildlife Service’s Species Assessment 

Team and the Minnesota Wisconsin 

Ecological Services Field Office. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

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, in paragraph (h), by 

revising the entry for ‘‘Bat, northern 

long-eared’’ under MAMMALS in the 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
16452 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 23, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

List of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife to read as follows: 

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

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

MAMMALS

* * * * * * * 

Bat, northern longeared.Myotis septentrionalis Wherever found ......... E 80 FR 17973, 4/2/2015; [Federal Register citation when 

published as a final rule]. 

*******

§ 17.40 [Amended] 

■ 3. Amend § 17.40 by removing and 

reserving paragraph (o). 

Signing Authority 

The Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, approved this document and 

authorized the undersigned to sign and 

submit the document to the Office of the 

Federal Register for publication 

electronically as an official document of 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Martha Williams, Director, approved 

this document on March 18, 2022, for 

publication. 

Madonna Baucum, 

Regulations and Policy Chief, Division of 

Policy, Risk Management, and Analytics of 

the Joint Administrative Operations, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2022–06168 Filed 3–22–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1