104952 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 247 / Thursday, December 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

publication as an official document of 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Madonna Baucum, 

Regulations and Policy Chief, Division of 

Policy, Economics, Risk Management, and 

Analytics of the Joint Administrative 

Operations, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2024–30381 Filed 12–23–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–HQ–ES–2023–0033; 

FXES1113090FEDR–256–FF09E22000] 

RIN 1018–BH98 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Endangered Species 

Status for the Blue Tree Monitor 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 

list the blue tree monitor (Varanus 

macraei), a lizard species from 

Indonesia, as an endangered species 

under the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended (Act). This 

determination also serves as our 12- 

month finding on a petition to list the 

blue tree monitor. After a review of the 

best scientific and commercial 

information available, we find that 

listing the species is warranted. If we 

finalize this rule as proposed, it would 

add this species to the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and extend the Act’s protections to the 

species. A temporary rule (emergency 

action) listing this species as 

endangered for 240 days is published 

concurrently in this issue of the Federal 

Register. 

DATES: We will accept comments 

received or postmarked on or before 

February 24, 2025. Comments submitted 

electronically using the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, 

below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. 

eastern time on the closing date. We 

must receive requests for a public 

hearing, in writing, at the address 

shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT by February 10, 2025. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments: 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–HQ–ES–2023–0033, which 

is the docket number for this 

rulemaking. 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–HQ–ES–2023–0033, 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). 

Availability of supporting materials: 

Supporting materials, such as the 

species status assessment report, are 

available on https://

www.regulations.gov at Docket No. 

FWS–HQ–ES–2023–0033. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Rachel London, Manager, Branch of 

Delisting and Foreign Species, 

Ecological Services Program, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, MS: ES, 5275 

Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041– 

3803; telephone 703–358–2171. 

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. Please see 

Docket No. FWS–HQ–ES–2023–0033 on 

https://www.regulations.gov for a 

document that summarizes this 

proposed rule. 

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; 

(b) Genetics and taxonomy; 

(c) Historical and current range, 

including distribution patterns and the 

locations of any additional populations 

of this species; 

(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) Threats and conservation actions 

affecting the species, including: 

(a) Factors that may be affecting the 

continued existence of the species, 

which may include habitat destruction, 

modification, or curtailment; 

overutilization; disease; predation; the 

inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; or other natural or 

manmade factors; 

(b) Biological, commercial trade, or 

other relevant data concerning any 

threats (or lack thereof) to this species; 

and 

(c) Existing regulations or 

conservation actions that may be 

addressing threats to this species. 

(3) Additional information concerning 

the historical and current status 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, do not provide 

substantial information necessary to 

support a determination. Section 

4(b)(1)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 

1533(b)(1)(A)) 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. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 247 / Thursday, December 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 104953 

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. 

Our final determination may differ 

from this proposal because we will 

consider all comments we receive 

during the comment period as well as 

any information that may become 

available after this proposal. Based on 

the new information we receive (and, if 

relevant, any comments on that new 

information), we may conclude that the 

species is threatened instead of 

endangered, or we may conclude that 

the species does not warrant listing as 

either an endangered species or a 

threatened species. In our final rule, we 

will clearly explain our rationale and 

the basis for our final decision, 

including why we made changes, if any, 

that differ from this proposal. 

Public Hearing 

Section 4(b)(5) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 

1533(b)(5)) provides for a public hearing 

on this proposal, if requested. Requests 

must be received by the date specified 

in DATES. Such requests must be sent to 

the address shown in FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule 

a public hearing on this proposal, if 

requested, and announce the date, time, 

and place of the hearing, as well as how 

to obtain reasonable accommodations, 

in the Federal Register at least 15 days 

before the hearing. We may hold the 

public hearing in person or virtually via 

webinar. We will announce any public 

hearing on our website, in addition to 

the Federal Register. The use of virtual 

public hearings is consistent with our 

regulations in title 50 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) at section 

424.16(c)(3) (50 CFR 424.16(c)(3)). 

Previous Federal Actions 

On April 15, 2022, we received a 

petition from the Center for Biological 

Diversity to list the blue tree monitor as 

an endangered species under the Act (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). On August 17, 

2023, we published in the Federal 

Register (88 FR 55991) a 90-day finding 

that the petition presented substantial 

scientific and commercial information 

indicating that the petitioned action 

may be warranted; that document 

initiated a status review for the blue tree 

monitor. 

Peer Review 

A species status assessment (SSA) 

team prepared an SSA report for the 

blue tree monitor. The SSA report 

currently is undergoing peer review and 

will be finalized before a final listing 

decision is made. The SSA team was 

composed of Service biologists, in 

consultation with other species experts. 

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 in listing and recovery actions 

under the Act (https://www.fws.gov/ 

sites/default/files/documents/peerreview-policy-directors-memo-2016-08- 

22.pdf), we will solicit independent 

scientific review of the information 

contained in the blue tree monitor SSA 

report. The SSA report and other 

materials related to this proposed rule 

can be found at https://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–HQ–ES–2023–0033. 

Background 

The blue tree monitor (Varanus 

macraei) is a medium-sized monitor 

lizard that is distinguished by a unique 

bright blue spotted pattern on its head, 

body, and legs (Bo ̈hme and Jacobs 2001, 

pp. 7–9; Auliya and Koch 2020, p. 72). 

The species has sharp claws, smooth 

and unkeeled neck scales, and a long 

prehensile tail with alternating blue and 

black bands (Bo ̈hme and Jacobs 2001, 

pp. 7–9; Auliya and Koch 2020, p. 72). 

The blue tree monitor was first 

described in 2001 (Bo ̈hme and Jacobs 

2001, entire), and genetic testing 

confirms it is a distinct species (Ziegler 

et al. 2007, p. 16) that occupies the V. 

prasinus species complex (subgenus 

Hapturosaurus; Bucklitsch et al. 2016, 

pp. 37–38). Adults average a snout vent 

length of 31 centimeters (cm) (12.2 

inches (in)) and total length of 88 cm 

(34.6 in) (Arida et al. 2021, p. 115; Del 

Canto 2013, p. 19; Ziegler et al. 2009, p. 

123). 

The blue tree monitor is endemic to 

the island of Batanta, within the Raja 

Ampat Islands of Papua, Indonesia 

(Bo ̈hme and Jacobs 2004, p. 214). 

Batanta has a total area of 455 square 

kilometers (sq km) (174.9 square miles 

(sq mi)), with a maximum length of 61 

kilometers (km) (37.9 miles (mi)) and a 

maximum width of 13 km (8.1 mi) 

(Ziegler et al. 2009, p. 122). The species 

is rarely encountered on Batanta, so 

there is little detail available on the 

species’ life-history and habitat 

requirements (Philipp and Philipp 2007, 

p. 867; Auliya and Koch 2020, p. 72). 

The blue tree monitor is diurnal and 

arboreal (Bo ̈hme and Jacobs 2004, p. 

214; Del Canto 2013, p. 19; Ziegler et al. 

2009, p. 122), primarily feeds on 

invertebrates (Auliya and Koch 2020, p. 

72; Del Canto 2013, p. 20), and occupies 

low-lying forested habitats with an 

ambient humidity that ranges from 65 to 

100 percent (Del Canto 2013, p. 19; 

Sprackland 2011, unpaginated). 

No published studies describe the 

reproductive biology of the blue tree 

monitor in the wild; however, experts 

suggest that breeding activity coincides 

with periods of reduced rainfall, such as 

the post-monsoonal dry season 

(Rahmanto et al. 2022, p. 20; Ziegler et 

al. 2009, p. 130). Blue tree monitors are 

capable of laying up to four clutches of 

2 to 7 eggs (average of 3.9 ± 1.2 eggs per 

clutch) per year, and the shortest 

interval between subsequent clutches 

was recorded at 95 days (Ziegler et al. 

2009, p. 130). Because blue tree 

monitors take approximately 2 years to 

reach sexual maturity (Rauhaus et al. 

2014, p. 33), we estimate the average 

generation time for the species to be 

approximately 2.5 years. 

No quantitative population 

information for the species exists 

(Bennett 2015, p. 50), though there is 

evidence of declines in the wild 

population on Batanta as a result of 

overcollection for the pet trade (Arida et 

al. 2021, pp. 113–114; Del Canto 2013, 

p. 19; see Threats, below). 

A thorough review of the taxonomy, 

life history, and ecology of the blue tree 

monitor is presented in the SSA report 

(version 1.1; Service 2024, pp. 1–7). 

Regulatory and Analytical Framework 

Regulatory Framework 

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

and the implementing regulations in 

title 50 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations set forth the procedures for 

determining whether a species is an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species, issuing protective regulations 

for threatened species, and designating 

critical habitat for endangered and 

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: 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
104954 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 247 / Thursday, December 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

(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 

species’ expected response 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. 

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, which is 

further described in the 2009 

Memorandum Opinion on the 

foreseeable future from the Department 

of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor 

(M–37021, January 16, 2009; ‘‘MOpinion,’’ available online at https://

www.doi.gov/sites/ 

doi.opengov.ibmcloud.com/files/ 

uploads/M-37021.pdf). The foreseeable 

future extends as far into the future as 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

(hereafter, the Services) can make 

reasonably reliable predictions about 

the threats to the species and the 

species’ responses to those threats. We 

need not identify the foreseeable future 

in terms of a specific period of time. We 

will describe the foreseeable future on a 

case-by-case basis, using the best 

available data and taking into account 

considerations such as the species’ lifehistory characteristics, threat projection 

timeframes, and environmental 

variability. In other words, the 

foreseeable future is the period of time 

over which we can make reasonably 

reliable predictions. ‘‘Reliable’’ does not 

mean ‘‘certain’’; it means sufficient to 

provide a reasonable degree of 

confidence in the prediction, in light of 

the conservation purposes of the Act. 

Analytical Framework 

The SSA report documents the results 

of our comprehensive biological review 

of the best scientific and commercial 

data available regarding the status of the 

species, including an assessment of the 

potential threats to the species. The SSA 

report does not represent our decision 

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. 

To assess the blue tree monitor’s 

viability, we used the three conservation 

biology principles of resiliency, 

redundancy, and representation (Shaffer 

and Stein 2000, pp. 306–310). Briefly, 

resiliency is the ability of the species to 

withstand environmental and 

demographic stochasticity (for example, 

wet or dry, warm or cold years); 

redundancy is the ability of the species 

to withstand catastrophic events (for 

example, droughts, large pollution 

events); and representation is the ability 

of the species to adapt to both near-term 

and long-term changes in its physical 

and biological environment (for 

example, climate conditions, 

pathogens). In general, species viability 

will increase with increases in (and 

decrease with decreases in) resiliency, 

redundancy, and representation (Smith 

et al. 2018, p. 306). 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, which we then used to inform our 

regulatory decision. 

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–HQ–ES–2023–0033 

on https://www.regulations.gov. 

Summary of Biological Status and 

Threats 

In this discussion, we review the 

biological condition of the species 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. 

Species Needs 

Based on the species’ biology 

described above and in the SSA report 

(version 1.1; Service 2024, pp. 1–7), the 

blue tree monitor requires an adequate 

supply of invertebrates for food; 

undisturbed, humid, lowland forests 

with good canopy cover and continuity; 

and sufficient conspecific individuals to 

find a mate. Owing to the limited data 

available, our assessment of specieslevel needs is developed further based 

on general principles as they apply to 

lizard biology. 

Threats 

Deforestation 

Deforestation causes habitat loss that 

directly contributes to the decline of 

native reptile species in Indonesia 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 247 / Thursday, December 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 104955 

(Iskandar and Erdelen 2006, p. 72), and 

Indonesia has one of the highest 

deforestation rates in the world 

(Newman and Valentinus 2005, p. 1). 

Illegal logging is contributing to the 

decline of forested areas on Batanta 

(Webb 2005, p. 10; Newman and 

Valentinus 2005, p. 19; Takeuchi 2003, 

p. 105), and much of the island’s 

northern coast below 300 meters of 

elevation has already been logged (Webb 

2005, p. 25). Because blue tree monitors 

occupy low-lying forested habitats, this 

substantial logging of low-lying forests 

has resulted in significant habitat loss 

for the species. Deforestation not only 

directly removes blue tree monitor 

habitat, but it also increases the 

ecosystem’s vulnerability to 

catastrophic events such as fires, 

landslides, and floods (Newman and 

Valentinus 2005, p. 2). The blue tree 

monitor exists in a single population 

that is restricted in range to low-lying 

forested habitat within one small (455 

sq km (174.9 sq mi)) island, so 

deforestation places the species at even 

greater risk of extirpation due to 

stochastic and catastrophic events. 

Climate Change 

The Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change predicts that continued 

greenhouse gas emissions will likely 

increase global temperatures to 1.5 

degrees Celsius (°C) (2.7 degrees 

Fahrenheit (°F)) above pre-industrial 

levels by 2040, even under optimistic 

low-emissions scenarios (Lee et al. 2023, 

p. 12). Extreme wet and dry events in 

Indonesia are expected become more 

frequent (Kurniadi et al. 2024, p. 160), 

which will increase the likelihood of 

natural disasters, such as landslides 

(Ahmad et al. 2019, p. 2) and tropical 

cyclones (Christensen et al. 2007, p. 

879). Natural disasters ultimately 

exacerbate habitat loss, and each 

additional catastrophic event increases 

extirpation risk for the blue tree 

monitor. Considering the life history 

and biology of the blue tree monitor, 

habitat loss and climate change will 

continue to decrease the species’ 

viability because of the species’ 

specialized habitat requirements and 

narrow distribution. 

Collection for International Pet Trade 

Blue tree monitors are valuable on the 

international pet market, and collecting 

and selling them is a source of income 

for local residents on Batanta (Arida et 

al. 2021, pp. 112–115). Newly described 

species that are popular in the pet trade 

are often overcollected to the point that 

they become extirpated from their type 

locality (Stuart et al. 2006, p. 1137), and 

blue tree monitors are already 

undetectable or extirpated from Pulau 

Ayem, the collection site of the original 

type specimen (Del Canto 2013, p. 19; 

Arida et al. 2021, pp. 112–114). 

Furthermore, lizard hunters in Amdui 

Village have reported they now find 

fewer blue tree monitors during weeklong hunting sessions than they found 

historically, and they can no longer find 

the species within the vicinity of their 

village and must travel by boat to more 

remote areas of Batanta to collect the 

species (Arida et al. 2021, pp. 114–116). 

Despite the indication that 

overcollection likely is causing 

unsustainable population declines, the 

blue tree monitor continues to be 

heavily collected from the wild for the 

international pet trade (Arida et al. 

2021, pp. 114–115). 

It is illegal to export wild blue tree 

monitors from Indonesia (wild includes 

specimens taken from the wild and held 

in captivity, specimens born in captivity 

where the parents mated in the wild 

such as from fertilized eggs or gravid 

females collected from the wild, and 

any specimens for which there is 

insufficient evidence that the specimen 

meets the requirements for captive-bred 

or bred in captivity); however, it is legal 

to export individuals bred in captivity 

(CITES source code C) with a permit 

(see Conservation Efforts and Regulatory 

Mechanisms, below). This effectively 

creates a loophole through which wildcaught blue tree monitors enter 

international trade when they are 

deliberately mislabeled as captive-bred 

(Bennett 2015, p. 56). Many of the 

facilities in Indonesia that claim to 

engage in captive breeding of blue tree 

monitors possess only wild-caught blue 

tree monitors (Auliya 2009, as cited in 

Koch et al. 2013, pp. 27–28), and a large 

percentage of these institutions lack the 

capability to successfully breed reptiles 

(Nijman and Shepherd 2009, p. 7). 

While it is possible that a small captivebreeding population of blue tree 

monitors has been established in 

Indonesia, there is no evidence that any 

such captive population has the 

capacity to be self-sustaining. To be selfsustaining, a population must produce 

offspring of F2 (the second generation of 

offspring that results from breeding two 

members of the first filial generation) 

and subsequent generations, resulting 

from the breeding between parents that 

mated in captivity, and without 

continued introduction of wild caught 

specimens. There is no evidence to 

suggest that the individuals being 

exported out of the country are 

legitimately captive-bred, because 

captive reproduction in blue tree 

monitors is sporadic and claims of 

subsequent generations are rare 

(Rauhaus et al. 2014, as cited in Bennett 

2015, p. 56). Nevertheless, the majority 

of blue tree monitors exported out of 

Indonesia are declared bred in captivity 

even though they are likely sourced 

from the wild (Shepherd 2022, pp. 48– 

49; Bennett 2015, p. 56), and blue tree 

monitors that are legitimately bred in 

captivity represent less than 1 percent of 

worldwide trade (Bennett 2015, p. 50). 

This laundering of wild-caught lizards 

through captive-breeding facilities 

creates a false sense of sustainability. In 

reality, wild populations are declining 

(Janssen and Chng 2018, p. 24) and 

many monitor lizards do not survive 

long in captivity. 

Monitor lizards are often subject to 

stressful, unhygienic, and inhumane 

conditions along the trade route (Koch 

et al. 2013, p. 48), and many specimens 

are injured or die before they are 

exported from Indonesia (Natusch and 

Lyons 2012, p. 2902; Marshall and 

Beehler 2007, as cited in Koch et al. 

2013, p. 48). Those blue tree monitors 

that survive the trade route often do not 

survive long in captivity because tree 

monitors are particularly susceptible to 

chronic dehydration and require 

specialized care (Mendyk 2015, p. 10). 

Between 22.5 and 26.4 percent of 

monitor lizards die before their second 

year in captivity, regardless of the 

specimen’s origins (e.g., wild-caught or 

captive-born; Mendyk 2015, p. 3). 

Because monitor lizards have a high 

mortality rate along the trade route and 

in captivity, wild-caught blue tree 

monitors will likely continue to be 

illegally exported out of Indonesia to 

meet the demand of the international 

pet market. Illegal trade not only 

disguises the true number of blue tree 

monitors that are taken from the wild, 

it also contributes to the 

underestimation of individuals present 

in the international pet market. 

According to the Convention on 

International Trade in Endangered 

Species of Wild Fauna and Flora 

(CITES) Trade Database, between 2003 

and 2022, a total of 5,502 individual 

blue tree monitors were exported from 

Indonesia for commercial purposes 

(Service 2024, p. 12). The United States 

is the largest importer of blue tree 

monitors and imported 1,455 live blue 

tree monitors from 2003 to 2022, which 

accounts for approximately 45 percent 

of the 3,225 global importations 

reported by CITES (Service 2024, pp. 

11–13). In 2023, the Service’s Law 

Enforcement Management Information 

System (LEMIS) recorded the 

importation of 153 individual blue tree 

monitors, the largest annual importation 

total to date, and more than double the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
104956 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 247 / Thursday, December 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

yearly importation average prior to 

2023. LEMIS consistently underreports 

the number of blue tree monitors 

imported into the United States when 

compared to the CITES trade database 

(Service 2024, p. 13), and the CITES 

trade database underestimates 

international trade numbers (Sla ́bova ́ et 

al. 2021, p. 2), because some specimens 

that are not reported in the CITES trade 

database are sometimes found 

advertised for sale (Bennett 2015, p. 51). 

This suggests that the true number of 

blue tree monitors that were imported 

into the United States in 2023 is likely 

higher than the figure reported by 

LEMIS. 

Because reptile collectors often desire 

to keep rare and brightly colored species 

in their collection (Altherr and Lameter 

2020, p. 6), the market demand for blue 

tree monitors will likely remain high. 

Overcollection for the pet trade is 

known to cause extirpations in newly 

described reptile species (Stuart et al. 

2006, p. 1137). Overcollection 

represents an immediate threat to the 

blue tree monitor’s viability because 

unsustainable exploitation will likely 

lead to the species becoming a rarer and 

more valuable commodity on the pet 

market, and thus a more appealing 

target for collection (Janssen and 

Krishnasamy 2018, p. 2). The average 

declared value of individual blue tree 

monitors in LEMIS has steadily 

increased from approximately $300 in 

2003 to $540 in 2024 (U.S. dollars; 

Service 2024, p. 9), which is likely a 

reflection of the increasing rarity of the 

species, and the increasing demand for 

the species driving further pressure on 

the species in the wild. Ultimately, the 

unsustainable collection of blue tree 

monitors increases the species’ risk of 

extinction. 

Conservation Efforts and Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

The blue tree monitor is not listed as 

a protected species in Indonesia 

(Regulation of the Republic of Indonesia 

No. 7/1999 on Preserving Flora and 

Fauna Species). Indonesia may establish 

a harvest and export quota for 

specifically listed non-protected 

species, which would allow for a 

purposeful, sustainable harvest of a 

species that benefits the local economy 

and ensures the long-term conservation 

of the species (Regulation of the 

Minister of Forestry No. 447/Kpts-11/ 

2003). However, the blue tree monitor 

has no established harvest quota that 

allows for commercial trade, and, 

therefore, trade of wild-caught 

specimens is illegal under Indonesian 

law. Despite Indonesia having 

restrictions and guidelines in place to 

regulate the wildlife trade, few 

individuals abide by them (Natusch and 

Lyons 2012, p. 2905), and these laws 

and regulations are easily circumvented 

when trading protected species or 

species without commercial harvest 

quotas (Lyons and Natusch, 2011 p. 3; 

Natusch and Lyons, 2012 p. 2902). 

Indonesia has been party to CITES 

since 1979, and the trade of CITESlisted wildlife from Indonesia is 

internationally monitored and regulated 

(Nijman 2019, pp. 197–198). All 

Varanus lizards have been listed under 

CITES Appendix II since 1975 

(Shepherd 2022, p. 48). Under 

Indonesian law as a CITES Appendix-II 

species, it is illegal to export wildcaught specimens; however, individuals 

bred in captivity may be exported from 

Indonesia with a permit (Shepherd 

2022, p. 48; Nijman 2019, p. 198). The 

Indonesian government regulates 

captive breeding through a ‘‘captivebreeding production plan,’’ which 

calculates a quota of animals allowed to 

be produced by registered captivebreeding facilities and exported with a 

permit (Janssen and Chng 2018, p. 19). 

These production quotas are based on 

inaccurate or unrealistic biological 

parameters, and often exceed a species’ 

maximum possible reproductive output, 

or are allocated for species with no 

registered breeding stock (Janssen and 

Chng 2018, pp. 23–24). Furthermore, 

many registered companies claiming to 

be commercially breeding wildlife often 

lack facilities suitable for captive 

breeding, and there are often large 

discrepancies between reported 

breeding stock and the actual breeding 

stock present at these facilities (Nijman 

and Shepherd 2009, pp. 7–8). It is 

through this loophole that CITES 

regulations are circumvented in 

Indonesia, and wild-caught blue tree 

monitors are mislabeled as bred in 

captivity, exported from Indonesia 

through registered captive-breeding 

facilities, and enter the international pet 

trade (see Threats, above). 

Batanta has one protected area, Pulau 

Batanta Barat, that covers 170.95 sq km 

(66 sq mi), but it is unlikely that this 

area offers effective protection to blue 

tree monitors, because logging has been 

observed within the protected area 

(Newman and Valentinus 2005, p. 19; 

Takeuchi 2003, p. 105), and the laws 

protecting the area are not adhered to by 

locals or corporations (Koch 2016, p. 

40). 

Current Condition 

The best available scientific and 

commercial data indicate the blue tree 

monitor is a narrow endemic with low 

genetic diversity comprised of a single 

population that occupies one island 

with an area of approximately 455 sq 

km (174.9 sq mi) (Ziegler et al. 2009, p. 

122). While no quantitative population 

data are available to definitively assess 

the population status and population 

trends of the blue tree monitor (Bennett 

2015, p. 50), we are able to assess the 

resiliency of the species based on a 

multitude of factors. Ecological traits 

alone leave the blue tree monitor prone 

to extinction, because the risk of 

extinction is highest in monitor lizards 

that are arboreal, endemic to small 

islands, and associated with pristine 

tropical rainforest habitats (Koch et al. 

2013, p. 46). The blue tree monitor 

satisfies all three of these criteria, and 

the greatest threats to the species’ 

viability are habitat loss and 

overcollection for the pet trade. 

Much of the blue tree monitor’s 

limited habitat has already been lost due 

to deforestation, and illegal logging is 

expected to continue on Batanta due to 

the island’s remoteness and lack of legal 

enforcement (Webb 2005, p. 25; 

Newman and Valentinus 2005, p. 19; 

Takeuchi 2003, p. 105). Habitat loss 

reduces the amount of space that blue 

tree monitors are able to occupy, which 

leaves the population more vulnerable 

to catastrophic events (e.g., fire, 

landslides, floods; Newman and 

Valentinus 2005, p. 2), and habitat loss 

diminishes the resiliency of a 

population that is also declining 

because of overcollection for the pet 

trade (see Threats, above). Because blue 

tree monitors are a valuable commodity 

on the international pet market (Arida et 

al. 2021, pp. 112), and have a high 

mortality rate along the trade route and 

in captivity (Natusch and Lyons 2012, p. 

2902, Mendyk 2015, p. 3), it is likely 

that overcollection will continue, and 

together with habitat loss and other 

threats is likely to lead to the extirpation 

of the species if overcollection 

continues unabated (Janssen and 

Krishnasamy 2018, p. 2). Overcollection 

of newly described reptiles has 

previously resulted in their extirpation 

from type localities (Stuart et al. 2006, 

p. 1137), and this is already true for the 

blue tree monitor, as it is now 

undetectable or extirpated from its type 

locality (Del Canto 2013, p. 19; Arida et 

al. 2021, pp. 112–114). Furthermore, 

lizard hunters report that the remaining 

blue tree monitor population on Batanta 

is declining (Arida et al. 2021, pp. 114– 

116), and the species is becoming more 

valuable in the pet trade (Service 2024, 

p. 9), which is likely a reflection of their 

increasing rarity in the wild. The blue 

tree monitor has always been rare on 

Batanta (Philipp and Philipp 2007, p. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 247 / Thursday, December 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 104957 

867), and because the single remaining 

population is declining and occupies a 

narrow range, the species has low 

resiliency to adapt to and withstand 

environmental and demographic 

stochasticity. 

Species with high redundancy are less 

vulnerable to random catastrophic 

events because they have many 

populations that are geographically 

dispersed over a wide area. Because the 

blue tree monitor exists in a single 

population that is dispersed over an 

area that amounts to less than 455 sq km 

(174.9 sq mi) (Ziegler et al. 2009, p. 

122), the species is vulnerable to 

extinction caused by catastrophic events 

and, therefore, has low redundancy. 

Representation is improved in species 

with high genetic variability or that 

inhabit a wide range of ecological 

settings; both of these characteristics 

facilitate adaptation to future 

environmental changes, whether natural 

or anthropogenic. Blue tree monitors do 

not occupy a wide range of ecological 

settings and are restricted to low-lying, 

humid forests on a single island (Ziegler 

et al. 2009, p. 122; Del Canto 2013, p. 

19; Sprackland 2011, unpaginated). 

Climate change further threatens the 

viability of the single blue tree monitor 

population because an increased 

frequency of extreme dry events 

threatens to decrease ambient humidity 

(Kurniadi et al. 2024, p. 160), which 

may increase blue tree monitor 

mortality resulting from dehydration 

(Mendyk 2015, p. 10). Because the blue 

tree monitor only has one population 

that occupies a single narrow ecological 

setting and the species has a low 

capacity to adapt to future 

environmental changes, the species has 

low representation. 

We note that, by using the SSA 

framework to guide our analysis of the 

scientific information documented in 

the SSA report, we have analyzed the 

cumulative effects of identified threats 

and conservation actions on the species. 

To assess the current and future 

condition of the species, we evaluate the 

effects of all the relevant factors 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. 

Determination of Blue Tree Monitor’s 

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 

After evaluating threats to the species 

and assessing the cumulative effect of 

the threats under the Act’s section 

4(a)(1) factors, we determined that the 

blue tree monitor population has been 

reduced across its range because of the 

loss of its limited habitat and 

overcollection for the international pet 

trade. Because the blue tree monitor is 

threatened by overcollection for the 

international pet trade and only exists 

in a single population that is endemic 

to a small island that is threatened by 

historical and current habitat loss, the 

species is at increased risk of extirpation 

due to stochastic and catastrophic 

events, and is immediately at risk of 

extinction. The blue tree monitor 

currently maintains insufficient 

resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation for its continued 

existence to be secure. 

Thus, after assessing the best 

scientific and commercial data 

available, we determine that the blue 

tree monitor is in danger of extinction 

throughout all of its range. The species 

does not meet the statutory definition of 

a threatened species because it is 

currently in danger of extinction, 

whereas threatened species are those 

likely to become in danger of extinction 

within the foreseeable future. 

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 within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. We have 

determined that the blue tree monitor 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 blue 

tree monitor warrants listing as an 

endangered species throughout all of its 

range, our determination does not 

conflict with the decision in Center for 

Biological Diversity v. Everson, 435 F. 

Supp. 3d 69 (D.D.C. 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 

Based on the best scientific and 

commercial information available, we 

determine that the blue tree monitor 

meets the Act’s definition of an 

endangered species. Therefore, we 

propose to list the blue tree monitor as 

an endangered species in accordance 

with sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act. 

Available Conservation Measures 

The purposes of the Act are to provide 

a means whereby the ecosystems upon 

which endangered species and 

threatened species depend may be 

conserved, to provide a program for the 

conservation of such endangered 

species and threatened species, and to 

take such steps as may be appropriate to 

achieve the purposes of the treaties and 

conventions set forth in the Act. Under 

the Act, a number of steps are available 

to advance the conservation of species 

listed as endangered or threatened 

species. As explained further below, 

these conservation measures include: (1) 

recognition, (2) recovery actions, (3) 

requirements for Federal protection, (4) 

financial assistance for conservation 

programs, and (5) prohibitions against 

certain activities. 

Recognition through listing results in 

public awareness, as well as in 

conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, 

and local agencies, foreign governments, 

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. 

Section 7 of the Act is titled, 

‘‘Interagency Cooperation,’’ and it 

mandates all Federal action agencies to 

use their existing authorities to further 

the conservation purposes of the Act 

and to ensure that their actions are not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of listed species or adversely 

modify critical habitat. Regulations 

implementing section 7 are codified at 

50 CFR part 402. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
104958 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 247 / Thursday, December 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

Section 7(a)(2) states that each Federal 

action agency shall, in consultation with 

the Secretary, ensure that any action 

they authorize, fund, or carry out is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of a listed species or result in 

the destruction or adverse modification 

of designated critical habitat. 

A Federal ‘‘action’’ that is subject to 

the consultation provisions of section 

7(a)(2) of the Act is defined in our 

implementing regulations at 50 CFR 

402.02 as all activities or programs of 

any kind authorized, funded, or carried 

out, in whole or in part, by Federal 

agencies in the United States or upon 

the high seas. With respect to the blue 

tree monitor, no known actions would 

require consultation under section 

7(a)(2) of the Act. Given the regulatory 

definition of ‘‘action,’’ which clarifies 

that it applies to activities or programs 

‘‘in the United States or upon the high 

seas,’’ the blue tree monitor is unlikely 

to be the subject of section 7 

consultations, because the entire life 

cycle of this species occurs in terrestrial 

areas outside of the United States and 

the species is unlikely to be affected by 

U.S. Federal actions. Additionally, no 

critical habitat will be designated for 

this species because, under 50 CFR 

424.12(g), we will not designate critical 

habitat within foreign countries or in 

other areas outside of the jurisdiction of 

the United States. 

Section 8(a) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 

1537(a)) authorizes the provision of 

limited financial assistance for the 

development and management of 

programs that the Secretary of the 

Interior determines to be necessary or 

useful for the conservation of 

endangered or threatened species in 

foreign countries. Sections 8(b) and 8(c) 

of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1537(b) and (c)) 

authorize the Secretary to encourage 

conservation programs for foreign listed 

species, and to provide assistance for 

such programs, in the form of personnel 

and the training of personnel. 

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, and the 

Service’s implementing regulations 

codified at 50 CFR 17.21, make it illegal 

for any person subject to the jurisdiction 

of the United States to commit, to 

attempt to commit, to solicit another to 

commit, or to cause to be committed any 

of the following acts with regard to any 

endangered wildlife: (1) import into, or 

export from, the United States; (2) take 

(which includes harass, harm, pursue, 

hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, 

or collect, or to attempt to engage in any 

such conduct) within the United States, 

within the territorial sea of the United 

States, or on the high seas; (3) possess, 

sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship, by 

any means whatsoever, any such 

wildlife that has been taken illegally; (4) 

deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship 

in interstate or foreign commerce, by 

any means whatsoever and in the course 

of commercial activity; or (5) sell or 

offer for sale in interstate or foreign 

commerce. Certain exceptions to these 

prohibitions apply to employees or 

agents 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 for endangered 

wildlife are codified at 50 CFR 17.22, 

and general Service permitting 

regulations are codified at 50 CFR part 

13. With regard to endangered wildlife, 

a permit may be issued: for scientific 

purposes, for enhancing the propagation 

or survival of the species, or for take 

incidental to otherwise lawful activities. 

The statute also contains certain 

exemptions from the prohibitions, 

which are found in sections 9 and 10 of 

the Act. 

The Service may also register persons 

subject to the jurisdiction of the United 

States through its captive-bred wildlife 

(CBW) program if certain established 

requirements are met under the CBW 

regulations (see 50 CFR 17.21(g)). 

Through a CBW registration, the Service 

may allow a registrant to conduct 

certain otherwise prohibited activities 

under certain circumstances to enhance 

the propagation or survival of the 

affected species, including take; export 

or re-import; delivery, receipt, carriage, 

transport, or shipment in interstate or 

foreign commerce in the course of a 

commercial activity; or sale or offer for 

sale in interstate or foreign commerce. A 

CBW registration may authorize 

interstate purchase and sale only 

between entities that both hold a 

registration for the taxon concerned. 

The CBW program is available for 

species having a natural geographic 

distribution not including any part of 

the United States and other species that 

the Service Director has determined to 

be eligible by regulation. The individual 

specimens must have been born in 

captivity in the United States. 

The provisions in section 9(b)(1) of 

the Act (16 U.S.C. 1538(b)(1)) provide a 

limited exemption from certain 

otherwise prohibited activities regarding 

wildlife specimens held in captivity or 

in a controlled environment on the preAct date (for species first listed after the 

enactment of the Endangered Species 

Act, the pre-Act date is the date of 

publication in the Federal Register of 

the final regulation adding such species 

to the List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife for the first time), 

provided that such holding and any 

subsequent holding or use of the 

wildlife was not in the course of a 

commercial activity (commonly referred 

to as ‘‘pre-Act’’ specimens) (96 Stat. 

1426–27 (1982); H.R. Rep. No. 97–835, 

97th Cong., 2nd Sess., at 35 (1982) 

(Conf. Rep.); S. Rep. No. 97–418, 97th 

Cong., 2nd Sess., at 24–25 (1982)). 

Specifically, section 9(b)(1) of the Act 

states that the prohibitions of sections 

9(a)(1)(A) and 9(a)(1)(G) shall not apply 

to any fish or wildlife which was held 

in captivity or in a controlled 

environment on (A) December 28, 1973, 

or (B) the date of the publication in the 

Federal Register of a final regulation 

adding such fish or wildlife to any list 

of species published pursuant to section 

4(c) of the Act (as relevant to listed 

wildlife, the List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife at 50 CFR 17.11(h)) 

that such holding and any subsequent 

holding or use of the fish or wildlife was 

not in the course of a commercial 

activity. 

Therefore, for pre-Act wildlife, there 

is a limited exemption from the 

prohibitions associated with: (1) import 

into, or export from, the United States 

of any endangered wildlife, or (2) 

violation of regulations pertaining to 

endangered or threatened wildlife. 

Other prohibitions of section 9— 

including those at section 9(a)(1)(B)–(F), 

regarding take of endangered wildlife, 

possession and other acts with 

unlawfully taken wildlife, interstate or 

foreign commerce in endangered 

wildlife, and sale or offer for sale of 

endangered wildlife—continue to apply 

to activities with qualifying endangered 

pre-Act wildlife specimens. Specimens 

born after the pre-Act date and 

specimens taken from the wild after the 

pre-Act date do not qualify as ‘‘pre-Act’’ 

wildlife under the text of section 9(b)(1) 

of the Act. If a person engages in any 

commercial activity with a ‘‘pre-Act’’ 

specimen on or after the pre-Act date, 

the wildlife would immediately cease to 

qualify as pre-Act wildlife and become 

subject to the relevant prohibitions, 

because it has been held or used in the 

course of a commercial activity. 

Additional requirements apply to 

activities with all blue tree monitors, 

separate from their listing or proposed 

listing as an endangered species or 

threatened species. As a CITES-listed 

species, all international trade of any 

blue tree monitor by persons subject to 

the jurisdiction of the United States 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 247 / Thursday, December 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 104959 

must also comply with CITES 

requirements pursuant to section 9, 

paragraphs (c) and (g), of the Act (16 

U.S.C. 1538(c) and (g)) and to 50 CFR 

part 23. As ‘‘fish or wildlife’’ (16 U.S.C. 

1532(8)), blue tree monitor imports and 

exports must also meet applicable 

wildlife import/export requirements 

established under section 9, paragraphs 

(d), (e), and (f), of the Act (16 U.S.C. 

1538(d), (e), and (f)); the Lacey Act 

Amendments of 1981 (16 U.S.C. 3371 et 

seq.); and 50 CFR part 14. Questions 

regarding whether specific activities 

with blue tree monitor would constitute 

a violation of section 9 of the Act should 

be directed to the Service’s Division of 

Management Authority 

(managementauthority@fws.gov; 703– 

358–2104). 

Related Temporary Emergency Listing 

Published concurrently in the Rules 

and Regulations section of this issue of 

the Federal Register, we are exercising 

our authority pursuant to section 4(b)(7) 

of the Act to emergency list for 240 days 

the blue tree monitor (Varanus macraei) 

as an endangered species due to the 

imminent risk of extinction resulting 

from habitat loss and overcollection for 

the pet trade. For the reasons discussed 

in the preamble of that temporary rule 

and in this proposed rule, we propose 

in this document to make the emergency 

listing permanent. Please refer to the 

Regulation Promulgation section of the 

temporary rule for the amendment to 

add the blue tree monitor to the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife at 

50 CFR 17.11(h) that we are proposing 

to make permanent in this document. 

Required Determinations 

Clarity of the Rule 

We are required by E.O.s 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 (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). 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited in 

this proposed rulemaking is available on 

the internet at https://

www.regulations.gov and upon request 

from the Branch of Delisting and 

Foreign Species (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this proposed 

rule are the staff members of the Fish 

and Wildlife Service’s Species 

Assessment Team and the Branch of 

Delisting and Foreign Species. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Plants, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation, Wildlife. 

Authority 

The authority for this action is the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

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

Signing Authority 

Martha Williams, Director of the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, approved this 

action on December 3, 2024. Acting 

Director Steve Guertin approved these 

packages December 15, 2024. On 

December 16, 2024, the acting Director 

authorized the undersigned to sign the 

document electronically and submit it 

to the Office of the Federal Register for 

publication as an official document of 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Madonna Baucum, 

Regulations and Policy Chief, Division of 

Policy, Economics, Risk Management, and 

Analytics of the Joint Administrative 

Operations, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2024–30376 Filed 12–23–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 300 

[Docket No. 241216–0328] 

RIN 0648–BN41 

Pacific Halibut Fisheries of the West 

Coast; 2025 Catch Sharing Plan and 

Recreational Fishery Management 

Measures 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes to approve 

changes to the Pacific Halibut Catch 

Sharing Plan for the International 

Pacific Halibut Commission’s regulatory 

Area 2A off Washington, Oregon, and 

California. In addition, NMFS proposes 

to implement new management 

measures for the 2025 recreational 

fisheries in Area 2A that are not 

implemented through the International 

Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC). 

These measures include the recreational 

fishery seasons and subarea allocations 

for Area 2A. This action would also add 

a new inseason management provision 

to transfer anticipated uncaught 

recreational fishery allocation from the 

Northern California subarea to the South 

of Point Arena subarea. These actions 

are intended to conserve Pacific halibut 

and provide angler opportunity where 

available. 

DATES: Comments on the proposed rule 

must be received on or before January 

27, 2025. 

ADDRESSES: A plain language summary 

of this proposed rule is available at 

https://www.regulations.gov/docket/ 

NMFS-2024-0139. You may submit 

comments on this document, identified 

by NOAA–NMFS–2024–0139, by either 

of the following methods: 

• Electronic Submission: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Visit 

https://www.regulations.gov and type 

NOAA–NMFS–2024–0139 in the Search 

box. Click on the ‘‘Comment’’ icon, 

complete the required fields, and enter 

or attach your comments. 

• Mail: Submit written comments to 

Jennifer Quan, Regional Administrator, 

c/o Melissa Mandrup, West Coast 

Region, NMFS, 501 W Ocean Blvd., 

Long Beach, CA 90802. 

Instructions: Comments sent by any 

other method, to any other address or 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1