Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Proposed Rules 1419 

(5) Such other matters as justice may 

require; and 

(6) Whether a recipient provided 

service described in a cease and desist 

order after issuance of such order by the 

Chief Counsel. 

(c) The Chief Counsel office may 

mitigate the remedy when the recipient 

can document corrective action of 

alleged violation. The Chief Counsel’s 

decision to mitigate a remedy shall be 

determined on the basis of how much 

corrective action was taken by the 

recipient and when it was taken. 

Systemic action to prevent future 

violations will be given greater 

consideration than action simply to 

remedy violations identified during 

FTA’s inspection or identified in a 

complaint. 

(d) In the event the Chief Counsel 

finds a pattern of violations, the remedy 

ordered shall bar a recipient from 

receiving Federal transit assistance in an 

amount that the Chief Counsel considers 

appropriate. 

(e) The Chief Counsel may make a 

decision to withhold Federal financial 

assistance in a lump sum or over a 

period of time not to exceed five years. 

Subpart J—Appeal to Administrator 

and Final Agency Orders 

§ 604.48 Appeal from Chief Counsel 

decision. 

(a) Each party adversely affected by 

the Chief Counsel’s office decision may 

file an appeal with the Administrator 

within 21 days of the date of the Chief 

Counsel’s issued his or her decision. 

Each party may file a reply to an appeal 

within 21 days after it is served on the 

party. Filing and service of appeals and 

replies shall be by personal delivery 

consistent with §§ 604.30 and 604.31. 

(b) If an appeal is filed, the 

Administrator reviews the entire record 

and issues a final agency decision based 

on the record that either accepts, rejects, 

or modifies the Chief Counsel’s decision 

within 30 days of the due date of the 

reply. If no appeal is filed, the 

Administrator may take review of the 

case on his or her own motion. If the 

Administrator finds that the respondent 

is not in compliance with this part, the 

final agency order shall include a 

statement of corrective action, if 

appropriate, and identify remedies. 

(c) If no appeal is filed, and the 

Administrator does not take review of 

the decision by the office on the 

Administrator’s own motion, the Chief 

Counsel’s decision shall take effect as 

the final agency decision and order on 

the twenty-first day after the actual date 

the Chief Counsel’s decision was issued. 

(d) The failure to file an appeal is 

deemed a waiver of any rights to seek 

judicial review of the Chief Counsel’s 

decision that becomes a final agency 

decision by operation of paragraph (c) of 

this section. 

§ 604.49 Administrator’s discretionary 

review of the Chief Counsel’s decision. 

(a) If the Administrator takes review 

on the Administrator’s own motion, the 

Administrator shall issue a notice of 

review by the twenty-first day after the 

actual date of the Chief Counsel’s 

decision that contains the specific 

findings of fact and conclusions of law 

in the decision subject to review by the 

Administrator. 

(b) Parties may file one brief on 

review to the Administrator or rely on 

their post-hearing briefs to the Chief 

Counsel’s office. Briefs on review shall 

be filed not later than 10 days after 

service of the notice of review. Filing 

and service of briefs on review shall be 

by personal delivery consistent with 

§§ 604.30 and 604.31. 

(c) The Administrator shall issue a 

final agency decision and order within 

30 days of the due date of the briefs on 

review. If the Administrator finds that 

the respondent is not in compliance 

with this part, the final agency order 

shall include a statement of corrective 

action, if appropriate, and identify 

remedies. 

(d) If the Administrator takes review 

on the Administrator’s own motion, the 

decision of the Chief Counsel is stayed 

pending a final decision by the 

Administrator. 

Subpart K—Judicial Review 

§ 604.50 Judicial review of a final decision 

and order. 

(a) A person may seek judicial review 

in an appropriate United States District 

Court of a final decision and order of the 

Administrator as provided in 5 U.S.C. 

701–706. A party seeking judicial 

review of a final decision and order 

shall file a petition for review with the 

Court not later than 60 days after a final 

decision and order is effective. 

(b) The following do not constitute 

final decisions and orders subject to 

judicial review: 

(1) FTA’s decision to dismiss a 

complaint as set forth in § 604.29; 

(2) A recommended decision issued 

by a PO at the conclusion of a hearing; 

or 

(3) A Chief Counsel decision that 

becomes the final decision of the 

Administrator because it was not 

appealed within the stated timeframes. 

[FR Doc. 2024–30970 Filed 1–7–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–57–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–HQ–ES–2024–0187; 

FXES1113090FEDR–256–FF09E21000] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 90-Day Finding on Two 

Petitions for Gray Wolf 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notification of petition finding. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 

90-day finding on two concurrently 

filed companion petitions to revise the 

currently listed gray wolf (Canis lupus) 

entities under the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973, as amended (Act or ESA). 

Together, the petitions requested that 

the Service: designate and delist a 

Western Great Lakes (WGL) distinct 

population segment (DPS) of gray wolf 

due to recovery; and designate a West 

Coast States DPS of gray wolf and list it 

as a threatened species, and potentially 

delist the remnant areas of the gray wolf 

entity in the lower 48 States due to 

extinction. Based on our review, we find 

that the petitions do not present 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating that the 

petitioned actions may be warranted. 

DATES: This finding was made on 

January 8, 2025. 

ADDRESSES: Supporting documents: A 

summary of the basis for the petition 

finding contained in this document is 

available on https://

www.regulations.gov in Docket No. 

FWS–HQ–ES–2024–0187. In addition, 

this supporting information is available 

by contacting the appropriate person, as 

specified in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Rachel London, Manager, Branch of 

Delisting and Foreign Species, 

Ecological Services Headquarters; 

telephone: 703–358–2491; email: 

rachel_london@fws.gov. Individuals in 

the United States who are deaf, 

deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a 

speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, 

TDD, or TeleBraille) to access 

telecommunications relay services. 

Individuals outside the United States 

should use the relay services offered 

within their country to make 

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
1420 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

Background 

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

and its implementing regulations in title 

50 of the Code of Federal Regulations 

(50 CFR part 424) set forth the 

procedures for adding species to, 

removing species from, or reclassifying 

species on the Federal Lists of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants (Lists or List) in 50 CFR part 

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

that we make a finding on whether a 

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

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

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

change a listed species’ status from 

endangered to threatened or from 

threatened to endangered (i.e., 

‘‘reclassify’’ a species) presents 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating that the 

petitioned action may be warranted. To 

the maximum extent practicable, we are 

to make this finding within 90 days of 

our receipt of the petition and publish 

the finding promptly in the Federal 

Register. 

Our regulations establish that 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information with regard to a 90-day 

petition finding refers to credible 

scientific or commercial information in 

support of the petition’s claims such 

that a reasonable person conducting an 

impartial scientific review would 

conclude that the action proposed in the 

petition may be warranted (50 CFR 

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

petition finding does not indicate that 

the petitioned action is warranted; the 

finding indicates only that the 

petitioned action may be warranted and 

that a full review should occur. 

When evaluating a petition, we must 

also consider whether the petitioned 

entity may be a listable entity under the 

Act, i.e., a species, a subspecies, or a 

potential distinct population segment 

(DPS) of a vertebrate species or 

subspecies. The evaluation of the 

taxonomic status of a species or 

subspecies or the validity of a potential 

DPS centers on whether the information 

presented in the petition reaches the 

substantial information threshold. It is 

not within our purview to determine 

taxonomic status or DPS validity in a 

90-day petition evaluation; rather, we 

evaluate information submitted by the 

petitioners to determine whether the 

information indicates the petitioned 

entity may be a listable entity under the 

Act. We will not expand the scope of 

our evaluation beyond the petitioned 

entities, including various combinations 

of DPSs. 

A species may be determined to be an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species because of one or more of the 

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

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

five factors are: 

(a) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range 

(Factor A); 

(b) Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes (Factor B); 

(c) Disease or predation (Factor C); 

(d) The inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms (Factor D); and 

(e) Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence (Factor 

E). 

These factors represent broad categories 

of natural or human-caused actions or 

conditions that could have an effect on 

a species’ continued existence. In 

evaluating these actions and conditions, 

we look for those that may have a 

negative effect on individuals of the 

species, as well as other actions or 

conditions that may ameliorate any 

negative effects or may have positive 

effects. 

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

general to actions or conditions that are 

known to, or are reasonably likely to, 

affect individuals of a species 

negatively. The term ‘‘threat’’ includes 

actions or conditions that have a direct 

impact on individuals (direct impacts), 

as well as those that affect individuals 

through alteration of their habitat or 

required resources (stressors). The term 

‘‘threat’’ may encompass—either 

together or separately—the source of the 

action or condition, or the action or 

condition itself. However, the mere 

identification of any threat(s) may not 

be sufficient to compel a finding that the 

information in the petition is substantial 

information indicating that the 

petitioned action may be warranted. The 

information presented in the petition 

must include evidence sufficient to 

suggest that these threats may be 

affecting the species to the point that the 

species may meet the definition of an 

endangered species or threatened 

species under the Act. 

If we find that a petition presents 

such information, our subsequent status 

review will evaluate all identified 

threats by considering the individual-, 

population-, and species-level effects 

and the expected response by the 

species. We will evaluate individual 

threats and their expected effects on the 

species, then analyze the cumulative 

effect of the threats on the species as a 

whole. We also consider the cumulative 

effect of the threats in light of those 

actions and conditions that are expected 

to have positive effects on the species— 

such as any existing regulatory 

mechanisms or conservation efforts that 

may ameliorate threats. It is only after 

conducting this cumulative analysis of 

threats and the actions that may 

ameliorate them, and the expected effect 

on the species now and in the 

foreseeable future, that we can 

determine whether the species meets 

the definition of an endangered species 

or threatened species under the Act. 

If we find that a petition presents 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating that the 

petitioned action may be warranted, the 

Act requires that we promptly 

commence a review of the status of the 

species, and we will subsequently 

complete a status review in accordance 

with our prioritization methodology for 

12-month findings (81 FR 49248; July 

27, 2016). 

Summary of Petition Finding 

Species and Range 

Currently Listed Entities 

• Gray wolf (Canis lupus) is listed as 

endangered in all or portions of 43 of 

the contiguous United States (all of 

Alabama, Arkansas, California, 

Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, 

Iowa, Indiana, Illinois, Kansas, 

Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, 

Maryland, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, 

Mississippi, North Carolina, North 

Dakota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New 

Jersey, Nevada, New York, Ohio, 

Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, 

South Carolina, South Dakota, 

Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Vermont, 

Wisconsin, and West Virginia; and 

portions of Arizona, New Mexico, 

Oregon, Utah, and Washington) and 

Mexico. This entity also includes a 

designated nonessential experimental 

population in Colorado. 

• Gray wolf (Canis lupus) is listed as 

threatened in Minnesota. 

Petitioned Actions for Revising the 

Currently Listed Entities 

Petitioners asked us to revise the 

currently listed gray wolf entities by 

splitting and/or combining the current 

listings for gray wolf into one or more 

DPSs and a non-DPS remnant 

(Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation et al. 

2023b, pp. 25–26, footnote 52). 

Evaluation of Information Summary 

On June 29, 2023, we received two 

concurrently filed ‘‘companion’’ 

petitions from the Sportsmen’s Alliance 

Foundation, Michigan Bear Hunters 

Association, Upper Peninsula Bear 

Houndsmen Association, and Wisconsin 

Bear Hunters Association (petitioners). 

Petitioners urged us to consider their 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Proposed Rules 1421 

petitions simultaneously (Sportsmen’s 

Alliance Foundation et al. 2023a, p. 34). 

In one petition, petitioners asked us to 

designate a Western Great Lakes (WGL) 

DPS of gray wolf and remove that 

petitioned DPS from the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

because the DPS does not meet the Act’s 

definition of an endangered or 

threatened species (Sportsmen’s 

Alliance Foundation et al. 2023a, 

entire). Petitioners also presented claims 

related to currently listed gray wolves 

outside of the Western Great Lakes, and 

provided two suggestions for how the 

Service should address these wolves. 

First, petitioners stated that the nonDPS remnant is a listable entity that 

would be entitled to the continued 

protections of the Act (Sportsmen’s 

Alliance Foundation et al. 2023a, p. 35) 

(‘‘The circumstances here warrant 

continuing protections for remnant 

wolves in the original Lower 48 wolf 

listing through a non-DPS remnant 

listing.’’). Alternatively, they suggested 

that the Service could adopt the 

approach in their companion petition 

and protect West Coast wolves as a DPS 

(Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation et al. 

2023a, p. 36) (‘‘Alternatively, even if the 

Service does not continue a ‘‘non-DPS 

remnant’’ listing under the original 

Lower 48 listing, delisting the WGL DPS 

will not result in the elimination of 

protections for the remnant population 

because the remnant West Coast 

[w]olves satisfy the criteria to be listed 

as a DPS if ESA protections are 

warranted.’’). 

In their companion petition, 

petitioners proposed two specific 

actions for addressing listed gray wolves 

in the lower 48 States outside of the 

petitioned WGL DPS: (1) recognize a 

non-DPS remnant and continue 

endangered species protections for the 

non-DPS remnant; and (2) recognize a 

West Coast DPS of gray wolf and 

reclassify the petitioned DPS from an 

endangered species to a threatened 

species under the Act (Sportsmen’s 

Alliance Foundation et al. 2023b, 

entire). Petitioners did not ask the 

Service to assign any specific status to 

the remainder of the listed entity if the 

second action is implemented, but they 

suggested that we might delist all the 

remnant areas not included within the 

two petitioned DPSs due to extinction. 

Finally, petitioners clarified that we 

should take one, or preferably both, 

actions concurrent with recognizing and 

delisting a WGL DPS. 

Each petition clearly identified itself 

as such and included the requisite 

identification information for the 

petitioners, required at 50 CFR 

424.14(c). As requested by the 

petitioners, we are evaluating their 

petitions jointly and this finding 

addresses both petitions. 

Finding 

Based on our review of the petitions, 

sources cited in the petitions, and other 

readily available information (within 

the constraints of the Act and 50 CFR 

424.14(h)(1)), we find that the petitions 

do not provide substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

the petitioned actions may be 

warranted. The petitioners failed to 

present substantial information for us to 

conclude that the petitions, considered 

together, provide a valid approach for 

revising the current gray wolf (Canis 

lupus) listed entities. As requested by 

petitioners, we have considered these 

petitions jointly. Based on our review of 

the petitions, we find that petitioners 

provide substantial information that the 

Western Great Lakes population of gray 

wolf may qualify as a valid DPS under 

the Act. However, we find that the 

petitions do not provide substantial 

information supporting the petitioned 

action with respect to gray wolves 

outside of the Western Great Lakes. 

They fail to provide substantial 

scientific or commercial information 

indicating that a gray wolf remnant in 

the lower 48 States or a West Coast gray 

wolf population may constitute a valid 

listable entity under the Act. Thus, we 

do not further consider whether revising 

the currently listed gray wolf entities to 

recognize a Western Great Lakes DPS 

and delist it due to recovery may be 

warranted. The basis for our finding on 

these petitions and other information 

regarding our review of the petitions can 

be found as an appendix at https://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–HQ–ES–2024–0187 under the 

Supporting Documents section. 

Conclusion 

On the basis of our evaluation of the 

information presented in the petitions 

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

have determined that the petitions 

summarized above for the gray wolf do 

not present substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

the petitioned actions may be 

warranted. Therefore, we will not 

further consider whether the petitioned 

revisions to the currently listed gray 

wolf entities are warranted. 

Authors 

The primary authors of this document 

are staff members of the Branch of 

Delisting and Foreign Species, 

Ecological Services Program, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 

Authority 

The authority for this action is the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

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

Stephen Guertin, 

Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2024–31754 Filed 1–7–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2024–0041; 

FXES1111090FEDR–256–FF09E21000] RIN 

1018–BH49 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Endangered Species 

Status for the Bleached Sandhill 

Skipper 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 

list the bleached sandhill skipper 

(Polites sabuleti sinemaculata), an 

insect subspecies from Humboldt 

County, Nevada, 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 

bleached sandhill skipper. After a 

review of the best available scientific 

and commercial information, we find 

that listing the subspecies is warranted. 

Accordingly, we propose to list the 

bleached sandhill skipper as an 

endangered species under the Act. If we 

finalize this rule as proposed, the final 

rule would add this subspecies to the 

List of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife and extend the Act’s 

protections to the subspecies. We find 

that a designation of critical habitat for 

the bleached sandhill skipper is not 

determinable at this time. 

DATES: We will accept comments 

received or postmarked on or before 

March 10, 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 24, 

2025. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by one of the following methods: 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1