40172 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 6, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

under the ADDRESSES heading. The 

Treasury Department and the IRS 

request comments on all aspects of the 

proposed rules. Any electronic 

comments submitted, and to the extent 

practicable any paper comments 

submitted, will be made available at 

www.regulations.gov or upon request. 

A public hearing will be scheduled if 

requested in writing by any person that 

timely submits electronic or written 

comments. Requests for a public hearing 

are also encouraged to be made 

electronically by sending an email to 

publichearings@irs.gov. If a public 

hearing is scheduled, notice of the date 

and time for the public hearing will be 

published in the Federal Register. 

Announcement 2020–4, 2020–17 

I.R.B. 667 (April 20, 2020), provides that 

until further notice, public hearings 

conducted by the IRS will be held 

telephonically. Any telephonic hearing 

will be made accessible to people with 

disabilities. 

Drafting Information 

The principal authors of these 

regulations are D. Peter Merkel and 

Karen Walny of the Office of Chief 

Counsel (International). However, other 

personnel from the Treasury 

Department and the IRS participated in 

their development. 

List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1 

Income taxes, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Proposed Amendments to the 

Regulations 

Accordingly, the Treasury Department 

and the IRS propose to amend 26 CFR 

part 1 as follows: 

PART 1—INCOME TAXES 

■ Paragraph 1. The authority citation 

for part 1 is amended by adding an entry 

in numerical order to read in part as 

follows: 

Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * * 

* * * * * 

Section 1.1256(g)–2 also issued under 26 

U.S.C. 1256(g)(2)(B). 

* * * * * 

■ Par. 2. Section 1.1256(g)–2 is added to 

read as follows: 

§ 1.1256(g)–2 Foreign currency contract 

defined. 

(a) Foreign currency contract. For 

purposes of section 1256, the term 

foreign currency contract means a 

forward contract that— 

(1) Requires delivery of, or the 

settlement of which depends on the 

value of, a foreign currency that is a 

currency in which positions are also 

traded through regulated futures 

contracts; 

(2) Is traded in the interbank market; 

and 

(3) Is entered into at arm’s length at 

a price determined by reference to the 

price in the interbank market. 

(b) Applicability date. This section 

applies to contracts entered into on or 

after [date 30 days after date of 

publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register]. 

Paul J. Mamo, 

Acting Deputy Commissioner for Services and 

Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. 2022–14318 Filed 7–5–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[FF09E21000 FXES1111090FEDR 223] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Three Species Not 

Warranted for Listing as Endangered 

or Threatened Species 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notification of findings. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce 

findings that three species are not 

warranted for listing as endangered or 

threatened species under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). After a thorough review 

of the best available scientific and 

commercial information, we find that it 

is not warranted at this time to list the 

evening fieldslug (Deroceras 

hesperium), Mammoth Spring crayfish 

(Faxonius marchandi), and Weber’s 

Whitlow grass (Draba weberi). However, 

we ask the public to submit to us at any 

time any new information relevant to 

the status of any of the species 

mentioned above or their habitats. 

DATES: The findings in this document 

were made on July 6, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: Detailed descriptions of the 

bases for these findings are available on 

the internet at https://

www.regulations.gov under the 

following docket numbers: 

Species Docket No. 

Evening fieldslug ............................................................................................................................................................. FWS–R1–ES–2022–0058 

Mammoth Spring crayfish ............................................................................................................................................... FWS–R3–ES–2022–0059 

Weber’s Whitlow grass ................................................................................................................................................... FWS–R6–ES–2022–0060 

Those descriptions are also available 

by contacting the appropriate person as 

specified under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. Please submit any 

new information, materials, comments, 

or questions concerning this finding to 

the appropriate person, as specified 

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Species Contact information 

Evening fieldslug ................................................. Brad Thompson, Field Supervisor, Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, brad_thompson@

fws.gov, (360)–753–9440. 

Mammoth Spring crayfish ................................... Karen Herrington, Field Supervisor, Missouri Ecological Services Field Office, 

karen_herrington@fws.gov, (573)–234–2132. 

Weber’s Whitlow grass ........................................ Ann Timberman, Field Supervisor, Colorado Field Office, ann_timberman@fws.gov, (970)– 

ndash;7181. 

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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 6, 2022 / Proposed Rules 40173 

should use the relay services offered 

within their country to make 

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Under section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), we are required to 

make a finding on whether or not a 

petitioned action is warranted within 12 

months after receiving any petition for 

which we have determined contains 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating that the 

petitioned action may be warranted 

(‘‘12-month finding’’). We must make a 

finding that the petitioned action is: (1) 

Not warranted; (2) warranted; or (3) 

warranted, but precluded by other 

listing activity. We must publish a 

notification of these 12-month findings 

in the Federal Register. 

Summary of Information Pertaining to 

the Five Factors 

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

and the implementing regulations at 

part 424 of title 50 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (50 CFR part 424) 

set forth procedures for adding species 

to, removing species from, or 

reclassifying species on the Lists of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants (Lists). The Act defines 

‘‘species’’ as including any subspecies 

of fish or wildlife or plants, and any 

distinct population segment of any 

species of vertebrate fish or wildlife 

which interbreeds when mature (16 

U.S.C. 1532(16)). The Act defines 

‘‘endangered species’’ as any species 

that is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range (16 U.S.C. 1532(6)), and 

‘‘threatened species’’ as any species that 

is likely to become an endangered 

species within the foreseeable future 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range (16 U.S.C. 1532(20)). Under 

section 4(a)(1) of the Act, a species may 

be determined to be an endangered 

species or a threatened species because 

of any of the following five 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 Act’s 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. 

In conducting our evaluation of the 

five factors provided in section 4(a)(1) of 

the Act to determine whether the 

Mammoth Spring crayfish meets the 

Act’s definition of ‘‘endangered species’’ 

or ‘‘threatened species,’’ we considered 

and thoroughly evaluated the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available regarding the past, present, 

and future stressors and threats. In 

conducting our evaluation of the 

evening fieldslug and Weber’s Whitlow 

grass, we determined that these species 

do not meet the definition of a ‘‘species’’ 

under the Act, and, as a result, we 

conclude that they are not listable 

entities. We reviewed the petitions, 

information available in our files, and 

other available published and 

unpublished information for all of these 

species. Our evaluation may include 

information from recognized experts; 

Federal, State, and Tribal governments; 

academic institutions; foreign 

governments; private entities; and other 

members of the public. 

The species assessment form for the 

Mammoth Springs crayfish contains 

more detailed biological information, a 

thorough analysis of the listing factors, 

a list of literature cited, and an 

explanation of why we determined that 

this species does not meet the Act’s 

definition of an ‘‘endangered species’’ or 

a ‘‘threatened species.’’ A thorough 

review of the taxonomy, life history, and 

ecology of the Mammoth Spring crayfish 

is presented in the species’ species 

status assessment (SSA) report. The 

species assessment forms for the 

evening fieldslug and Weber’s Whitlow 

grass contain more detailed taxonomic 

information, a list of literature cited, 

and an explanation of why we 

determined that these species do not 

meet the Act’s definition of a ‘‘species.’’ 

This supporting information can be 

found on the internet at https://

www.regulations.gov under the 

appropriate docket number (see 

ADDRESSES, above). The following are 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
40174 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 6, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

informational summaries of the findings 

in this document. 

Evening Fieldslug 

Previous Federal Actions 

On March 17, 2008, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service) received a 

petition from the Center for Biological 

Diversity (CBD), Conservation 

Northwest, the Environmental 

Protection Information Center, the 

Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center, 

and Oregon Wild, requesting that the 

Service list 32 species and subspecies of 

mollusks in the Pacific Northwest, 

including the evening fieldslug 

(Deroceras hesperium), as endangered 

or threatened species under the Act. The 

petition also requested that the Service 

designate critical habitat concurrent 

with listing. In an April 13, 2009, email, 

CBD requested that the petition be 

amended to include only 29 species and 

subspecies, due to taxonomic revisions. 

The request was treated as an 

amendment to the original petition. In a 

90-day finding published in the Federal 

Register on October 5, 2011 (76 FR 

61826), the Service found that the 

petition presented substantial scientific 

or commercial information indicating 

that 26 of the 29 petitioned species or 

subspecies, including evening fieldslug, 

may be warranted for listing. This 

document constitutes our 12-month 

finding on the March 17, 2008, petition 

to list evening fieldslug under the Act. 

Summary of Finding 

We have carefully assessed the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available regarding the evening fieldslug 

and evaluated the petitioners’ claim that 

the species warrants listing under the 

Act. Subsequent to the 90-day finding, 

a genetic and morphometric analysis 

demonstrated that the evening fieldslug 

is not a unique species but is 

synonymous with the meadow fieldslug 

(D. laeve), a common species with a 

Holarctic distribution (Roth et al. 2013, 

entire). This study has been accepted by 

the relevant scientific community, The 

Xerces Society for Invertebrate 

Conservation, and Federal and State 

agencies. Given that the evening 

fieldslug is no longer recognized as a 

unique taxon, we conclude that it does 

not meet the definition of a species or 

subspecies under the Act. Consequently, 

it does not warrant listing under the 

Act. A detailed discussion of the basis 

for this finding can be found in the 

evening fieldslug species assessment 

form (see ADDRESSES, above). 

Mammoth Spring Crayfish 

Previous Federal Actions 

On April 20, 2010, we received a 

petition from the Center for Biological 

Diversity, Alabama Rivers Alliance, 

Clinch Coalition, Dogwood Alliance, 

Gulf Restoration Network, Tennessee 

Forests Council, and West Virginia 

Highlands Conservancy to list 404 

aquatic, riparian, and wetland species, 

including Mammoth Spring crayfish 

(Faxonius marchandi; then Orconectes 

marchandi), as an endangered or 

threatened species under the Act. On 

September 27, 2011, we published a 90- 

day finding in the Federal Register (76 

FR 59836) concluding that the petition 

presented substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

listing may be warranted for 374 of the 

404 species, including Mammoth Spring 

crayfish. This document constitutes our 

12-month finding on the April 20, 2010, 

petition to list Mammoth Spring 

crayfish under the Act. 

Summary of Finding 

The Mammoth Spring crayfish is a 

medium-sized, reddish-brown crayfish 

with blackish specks on its broad 

pincers. It has a very localized 

distribution in the central and eastern 

portion of the Spring River watershed in 

Fulton, Lawrence, Randolph, and Sharp 

Counties in northeastern Arkansas and 

in Howell and Oregon Counties in 

southern Missouri. The Mammoth 

Spring crayfish occurs in both 

intermittent and perennial streams but 

appears to occur in higher densities in 

intermittent streams. Small Mammoth 

Spring crayfish individuals occur in the 

highest densities in shallow (less than 

35 centimeters (14 inches)) stream 

margins of pools and runs in areas of 

emergent vegetation. Both small and 

large Mammoth Spring crayfish 

individuals are associated with a 

diverse composition of substrates 

dominated by cobble and pebble, and 

negatively associated with increasing 

current velocity. 

We have carefully assessed the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available regarding the past, present, 

and future threats to the Mammoth 

Spring crayfish, and we evaluated all 

relevant factors under the five listing 

factors, including any regulatory 

mechanisms and conservation measures 

addressing these threats. The primary 

threats with potential to affect the 

Mammoth Spring crayfish’s biological 

status include periodically degraded 

water quality, sedimentation, extreme 

events, and nonnative crayfish invasion 

of the gap ringed crayfish (Faxonius 

neglectus chaenodactylus). However, 

these threats have not reduced the 

species’ resiliency, redundancy, or 

representation. 

The best available information 

indicates that the range of the Mammoth 

Spring crayfish has not contracted. 

Mammoth Spring crayfish density is 

higher in intermittent streams than in 

perennial streams, and based on surveys 

conducted in 1998–1999 and 2010– 

2011, occupancy of the Mammoth 

Spring crayfish was relatively 

unchanged between the periods of 

1998–1999 and 2010–2011. In addition, 

density of the Mammoth Spring crayfish 

was also compared between time 

periods and increased significantly from 

1998–1999 to 2010–2011. Therefore, we 

conclude that Mammoth Spring crayfish 

is not in danger of extinction throughout 

all of its range and does not meet the 

Act’s definition of an endangered 

species. 

We then considered the primary 

threat to the species in the foreseeable 

future (potential invasion of the gap 

ringed crayfish) to determine if the 

Mammoth Spring crayfish meets the 

definition of a threatened species. The 

SSA report also considered the effects of 

other stressors such as climate change 

and land-use changes into the future for 

the Mammoth Spring crayfish. However, 

species experts only considered the 

potential invasion of the gap ringed 

crayfish as the primary species-level 

influence for the Mammoth Spring 

crayfish into the future. Therefore, the 

predictive modeling effort in the SSA 

only included the spread of gap ringed 

crayfish and its effect on the Mammoth 

Spring crayfish, although we considered 

the effect of other stressors qualitatively. 

The SSA’s analysis of future scenarios 

over a 50-year timeframe encompasses 

the best available information for future 

projections under reasonable worst, 

mostly likely, and reasonable best future 

scenarios. We determined that this 50- 

year timeframe enabled us to consider 

the threats and stressors acting on the 

species and draw reliable predictions 

about the species’ response to these 

factors. Under the reasonable best and 

most likely future scenarios, we predict 

the gap ringed crayfish will not invade 

the range of the native Mammoth Spring 

crayfish within the 50-year timeframe, 

although under the reasonable worst 

scenario it may reach the edge of the 

Mammoth Spring crayfish’s range in 

approximately 15 years, and continue to 

spread throughout the range. Although 

under the reasonably worst scenario, the 

gap ringed crayfish does invade the 

Mammoth Spring crayfish range, it will 

take greater than 100 years to invade the 

entire range of the species and 4 of the 

6 representation units (RPUs) will not 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 6, 2022 / Proposed Rules 40175 

be fully invaded. The reasonably worst 

scenario still leaves the species with 

ample redundancy and representation, 

such that the best available information 

does not indicate that the Mammoth 

Spring Crayfish’s viability will decline 

within the foreseeable future such that 

the species meets the definition of a 

threatened species. Thus, after assessing 

the best available information, we 

determine that the Mammoth Spring 

crayfish is not likely to become in 

danger of extinction within the 

foreseeable future throughout all of its 

range and does not meet the Act’s 

definition of a threatened species. 

We found no biologically meaningful 

portion of the Mammoth Spring crayfish 

range where threats are impacting 

individuals differently from how they 

are affecting the species elsewhere in its 

range, or where the condition of the 

species differs from its condition 

elsewhere in its range such that the 

status of the species in that portion 

differs from any other portion of the 

species’ range. Thus, after assessing the 

best available information, we 

determine that Mammoth Spring 

crayfish is not in danger of extinction 

now or likely to become so within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. 

Therefore, we find that listing the 

Mammoth Spring crayfish as an 

endangered species or threatened 

species under the Act is not warranted. 

A detailed discussion of the basis for 

this finding can be found in the 

Mammoth Spring crayfish species 

assessment form and other supporting 

documents (see ADDRESSES, above). 

Weber’s Whitlow Grass 

Previous Federal Actions 

On July 30, 2007, the Service received 

a petition from Forest Guardians (now 

WildEarth Guardians) requesting that 

the Service list 206 species the 

Mountain-Prairie Region, including 

Weber’s Whitlow grass (Draba weberi), 

as endangered or threatened species, 

and designate critical habitat, under the 

Act. On August 18, 2009, the Service 

published in the Federal Register (74 

FR 41649) a partial 90-day finding 

indicating that listing may be warranted 

for 29 species, including Weber’s 

Whitlow grass. As a result, the Service 

initiated a status review for Weber’s 

Whitlow grass. This document 

announces the 12-month finding on the 

July 30, 2007, petition to list Weber’s 

Whitlow grass under the Act. 

Summary of Finding 

We have carefully assessed the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available regarding Weber’s Whitlow 

grass and evaluated the petition’s claims 

that the species warrants listing under 

the Act. A new genetic analysis 

indicates that Weber’s Whitlow grass is 

not a distinct species. Weber’s Whitlow 

grass is not genetically distinguishable 

from another similar plant species 

(Colorado Divide Whitlow-grass, or 

alpine tundra draba (Draba 

streptobrachia)) in the Draba genus, 

which occurs in at least 16 counties in 

Colorado and has a wider range than 

Weber’s Whitlow grass (Naibauer and 

McGlaughlin 2021, entire; NatureServe 

2022a, entire). Therefore, Weber’s 

Whitlow grass does not meet the 

definition of a ‘‘species’’ under the Act, 

and, as a result, does not warrant listing 

under the Act. A detailed discussion of 

the basis for this finding can be found 

in the Weber’s Whitlow grass species 

assessment form and other supporting 

documents (see ADDRESSES, above). 

New Information 

We request that you submit any new 

information concerning the taxonomy 

of, biology of, ecology of, status of, or 

stressors to evening fieldslug, Mammoth 

Spring crayfish, or Weber’s Whitlow 

grass to the appropriate person, as 

specified under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT, whenever it 

becomes available. New information 

will help us monitor these species and 

make appropriate decisions about their 

conservation and status. We encourage 

local agencies and stakeholders to 

continue cooperative monitoring and 

conservation efforts. 

References Cited 

A list of the references cited in this 

petition finding is available in the 

relevant species assessment form, which 

is available on the internet at https://

www.regulations.gov in the appropriate 

docket (see ADDRESSES, above) and upon 

request from the appropriate person (see 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, 

above). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this document 

are the staff members of the Species 

Assessment Team, Ecological Services 

Program. 

Authority 

The authority for this action is section 

4 of the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq.). 

Martha Williams, 

Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2022–14296 Filed 7–5–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1