Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 31, 2014 / Proposed Rules 78775 

compliance or reporting requirements 

under the rule for small entities; (3) the 

use of performance, rather than design, 

standards; and (4) an exemption from 

coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, 

for small entities. 

40. If the Commission were to adopt 

rules requiring video programmers to 

register and file contact information 

with the Commission or to make such 

contact information widely available 

through other means, such regulations 

would impose new reporting and 

recordkeeping obligations on video 

programmers, video programming 

owners, and other entities, including 

small entities. However, the proposed 

requirement takes into consideration the 

impact on small entities. The filing of 

contact information is a simple task that 

should take no more than a few 

minutes. In addition, such requirements 

may benefit other entities, such as VPDs 

and consumers, who would be able to 

search the registration information for 

contact information, thereby enabling 

them to more readily contact video 

programmers who can address their 

closed captioning concerns. 

41. If the Commission were to adopt 

rules requiring video programmers to 

file certifications with the Commission 

regarding compliance with the 

Commission’s rules on the provisioning 

and quality of closed captioning, such 

regulations would impose different 

reporting and recordkeeping obligations 

than currently required on video 

programmers, video programming 

owners, and other entities, including 

small entities. The proposed rules 

would not impose additional burdens 

on such entities, because video 

programmers are already required to 

provide certifications to VPDs and to 

make such certifications widely 

available under the Commission’s rules. 

See 47 CFR 79.1(j)(1) and (k)(1)(iv); see 

also 47 CFR 79.1(g)(6). The proposed 

rule may ease the burden on video 

programmers, because video 

programmers would know to go directly 

to the Commission’s Web site to provide 

certification and would not need to 

determine how to make such 

certification widely available, and the 

proposed rules would ease the burden 

on VPDs and consumers by having all 

certifications in one easy to find place. 

42. If the Commission were to adopt 

rules requiring each VPD, when 

arranging to carry a video programmer’s 

programming, to alert the video 

programmer of the requirement to 

provide certification to the Commission 

and to report to the Commission any 

video programmers that have failed to 

do so, such regulations would impose 

different reporting and recordkeeping 

obligations than currently required on 

VPDs, video programmers, video 

programming owners, and other entities, 

including small entities. The proposed 

rules would not impose additional 

burdens on such entities, because VPDs 

who are unable to locate certifications 

on widely available sources are already 

required to alert video programmers of 

the requirement and report such 

noncompliance to the Commission. See 

47 CFR 79.1(j)(1). The proposed rule 

may ease the burden on VPDs, because 

VPDs would be able to go directly to the 

Commission’s Web site to confirm 

whether the video programmer has 

registered and certified, which may be 

easier than having to determine on 

which Web site or other widely 

available place the information appears. 

43. Federal Rules Which Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With, the 

Commission’s Proposals. 

None. 

Ordering Clauses 

44. Pursuant to sections 4(i), 303(r), 

and 713 of the Communications Act of 

1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 

303(r) and 613, document FCC 14–206 

IS ADOPTED. 

45. The Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, SHALL SEND a 

copy of document FCC 14–206 

including the Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Sheryl D. Todd, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2014–30576 Filed 12–30–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket Nos. FWS–R8–ES–2014–0058; 

FWS–R3–ES–2014–0056; 4500030113] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 90-Day Findings on Two 

Petitions 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of petition findings and 

initiation of status reviews. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce 90- 

day findings on a petition to delist the 

coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila 

californica californica) and a petition to 

list the monarch butterfly (Danaus 

plexippus plexippus) under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). Based on our review, we 

find that both petitions present 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating that the 

petitioned actions may be warranted. 

Therefore, with the publication of this 

notice, we are initiating a review of the 

status of these subspecies to determine 

if the petitioned actions are warranted. 

To ensure that these status reviews are 

comprehensive, we are requesting 

scientific and commercial data and 

other information regarding these 

subspecies. Based on the status reviews, 

we will issue 12-month findings on the 

petitions, which will address whether 

the petitioned action is warranted, as 

provided in section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act. 

DATES: To allow us adequate time to 

conduct the status reviews, we request 

that we receive information no later 

than March 2, 2015. Information 

submitted electronically using the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal (see 

ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 

11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing 

date. 

ADDRESSES: 

(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, 

enter the appropriate docket number 

(see table below). You may submit 

information by clicking on ‘‘Comment 

Now!’’ If your information will fit in the 

provided comment box, please use this 

feature of http://www.regulations.gov, as 

it is most compatible with our 

information review procedures. If you 

attach your information as a separate 

document, our preferred file format is 

Microsoft Word. If you attach multiple 

comments (such as form letters), our 

preferred format is a spreadsheet in 

Microsoft Excel. 

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

or hand-delivery to: Public Comments 

Processing, Attn: [Insert appropriate 

docket number; see table below]; U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service Headquarters, 

MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike; Falls 

Church, VA 22041–3803. 

We request that you send information 

only by the methods described above. 

We will post all information received on 

http://www.regulations.gov. This 

generally means that we will post any 

personal information you provide us 

(see the Request for Information section, 

below, for more details). 

Species Docket No. 

coastal California 

gnatcatcher.

FWS–R8–ES–2014–0058 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
78776 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 31, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Species Docket No. 

monarch butterfly FWS–R3–ES–2014–0056 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

the coastal California gnatcatcher: 

Mendel Stewart, Field Supervisor, 

Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, 2177 

Salk Ave, Suite 250, Carlsbad, CA 

92008; telephone 760–431–9440; or 

facsimile (fax) 760–431–5901. 

For the monarch butterfly, Tony 

Sullins, Chief of Endangered Species, 

Midwest Region, 5600 American Blvd. 

West, Suite 990, Bloomington, MN 

55437; telephone 612–713–5334; or fax 

612–713–5292. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD), please call the 

Federal Information Relay Service 

(FIRS) at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Request for Information 

When we make a finding that a 

petition presents substantial 

information indicating that listing, 

reclassification, or delisting a species 

may be warranted, we are required to 

promptly review the status of the 

species (status review). For the status 

review to be complete and based on the 

best available scientific and commercial 

information, we request information on 

the coastal California gnatcatcher and 

monarch butterfly from governmental 

agencies, Native American Tribes, the 

scientific community, industry, and any 

other interested parties. For both 

petitioned subspecies we seek 

information on: 

(1) The subspecies’ biology, range, 

and population trends, including: 

(a) Habitat requirements; 

(b) Genetics and taxonomy; 

(c) Historical and current range, 

including distribution patterns; 

(d) Historical and current population 

levels, and current and projected trends; 

and 

(e) Past and ongoing conservation 

measures for the subspecies, its habitat, 

or both. 

(2) The factors that are the basis for 

making a listing, reclassification, or 

delisting determination for a species 

under section 4(a) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 

1531 et seq.), which are: 

(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. 

(3) The potential effects of climate 

change on the subspecies and its 

habitat. 

(4) Information specific to a 

subspecies (e.g., taxonomy of the entity, 

information about its status in a 

particular area, or information that may 

be used in a potential rule issued under 

section 4(d) of the Act for the 

conservation of the subspecies). 

Specific questions for the coastal 

California gnatcatcher: 

(1) The coastal California 

gnatcatcher’s biology, range, and 

population trends, including, but not 

limited to, distribution, abundance, 

population trends, demographics, and 

genetics. 

(2) Information related to the 

taxonomy, particularly the 

distinctiveness at the subspecies level, 

of California gnatcatchers in southern 

California and Baja California, Mexico, 

including: 

(a) New morphological, genetic, or 

other relevant information; 

(b) New analyses or new 

interpretations of existing 

morphological, genetic, or other relevant 

information; 

(c) Information on the methods, 

results, and conclusions of Zink et al. 

(2000, entire) and Zink et al. (2013, 

entire), on which the petition heavily 

relies; and 

(d) Information related to 

consideration of the coastal California 

gnatcatcher as a distinct population 

segment (DPS). 

Specific questions for the monarch 

butterfly: 

(1) Any relevant aspects of the life 

history or behavior of the monarch 

butterfly that have not yet been 

documented; and 

(2) Thermo-tolerance range and 

microclimate requirements of the 

monarch butterfly. 

If, after the status review, we 

determine that listing the monarch 

butterfly is warranted, we will propose 

critical habitat (see definition in section 

3(5)(A) of the Act) under section 4 of the 

Act, to the maximum extent prudent 

and determinable at the time we 

propose to list the subspecies. 

Therefore, we also request data and 

information on: 

(1) What may constitute ‘‘physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species,’’ within the 

geographical range occupied by the 

subspecies; 

(2) Where these features are currently 

found; 

(3) Whether any of these features may 

require special management 

considerations or protection; 

(4) Specific areas outside the 

geographical area occupied by the 

subspecies that are ‘‘essential for the 

conservation of the species’’; and 

(5) What, if any, critical habitat you 

think we should propose for designation 

if the subspecies is proposed for listing, 

and why such habitat meets the 

requirements of section 4 of the Act. 

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. 

Submissions merely stating support 

for or opposition to the actions under 

consideration without providing 

supporting information, although noted, 

will not be considered in making a 

determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the 

Act directs that determinations as to 

whether any species is an endangered or 

threatened species must be made 

‘‘solely on the basis of the best scientific 

and commercial data available.’’ 

You may submit your information 

concerning these status reviews by one 

of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES

section. If you submit information via 

http://www.regulations.gov, your entire 

submission—including any personal 

identifying information—will be posted 

on the Web site. If you submit a 

hardcopy that includes personal 

identifying information, you may 

request at the top of your document that 

we withhold this personal identifying 

information from public review. 

However, we cannot guarantee that we 

will be able to do so. We will post all 

hardcopy submissions on http://

www.regulations.gov. 

Information and supporting 

documentation that we received and 

used in preparing this finding will be 

available for you to review at http://

www.regulations.gov, or you may make 

an appointment during normal business 

hours at the appropriate lead U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service Field Office (see 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Background 

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

that we make a finding on whether a 

petition to list, delist, or reclassify a 

species presents substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

the petitioned action may be warranted. 

We are to base this finding on 

information provided in the petition, 

supporting information submitted with 

the petition, and information otherwise 

available in our files. To the maximum 

extent practicable, we are to make this 

finding within 90 days of our receipt of 

the petition and publish our notice of 

the finding promptly in the Federal 

Register. 

Our standard for substantial scientific 

or commercial information within the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 31, 2014 / Proposed Rules 78777 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with 

regard to a 90-day petition finding is 

‘‘that amount of information that would 

lead a reasonable person to believe that 

the measure proposed in the petition 

may be warranted’’ (50 CFR 424.14(b)). 

If we find that substantial scientific or 

commercial information was presented, 

we are required to promptly commence 

a review of the status of the species, 

which will be subsequently summarized 

in our 12-month finding. 

Section 3(6) of the Act defines an 

‘‘endangered species’’ as any species 

which is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range. Section 3(20) of the Act 

defines a ‘‘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. Section 

3(16) of the Act defines ‘‘species’’ as 

including any species or subspecies of 

fish or wildlife or plants, and any 

distinct population segment of any 

species of vertebrate fish or wildlife 

which interbreeds when mature. 

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

and its implementing regulations at 50 

CFR 424 set forth the procedures for 

adding a species to, or removing a 

species from, the Federal Lists of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants. A species may be 

determined to be an endangered or 

threatened species due to one or more 

of the five factors described in section 

4(a)(1) of the Act: 

We may delist a species according to 

50 CFR 424.11(d) if the best available 

scientific and commercial data indicate 

that the species is neither endangered 

nor threatened for one or more of the 

following reasons: 

(1) The species is extinct; 

(2) The species has recovered and is 

no longer endangered or threatened; or 

(3) The original scientific or 

commercial data used at the time the 

species was classified, or the 

interpretation of such data, were in 

error. 

In considering what factors might 

constitute threats, we must look beyond 

the exposure of the species to a factor 

to evaluate whether the species may 

respond to the factor in a way that 

causes actual impacts to the species. If 

there is exposure to a factor and the 

species responds negatively, the factor 

may be a threat, and, during the 

subsequent status review, we attempt to 

determine how significant a threat it is. 

The threat is significant if it drives, or 

contributes to, the risk of extinction of 

the species such that the species may 

warrant listing as endangered or 

threatened as those terms are defined in 

the Act. However, the identification of 

factors that could affect a species 

negatively may not be sufficient for us 

to find that the information in the 

petition and our files is substantial. The 

information must include evidence 

sufficient to suggest that these factors 

may be operative threats that act on the 

species to the point that the species may 

meet the definition of an endangered or 

threatened species under the Act. 

Review of Petition To Remove the 

Coastal California Gnatcatcher From 

the List of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife Under the Act 

Additional information regarding our 

review of this petition can be found as 

an appendix at http://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R8–ES–2014–0058 under the 

Supporting Documents section in the 

document labeled Appendix for the 

coastal California gnatcatcher. 

Subspecies and Range 

This petition concerns the coastal 

California gnatcatcher (Polioptila 

californica californica). Its range 

includes coastal southern California in 

the United States and northwestern Baja 

California, Mexico. 

Petition History 

On June 11, 2014, we received a 

petition dated June 10, 2014, from 

Pacific Legal Foundation requesting that 

the coastal California gnatcatcher be 

removed from the List of Endangered 

and Threatened Wildlife (List) due to 

error. The petition claims that the 

coastal California gnatcatcher is not a 

valid subspecies and thus does not meet 

the definition of ‘‘species’’ under the 

Act. The petition clearly identified itself 

as such and included the requisite 

identification information for the 

petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). 

This finding addresses the petition. 

Finding 

Based on our review of the petition 

and sources cited in the petition, we 

find that the petition presents 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating that the 

petitioned action may be warranted for 

the coastal California gnatcatcher 

(Polioptila californica californica). 

Thus, for the coastal California 

gnatcatcher, the Service requests 

information regarding the species 

taxonomy and listing factors under 

section 4(a)(1) of the Act (see Request 

for Information). 

Review of Petition To List the Monarch 

Butterfly as a Threatened Species 

Under the Act 

Additional information regarding our 

review of this petition can be found as 

an appendix at http://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R3–ES–2014–0056 under the 

Supporting Documents section in the 

document labeled Appendix for 

Monarch Butterfly. 

Subspecies and Range 

This petition concerns the monarch 

butterfly (Danaus plexippus plexippus), 

with a range in North America 

(continental United States, southern 

Canada, Mexico), and Cuba and other 

Caribbean Islands; the subspecies’ 

nonnative dispersed range includes 

Hawaii, Australia, New Zealand, other 

Pacific Islands, Azores, Canary Islands, 

and coastal Spain. 

Petition History 

On August 26, 2014, we received a 

petition dated August 26, 2014, from the 

Center for Biological Diversity, the 

Center for Food Safety, the Xerces 

Society for Invertebrate Conservation, 

and Dr. Lincoln Brower requesting that 

we list the monarch butterfly (Danaus 

plexippus plexippus) as a threatened 

species under the Act. The petition 

clearly identified itself as such and 

included the requisite identification 

information for the petitioners, required 

at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding 

addresses the petition. 

The petition also requested that we 

designate critical habitat for the 

monarch butterfly, that we consider any 

significant portion of range (SPR) when 

making our listing determination, and 

that we develop a rule under section 

4(d) of the Act (‘‘4(d) rule’’) allowing 

activities that promote conservation of 

the subspecies. Should we propose to 

list the monarch butterfly, we will at 

that time consider the monarch’s status 

rangewide; whether there may be a 

threatened or endangered SPR if the 

subspecies is not found to be threatened 

or endangered throughout its range; if 

threatened status is warranted, whether 

a 4(d) rule may be appropriate; and 

propose to designate critical habitat if 

appropriate. 

Finding 

Based on our review of the petition 

and sources cited in the petition, we 

find that the petition presents 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating that listing may 

be warranted for the monarch butterfly 

under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, based 

on factors A, B, C, and E (see Appendix 

for Monarch Butterfly). We therefore 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
78778 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 31, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

request information on the five listing 

factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act 

(see Request for Information). 

We reviewed the petition and 

information presented in the petition 

and determined that issuing an 

emergency regulation temporarily 

listing the subspecies under section 

4(b)(7) of the Act is not warranted. 

However, if at any time conditions 

change and we determine emergency 

listing is necessary, an emergency rule 

may be developed. 

Conclusion 

On the basis of our evaluation of the 

information presented under section 

4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we have 

determined that the petitions 

summarized above for the coastal 

California gnatcatcher (Polioptila 

californica californica) and the monarch 

butterfly (Danaus plexippus plexippus) 

present substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

the requested actions may be warranted. 

Because we have found that the 

petitions present substantial 

information indicating that the 

petitioned actions may be warranted, we 

are initiating status reviews to 

determine whether these actions under 

the Act are warranted. At the conclusion 

of the status reviews, we will issue a 12- 

month finding in accordance with 

section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act, stating 

whether listing, reclassification, or 

delisting, as appropriate, is warranted. 

It is important to note that the 

‘‘substantial information’’ standard for a 

90-day finding differs from the Act’s 

‘‘best scientific and commercial data’’ 

standard that applies to a status review 

to determine whether a petitioned 

action is warranted. A 90-day finding 

does not constitute a status review 

under the Act. In a 12-month finding, 

we will determine whether a petitioned 

action is warranted after we have 

completed a thorough status review of 

the species, which is conducted 

following a substantial 90-day finding. 

Because the Act’s standards for 90-day 

and 12-month findings are different, as 

described above, a substantial 90-day 

finding does not mean that the 12- 

month finding will result in a warranted 

finding. 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited is 

available on the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov and upon request 

from the appropriate lead Field Offices 

(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this notice are 

the staff members of the Branch of 

Listing, Ecological Services Program, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Authority 

The authority for these actions is the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

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

Dated: December 18, 2014. 

Stephen Guertin, 

Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–30574 Filed 12–30–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS