        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        [4500030115]
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-day Findings for Three Species

          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 three petitions to add or remove species from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Based on our review, we find that the three petitions present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned actions may be warranted. Therefore, with the publication of this document, we announce that we plan to initiate reviews of the status of these species 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 species. Based on the status reviews, we will issue 12-month findings, which will address whether or not the petitioned actions are warranted, in accordance with the Act.

          DATES:
          These findings were made on June 27, 2018. As we commence work on the status reviews, we seek any new information concerning the status of, or threats to, these species or their habitats. Any information received during our work on the status reviews will be considered.

          ADDRESSES:

            Supporting documents: Summaries of the bases for the petition findings contained in this document are available on http://www.regulations.gov under the appropriate docket number (see table under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION). In addition, supporting information in preparing these findings is available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours by contacting the appropriate person, as specified in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

            Submitting information: If you have new scientific or commercial data or other information concerning the status of, or threats to, the species for which we are making these petition findings, or their habitats, please submit that information by one of the following methods:
          (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter the appropriate docket number (see the table under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION). Then, click on the Search button. After finding the correct document, 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 the table under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION], U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 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 we receive on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see Request for Information for Status Reviews, below, for more information).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

              Species common name
              Contact person

              Dixie Valley toad
              Carolyn Swed, 775-861-6337; carolyn_swed@fws.gov.

              Oregon vesper sparrow
              Jeffrey Dillon, 503-231-6179; jeffrey_dillon@fws.gov.

              Yellow-billed cuckoo
              Jennifer Norris, 916-414-6600; jennifer_norris@fws.gov.

          If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf, please call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        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 a species to, or removing a species from, the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists) 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 Lists (i.e., “list” a species), remove a species from the Lists (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 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. 1531 et seq.). 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); or
        (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 us to 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).
        Summaries of Petition Findings

        The petition findings contained in this document are listed in the table below and the bases for the findings, along with supporting information, are available on http://www.regulations.gov under the appropriate docket number.

          Table: Status Reviews

            Common name
            Docket no.
            URL to docket on http://www.regulations.gov

            Dixie Valley toad
            FWS-R8-ES-2018-0018

              https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FWS-R8-ES-2018-0018.

            Oregon vesper sparrow
            FWS-R1-ES-2018-0019

              https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FWS-R1-ES-2018-0019.

            Yellow-billed cuckoo
            FWS-R8-ES-2018-0027

              https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FWS-R8-ES-2018-0027.

        Evaluation of a Petition To List the Dixie Valley Toad as an Endangered or Threatened Species Under the Act
        Species and Range
        The Dixie Valley toad (Anaxyrus williamsi) is a small toad found in four spring-fed wetlands in Dixie Valley, Churchill County, Nevada.
        Petition History
        On September 18, 2017, we received a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity requesting that the Dixie Valley toad be listed as threatened or endangered 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 the petitioned action may be warranted for the Dixie Valley toad due to potential threats associated with the following: Development of geothermal energy and difficulty in associated mitigation, decrease in spring discharge, changes in water temperature, and groundwater extraction (Factor A); and chytridiomycosis disease and predation by the invasive American bullfrog (Factors C and E). However, during our status review we will thoroughly evaluate all potential threats to the species, including the extent to which any protections or other conservation efforts have reduced those threats. Thus, for this species, the Service requests any information relevant to whether the species falls within the definition of either endangered species under section 3(6) of the Act or threatened species under section 3(20) of the Act, including information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) (see Request for Information for Status Reviews, below).

        The basis for our finding on this petition, and other information regarding our review of the petition, can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2018-0018 under the Supporting Documents section.
        Evaluation of a Petition To List the Oregon Vesper Sparrow as an Endangered or Threatened Species Under the Act
        Species and Range
        The Oregon vesper sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus affinis) is a medium- to large-sized migratory sparrow with a restricted range. The breeding range currently consists of the States of Washington (South Puget lowlands, San Juan Island, lower Columbia River islands, and Mason County) and Oregon (Willamette, Umpqua, and Rogue Valleys). The winter range consists of areas in California—the lowlands west of the Sierra Nevada Mountains, from the San Francisco Bay area through the San Joaquin Valley to coastal southern California.
        Petition History
        On November 8, 2017, we received a petition from the American Bird Conservancy requesting that the Oregon vesper sparrow be listed as endangered or threatened and critical habitat be designated for this species under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at former 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 Oregon vesper sparrow due to potential threats associated with the following: Habitat loss and degradation (Factor A); land use/management impacts to nesting birds (Factor E); and existing regulatory mechanisms that may be inadequate to address impacts of these threats (Factor D) (for information about these factors, see Background, above). However, during our status review, we will thoroughly evaluate all potential threats to the species, including the extent to which any protections or other conservation efforts have reduced those threats. Thus, for this species, the Service requests any information relevant to whether the species falls within the definition of either endangered species under section 3(6) of the Act or threatened species under section 3(20) of the Act, including information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) (see Request for Information for Status Reviews, below).

        The basis for our finding on this petition, and other information regarding our review of the petition, can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2018-0019 under the Supporting Documents section.
        Evaluation of a Petition To Delist the Western Distinct Population Segment of the Yellow-Billed Cuckoo
        Species and Range
        The yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) occurs in North America across the continental United States and parts of British Columbia and Mexico. The species winters in Central and South America. The Western Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of the yellow-billed cuckoo (western yellow-billed cuckoo) occurs generally in the area west of the Rocky Mountains from British Columbia to Mexico. The western DPS of the yellow-billed cuckoo is listed as a threatened species on the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (List; 50 CFR 17.11(h)).
        Petition History
        On May 4, 2017, we received a petition from the American Stewards of Liberty, Arizona Cattlemen's Association, Arizona Mining Association, Hereford Natural Resource Conservation District, Jim Chilton, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, Public Lands Council, WestLand Resources, Inc., and Winkelman Natural Resource Conservation District, requesting that the western DPS of the yellow-billed cuckoo be removed from the List due to an error in our DPS analysis. They also provided information in their petition indicating the species should be delisted as a result of its utilization of additional habitat. 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.
        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 delisting the western DPS of the yellow-billed cuckoo may be warranted due to information on additional habitat being used by the species (Factor A). While we did not find the petition provided substantial information indicating the entity may warrant delisting due to an error in our DPS analysis, because the petitioners did provide substantial information regarding additional habitat use by the species, we will review the DPS as part of our status review of the species. During our status review we will thoroughly evaluate all potential threats to the species, as well as revisit our DPS determination. Thus, for this species, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factors identified in this finding as well as information pertaining to the DPS (see Request for Information for Status Reviews, below).

        The basis for our finding on this petition, and other information regarding our review of the petition, can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2018-0027 under the Supporting Documents section.
        Request for Information for Status Reviews
        When we make a finding that a petition presents substantial information indicating that listing, reclassification, or delisting of a species may be warranted, we are required to review the status of the species (a status review). For the status review to be complete and based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we request information on these species from governmental agencies, Native American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, and any other interested parties. We seek information on:
        (1) The species' biology, range, and population trends, including:
        (a) Habitat requirements;
        (b) Genetics and taxonomy;
        (c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns; and
        (d) Historical and current population levels and current and projected trends.
        (2) The five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act (see Background, above) that are the basis for making a listing, reclassification, or delisting determination for a species under section 4(a) of the Act, including past and ongoing conservation measures that could decrease the extent to which one or more of the factors affect the species, its habitat, or both.
        (3) The potential effects of climate change on the species and its habitat, and the extent to which it affects the habitat or range of the species.
        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 ADDRESSES. If you submit information via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire submission—including any personal identifying information—will be posted on the website. 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.

        It is important to note that the standard for a 90-day finding differs from the Act's standard that applies to a status review to determine whether a petitioned action is warranted. In making a 90-day finding, we consider information in the petition and sources cited in the petition, as well as information that is readily available, and we evaluate merely whether that information constitutes “substantial information” indicating that the petitioned action “may be warranted.” In a 12-month finding, we must complete a thorough status review of the species and evaluate the best scientific and commercial data available to determine whether a petitioned action “is warranted.” Because the Act's standards for 90-day and 12-month findings are different, a substantial 90-day finding does not mean that the 12-month finding will result in a “warranted” finding.
        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 Dixie Valley toad, Oregon vesper sparrow, and yellow-billed cuckoo present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned actions may be warranted. Therefore, we are initiating status reviews to determine whether these actions are warranted under the Act. At the conclusion of each status review, we will issue a finding, in accordance with section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act, as to whether the petitioned action is not warranted, warranted, or warranted but precluded by pending proposals to determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened species.
        Authors
        The primary authors of this document are staff members of the 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: May 15, 2018.
          James W. Kurth,
          Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Exercising the Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

      [FR Doc. 2018-13843 Filed 6-26-18; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 4333-15-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [I.D. 022701E]
        Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Amendment 13 to the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Notice of intent to prepare an EIS; scoping meeting; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) intends to prepare an EIS, or supplementary EIS (SEIS) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), to assess the potential effects on the human environment of its proposed action to initiate Amendment 13 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fisheries (FMP) under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).  The amendment currently would incorporate development of new commercial management measures for the black sea bass fishery, and analyses of fishing gear impacts on essential fish habitat (EFH) for all three species.  The Council will hold a public scoping meeting and accept written comments to determine the need for an EIS or SEIS and the scope of issues to be addressed.

          DATES:
          The Council will accept written comments through April 6, 2001.  A public scoping meeting will be held on Wednesday, March 21, 2001 from 3-5 p.m.

          ADDRESSES:
          Send comments to Daniel T. Furlong, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 300 S. New Street, Dover, DE  19904.  Comments may also be sent via facsimile (fax) to 302-674-5399.  The Council will not accept comments via e-mail or the Internet.
          The scoping meeting will be held at the Golden Inn, Oceanfront at 78th Street, Avalon, NJ, telephone 609-368-5155.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Daniel T. Furlong, Executive Director of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 302-674-2331, ext. 19.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The Council announces a public process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed and for identifying the significant issues related to the development of Amendment 13 to the FMP.  There are two issues currently to be addressed in this amendment:  (1) Development of new commercial management measures for the black sea bass fishery, and (2) analyses of fishing gear impacts on EFH for all three species.  The analyses of fishing gear impacts on EFH are necessary to remedy previously disapproved sections of the FMP.  In addition, the EIS/SEIS would incorporate changes to the fishery and its effect on the human environment, since the last EIS was prepared in 1992 for summer flounder and in 1996 for scup and black sea bass.  The FMP amendment will be prepared by the Mid-Atlantic Council in cooperation with NMFS.
        Public Scoping Meeting
        The public scoping meeting will be held on Wednesday, March 21, 2001, from 3-5 p.m., at the Golden Inn, Oceanfront at 78th Street, Avalon, NJ, telephone 609-368-5155.  The meeting will be held in conjunction with a meeting of the Council at the same time and location.
        Special Accommodations
        This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities.  Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Joanna Davis at the Council, telephone 302-674-2331, ext. 18, at least 5 days prior to the hearing date.

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

          Dated: March 2, 2001.
          Bruce C. Morehead,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, national Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 01-5555  Filed 3-6-01; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE  3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 600
        [Docket No. 010110022-1022-01; I.D. 120800A]
        RIN 0648-AO89
        Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act; Amendment of Foreign Fishing Regulations

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes a fee schedule for foreign vessels fishing in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).  The intent of this action is to comply with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), which requires the establishment of a schedule of reasonable fees that apply non-discriminatorily to each foreign fishing nation.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before April 9, 2001.

          ADDRESSES:
          Send comments to Bruce C. Morehead, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD  20910.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Robert A. Dickinson, 301-713-2276.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Regulations at 50 CFR part 600, subpart F govern foreign fishing under the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.).  The regulations provide for the application and issuance of foreign fishing permits under provisions of section 204(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.  Under section 204(b), foreign vessels may be permitted to catch, process, scout, support and transship in the EEZ.

        Section 204(b)(10) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires the establishment of a schedule of reasonable fees to apply non-discriminatorily to each foreign fishing nation.  Regulations at 50 CFR 600.518 require, among other things, that foreign vessels authorized to directly harvest fish in the EEZ pay fees based on the number of metric tons (mt) of allocated species harvested.  The species potentially available for foreign fishing and the fees associated with those species have been in effect since 1992 and are in need of updating.  The species and fees are found in the table at 50 CFR 600.518(b)(1).  NMFS proposes to amend this table to remove species no longer available for allocation, clarify listings for certain species appearing in the table, add Atlantic herring as an allocable species, and establish the fees to be paid for the resulting list of allocable species.
        Specifically, NMFS proposes to remove red and silver Hake and the associated fees from the table.  These species are no longer available for harvest by foreign fishing vessels.  NMFS proposes to amend the table to clarify that, instead of referring to “Herring,” the table should refer to “Herring, River.”  NMFS proposes to amend the table to clarify that, instead of referring to “Other groundfish,” the table should refer to “Other finfish.”  NMFS proposes to add “Atlantic herring” to the table as a potentially allocable species.
        With respect to fees to be charged, in recommending a specification of a total allowable level of foreign fishing (TALFF) for Atlantic herring and Atlantic mackerel, the New England Fishery Management Council and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, respectively, intended each TALFF to be an incentive for increased joint venture activities between U.S. and foreign vessels.  NMFS believes it would be reasonable to support the intent of the Councils by continuing the NMFS practice of keeping fees at a low level.  Joint ventures are expected to be an integral part of foreign fishing operations in both the Atlantic herring and Atlantic mackerel fisheries and the costs of the foreign directed fisheries influence the ability of foreign owners and operators to purchase herring and mackerel at-sea from U.S. fishermen.  Lower fees for allocated species should result in a greater likelihood that U.S. fishermen will receive closer to current ex-vessel values for herring and mackerel than they would receive with higher fees in effect.  Fees set for directed fishing at prohibitively high levels could adversely affect U.S. fishermen engaged in joint ventures and U.S. opportunities to develop the Atlantic herring and Atlantic mackerel fisheries.  Based on past experience, NMFS believes it would be both appropriate and reasonable to set foreign fees at 20 percent of ex-vessel value.  Thus, NMFS proposes to calculate a fee per mt for each allocable species, or species group, equal to 20 percent of the ex-vessel value of each allocable species, or species group.  NMFS proposes to calculate ex-vessel values based on a 5-year average ex-vessel value for each species, or species group, according to ex-vessel value records maintained by the NMFS Fisheries Statistics and Economics Division.  However, in the case of Atlantic mackerel, an anomaly in ex-vessel value occurred in 1997 when the ex-vessel value of Atlantic mackerel rose to approximately $630.00 per mt from an average ex-vessel value of approximately $324.00 per mt.  Although the reasons for this anomaly are not entirely clear, NMFS believes the higher ex-vessel value for Atlantic mackerel in 1997 is related to the higher world prices for mackerel that resulted from a severe reduction in the “Total Allowable Catch” for the North Sea mackerel fishery.  The North Sea fishery is large enough to influence the world price of frozen mackerel.  NMFS believes it is appropriate to factor out this anomaly when determining the 5-year ex-vessel value of Atlantic mackerel for purposes of calculating the foreign fee schedule.  Not factoring out the anomaly would result in a fee for Atlantic mackerel of $78.97 per mt.  Factoring out the anomaly results in, and NMFS proposes, a fee for Atlantic mackerel of $64.76 per mt.
        NMFS believes fees so calculated will recover fees at a reasonable level, as required by section 204(b)(10) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.  Also, in accordance with section 204(b)(10), the proposed fees are non-discriminatory because the owners or operators of vessels of all nations receiving allocations for directed fishing would pay the same fees.

        Under NOAA Administrative Order 205-11, 7.01, dated December 17, 1990, the Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere has delegated to the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, the authority to sign material for publication in the Federal Register.
        Classification
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the entities that would be affected by this regulation are not small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.  As a result, an initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis was not prepared.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 600
          Fisheries, Fishing, Foreign relations, Intergovernmental relations.

          Dated:  March 1, 2001.
          Clarence Pautzke,
          Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

          For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR Chapter VI is proposed to be amended as follows:

            PART 600—MAGNUSON-STEVENS ACT PROVISIONS

          1.  The authority citation for part 600 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            5 U.S.C. 561 and 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

          2.  In § 600.518(b)(1), the table is revised to read as follows:

            § 600.518
            Fee schedule for foreign fishing.

            (b) * * *
            (1) * * *

              TABLE—SPECIES AND POUNDAGE FEES
               [Dollars per metric ton]

                Species
                Poundage fees

                Northwest Atlantic Ocean fisheries:

                1. Butterfish
                277.96

                2. Herring,  Atlantic
                25.75

                3. Herring, River
                49.59

                4. Mackerel, Atlantic
                64.76

                5. Other finfish
                45.48

                6. Squid, Illex

                97.56

                7. Squid, Loligo

                321.68

      [FR Doc. 01-5759  Filed 3-7-01; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE  3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        [4500090022]
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Findings on Petitions To List Eight Species as Endangered or Threatened Species

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Notice of 12-month petition findings.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce 12-month findings on petitions to list eight species 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 Arkansas mudalia, ashy darter, Barrens darter, Chihuahua scurfpea, coldwater crayfish, Eleven Point River crayfish, Spring River crayfish, and red-crowned parrot. However, we ask the public to submit to us at any time any new information that becomes available relevant to the status of any of the species mentioned above or their habitats.

          DATES:
          The findings in this document were made on April 4, 2019.

          ADDRESSES:

          Detailed descriptions of the basis for each of these findings are available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov under the following docket numbers:

            Species
            Docket No.

            Arkansas mudalia
            FWS-R4-ES-2019-0003

            Ashy darter
            FWS-R4-ES-2018-0059

            Barrens darter
            FWS-R4-ES-2018-0060

            Chihuahua scurfpea
            FWS-R2-ES-2018-0061

            Coldwater crayfish, Eleven Point River crayfish, and Spring River crayfish
            FWS-R3-ES-2019-0002

            Red-crowned parrot
            FWS-R2-ES-2018-0063

        Supporting information used to prepare these findings is available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours, by contacting the appropriate person, as specified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Please submit any new information, materials, comments, or questions concerning these findings to the appropriate person, as specified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

              Species
              Contact information

              Arkansas mudalia
              Melvin Tobin, Field Supervisor, Arkansas Ecological Services Field Office, 501-513-4473.

              Ashy darter
              Michelle Eversen, Area Supervisor, Tennessee Ecological Services Field Office, 404-679-4108.

              Barrens darter
              Warren Stiles, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Tennessee Ecological Services Field Office, 931-528-6481.

              Chihuahua scurfpea
              Mark W. Horner, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office, 505-761-4723.

              Coldwater crayfish, Eleven Point River crayfish, and Spring River crayfish
              Karen Herrington, Field Supervisor, Missouri Ecological Services Field Office, 573-234-2132, ext. 166.

              Red-crowned parrot
              Gretchen E. Nareff, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Texas Coastal Ecological Services Field Office, 361-225-7318.

          If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        We are required to make a finding whether or not the petitioned action is warranted within 12 months after receiving any petition we determined contained substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted (section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)) (“12-month finding”). We must make a finding that the petitioned action is: (1) Not warranted; (2) warranted; or (3) warranted but precluded. “Warranted but precluded” means that (a) the petitioned action is warranted, but the immediate proposal of a regulation implementing the petitioned action is precluded by other pending proposals to determine whether species are endangered or threatened species, and (b) expeditious progress is being made to add qualified species to the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists) and to remove from the Lists species for which the protections of the Act are no longer necessary. Section 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that we treat a petition for which the requested action is found to be warranted but precluded as though resubmitted on the date of such finding, that is, requiring that a subsequent finding be made within 12 months of that date. We must publish 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. 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.

        In considering whether a species may meet the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species because of any of the five factors, we must look beyond the mere exposure of the species to the stressor to determine whether the species responds to the stressor in a way that causes actual impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a stressor, but no response, or only a positive response, that stressor does not cause a species to meet the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species. If there is exposure and the species responds negatively, we determine whether that stressor drives or contributes to the risk of extinction of the species such that the species warrants listing as an endangered or threatened species. The mere identification of stressors that could affect a species negatively is not sufficient to compel a finding that listing is or remains warranted. For a species to be listed or remain listed, we require evidence that these stressors are operative threats to the species and its habitat, either singly or in combination, to the point that the species meets the definition of an endangered or a threatened species under the Act.

        In conducting our evaluation of the five factors provided in section 4(a)(1) of the Act to determine whether the Arkansas mudalia (Leptoxis arkansensis), ashy darter (Etheostoma cinereum), Barrens darter (Etheostoma forbesi), Pediomelum pentaphyllum (Chihuahua scurfpea), coldwater crayfish (Faxonius eupunctus), Eleven Point River crayfish (Faxonius wagneri), Spring River crayfish (Faxonius roberti), and red-crowned parrot (Amazona viridigenalis) meet the 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. We reviewed the petitions, information available in our files, and other available published and unpublished information. These evaluations 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 forms for the Arkansas mudalia, ashy darter, Barrens darter, Chihuahua scurfpea, coldwater crayfish, Eleven Point River crayfish, Spring River crayfish, and red-crowned parrot contain more detailed biological information, a thorough analysis of the listing factors, and an explanation of why we determined that these species do not meet the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species. This supporting information can be found on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov under the appropriate docket number (see ADDRESSES, above). The following are informational summaries for each of the findings in this document.
        Arkansas Mudalia
        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 the Arkansas mudalia, as 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 information indicating the Arkansas mudalia may warrant listing. This document constitutes the 12-month finding on the April 20, 2010, petition to list the Arkansas mudalia under the Act.
        Summary of Finding
        The Arkansas mudalia is a freshwater snail. Its body is dark orange mottled with black and ranges in size from 7.9 to 12.2 millimeters (0.3 to 0.5 inches). Although information on its life cycle is limited, individuals likely live for 2 years and reproduce only once before death. Reproduction occurs during the spring through midsummer, and individuals need a hard, clean substrate on which to lay eggs.
        The Arkansas mudalia is endemic to the White River and its tributaries in Arkansas and Missouri. The species inhabits medium- to large-sized rivers in areas of relatively fast current with course rocky substrate. The dispersal of the Arkansas mudalia is slow and restricted. Like most freshwater snails, individuals likely move much less than 1 kilometer (0.6 miles) per year. Therefore, to maintain genetic diversity and reduce the risk of extirpation, it is beneficial for multiple populations to exist in close proximity to facilitate mixing and recolonization.
        We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial information regarding the past, present, and future threats to the Arkansas mudalia, and we evaluated all relevant factors under the five listing factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and conservation measures addressing these stressors. The primary stressors are those related to water quality, including impoundments, contaminants, sedimentation, reduced range or isolation, and climate change.
        We found that the Arkansas mudalia is extant at 13 of 19 historically known sites spread through five tributaries of the White River drainage. Since 2005, several new populations have been discovered outside the historical range, indicating that the current range is larger than previously thought, although the populations are now isolated from those in other tributaries. Despite historical habitat modification and destruction from dams, which led to extirpation of some populations, extant populations appear sufficiently resilient to natural stochastic events as long as suitable habitat remains. Four newly discovered populations occur on U.S. Forest Service land, where pressures from habitat modification and degradation are minimal. In addition, the species is well represented in the White River watershed, existing in the North Fork White River watershed with multiple populations spread throughout the main stem North Fork River and some tributaries. Therefore, a single catastrophic event is unlikely to extirpate all populations within this watershed, and recolonization would likely be possible.

        For these reasons, we find that these stressors do not, alone or in combination, rise to a level that causes this species to meet the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species. Therefore, we find that listing the Arkansas mudalia as an endangered species or threatened species is not warranted. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in the Arkansas mudalia species assessment form and other supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, above).
        Ashy Darter
        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 the ashy darter, as 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 information indicating that listing the ashy darter may be warranted. This notice constitutes the 12-month finding on the April 20, 2010, petition to list the ashy darter under the Act.
        Summary of Finding
        The ashy darter is a fish in the family Percidae that is endemic to the Tennessee River system in Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, and Virginia. The ashy darter is large relative to most other darter species, attaining a maximum total length of about 100 millimeters (3.9 inches). Normal life span for the ashy darter is 3 to 4 years, and spawning occurs from January to mid-April. The primary prey items of the ashy darter are midge larvae, burrowing mayfly larvae, and oligochaete worms.

        The ashy darter occurs in medium-sized streams with silt-free substrates. These are typically clear, cool- to warm-water streams with a moderate gradient. The ashy darter tends to occupy depths of 1.6 to 6.6 feet (0.5 to 2 meters) in areas of bedrock or clean gravel substrate with rocks and boulders. In the upper Tennessee River system, the species occupies backwater or pool habitats with slab rocks containing a slight layer of silt. The ashy darter has been found in close proximity to or underneath boulders and in or near beds of water willow.
        We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial information regarding the past, present, and future threats to the ashy darter, and we evaluated all relevant factors under the five listing factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and conservation measures addressing these stressors. The primary stressors are impoundments, physical habitat disturbance, contaminants, sedimentation, reduced range, and climate change.
        The ashy darter is present in six tributaries to the Tennessee River, which are isolated from one another by large impoundments. Currently, the species has two populations with high resilience (referring to the species' ability to withstand environmental or demographic stochastic disturbance), three populations with moderate resilience, and one that has unknown resilience. Two populations that have been extirpated since around 1854 and 1953. We estimate that the ashy darter has a medium adaptive potential (or representation) and despite the isolation of populations, the species' representation has been strengthened by its expansion in the Clinch River, and continues to be supported by its widespread occurrence and persistence throughout most of its historical range. The ashy darter has multiple populations occurring over a wide extent across the Tennessee River watershed, in the Upper Tennessee, Elk River, and Duck River management units, and all physiographic provinces where the species is native. The ashy darter has medium redundancy (referring to the species' ability to withstand catastrophic events) because it maintains all but two historical populations.

        Overall, we find that the stressors acting on the species and its habitat, either singly or in combination, are not of sufficient imminence, intensity, or magnitude to indicate that the species meets the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Therefore, we find that listing the ashy darter as endangered or threatened is not warranted. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in the ashy darter species assessment form and other supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, above).
        Barrens Darter
        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 the Barrens darter, as 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 information indicating that listing the Barrens darter may be warranted. This notice constitutes the 12-month finding on the April 20, 2010, petition to list the Barrens darter under the Act.
        Summary of Finding
        The Barrens darter is a small, drab, benthic fish, with a maximum length of 97 millimeters (3.8 inches). The species is highly endemic, with a very narrow distribution in Middle Tennessee in the headwaters of the Collins River, which is a tributary of the Caney Fork River in the Cumberland River Drainage. It is restricted to small headwater streams, although it may disperse to other headwater habitats via larger downstream reaches.
        Slabrock cobble substrate provides cover for all life stages and is an important habitat feature for spawning, which occurs in April and May. During the spawning season, Barrens darters congregate in shallow riffle and run areas with roughly 4- to 12-inch slab rock cobble with cavities underneath. The species has a life span of approximately 3 years.
        We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial information regarding the past, present, and future threats to the Barrens darter, and we evaluated all relevant factors under the five listing factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and conservation measures addressing these stressors. The primary stressors are water pollution, sedimentation, hybridization with the fringed darter, and effects of climate change.

        The historical range of Barrens darter populations is small and has been reduced by the loss of two of seven populations. Species' redundancy and representation have always been low and are likely the natural condition. Three populations currently have moderate to high resiliency, while two have low resiliency due to a combination of factors, including presence of or close proximity to fringed darters, low approximate abundance, and reduced habitat and water quality. We conclude that stressors related to habitat quality (e.g., sedimentation, scouring or loss of slabrock cobble from the streambed) will likely impact the species in the future; however, the overall condition of the species is not predicted to change significantly from these impacts within the foreseeable future.

        We find that the stressors acting on the species and its habitat, either singly or in combination, are not of sufficient imminence, intensity, or magnitude to indicate that the species meets the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Therefore, we find that listing the Barrens darter as endangered or threatened is not warranted. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in the Barrens darter species assessment form and other supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, above).
        Chihuahua Scurfpea
        Previous Federal Actions

        On June 25, 2007, we received a petition from WildEarth Guardians (then Forest Guardians) to list 475 species in the southwestern United States, including Chihuahua scurfpea, as endangered or threatened under the Act. On October 15, 2008, we received an additional petition from WildEarth Guardians requesting that we list Chihuahua scurfpea, specifically, as endangered or threatened. On December 16, 2009, we published a 90-day finding in the Federal Register (74 FR 66866) in which we determined that the petitions presented substantial scientific and commercial information indicating that listing Chihuahua scurfpea may be warranted. This notice constitutes the 12-month finding on the June 25, 2007, and October 15, 2008, petitions to list Chihuahua scurfpea under the Act.
        Summary of Finding

        Chihuahua scurfpea is a perennial herb in the legume family that grows to approximately 25 centimeters (9.8 inches) in height. Flowers are pea-like with purple and white petals, and the fruit is a small pod 7 to 8 millimeters (0.28 to 0.31 inches) long. The species was known to occur historically in New Mexico; Arizona; Chihuahua, Mexico; and possibly western Texas. It is known currently from southwestern New Mexico and southeastern Arizona.
        The species occurs in deserts and xeric shrublands of the Apache Highlands and Chihuahuan Desert ecoregions. Chihuahua scurfpea is found in areas of deep, sandy soils, occupying areas of bare ground between desert shrubs. Average annual precipitation in these regions is approximately 382 millimeters (15 inches), with 50 percent of precipitation occurring during the North American monsoon season. For much of the year, Chihuahua scurfpea exists below ground as a dormant tuber-like taproot, which fosters some degree of drought tolerance. In spring and again during the monsoon season (July to August), ample precipitation stimulates aboveground emergence, beginning the reproductive cycle. Spring flowering occurs primarily in April and May, and monsoon flowering occurs mainly in July and August.
        We evaluated all relevant stressors under the five factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and conservation measures addressing these stressors. The primary stressors include herbicide used for grassland restoration, decreased precipitation from climate change, and surface disturbance. We find that although the herbicide Tebuthiuron is toxic to Chihuahua scurfpea, individuals and populations are capable of survival after herbicide treatment, provided there is sufficient precipitation. We assessed projected changes in precipitation due to climate change and found that projected precipitation levels are anticipated to be sufficient for the species' needs, including following potential impacts from Tebuthiuron application. Regarding surface disturbance, none of the potential sources of disturbance was found to occur at levels that would impact populations now or in the foreseeable future.

        For these reasons, we find that these stressors do not, alone or in combination, rise to a level that causes this species to meet the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species. Therefore, we find that listing Chihuahua scurfpea as an endangered species or threatened species is not warranted. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in the Chihuahua scurfpea species assessment form and other supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, above).
        Coldwater Crayfish, Eleven Point River Crayfish, Spring River 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 the coldwater crayfish, as 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 information indicating the coldwater crayfish may warrant listing. Subsequently, a genetic and morphological study found that the coldwater crayfish is actually a taxon composed of three species: The coldwater crayfish, Eleven Point River crayfish, and Spring River crayfish. Therefore, we decided to evaluate the status of all three species. This document constitutes the 12-month finding on the April 20, 2010, petition to list the coldwater crayfish under the Act.
        Summary of Finding
        The coldwater crayfish, Eleven Point River crayfish, and Spring River crayfish are small, stout crayfish with blue-green heads and pincers, and reddish-brown thoraxes and abdomens. Adults are 30.5 to 71.1 millimeters (1.2 to 2.8 inches) long, with males and females generally similar in size. These crayfish species inhabit large, cold, clear permanent streams with strong, fast-flowing currents. The coldwater crayfish and Eleven Point River crayfish also inhabit pools, while the Spring River crayfish is most commonly found in riffle areas with substrate of cobble and gravel. All three species are found primarily in large order, spring-fed streams with high velocities.
        The three crayfish species are found in three watersheds in Arkansas and Missouri. The coldwater crayfish and Eleven Point River crayfish are each comprised of a single population in the Eleven Point River watershed. The Spring River crayfish is comprised of three populations in the Spring River and Strawberry River watersheds.
        We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial information regarding the past, present, and future threats to the coldwater crayfish, Eleven Point River crayfish, and Spring River crayfish, and we evaluated all relevant factors under the five listing factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and conservation measures addressing these stressors. The primary stressors affecting the coldwater crayfish, Eleven Point River crayfish, and Spring River crayfish include displacement by invasive crayfish species and degraded water quality (including, but not limited to, sedimentation).
        Despite impacts from these stressors and some decline in abundance, the species have maintained resilient populations over time. Although we predict some continued impacts from these stressors in the future, we anticipate these species will continue to have resilient populations that are distributed widely throughout their ranges.

        For these reasons, we find that these stressors do not, alone or in combination, rise to a level that causes these species to meet the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species. Therefore, we find that listing the coldwater crayfish, Eleven Point River crayfish, and Spring River crayfish as an endangered species or threatened species is not warranted. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in the coldwater crayfish, Eleven Point River crayfish, and Spring River crayfish species assessment forms and other supporting documents (see ADDRESSES, above).
        Red-Crowned Parrot
        Previous Federal Actions

        On January 29, 2008, we received a petition from Friends of Animals requesting that we list 14 parrot species, including the red-crowned parrot, as endangered or threatened species under the Act. On July 14, 2009, we published a 90-day finding in the Federal Register (74 FR 33957) in which we determined that the petition presented substantial scientific and commercial information to indicate that listing the red-crowned parrot may be warranted. On October 6, 2011, we published a 12-month finding in the Federal Register (76 FR 62016) in which we stated that listing the red-crowned parrot as endangered or threatened was warranted primarily due to habitat loss and collection for the pet trade in Mexico and the inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms. However, listing was precluded at that time by higher priority actions, and the species was added to the candidate species list. From 2012 through 2016, we addressed the status of the red-crowned parrot annually in our candidate notice of review, with the determination that listing was warranted but precluded (see 77 FR 69994, November 21, 2012; 78 FR 70104, November 22, 2013; 79 FR 72450, December 5, 2014; 80 FR 80584, December 24, 2015; 81 FR 87246, December 2, 2016).
        Summary of Finding
        The red-crowned parrot is medium-sized (33 centimeters (13 inches)) and is bright green with a red crown and blue head and neck. The species is native to forests in northeastern Mexico; however, the range has expanded within the past several decades into ranchlands and urban areas in and adjacent to its historical range in Mexico and into cities in the Lower Rio Grande Valley of south Texas.
        Red-crowned parrots are cavity nesters, using pre-existing cavities in a variety of native tree species in Mexico and ornamental palms in residential areas of south Texas. The species eats a variety of nuts, berries, seeds, fruits, and flowers, using primarily native plants in forests and ranchlands in Mexico, and foraging on ornamental and fruit and nut trees in urban and suburban areas of Mexico and south Texas.
        We evaluated all relevant stressors under the five factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and conservation measures addressing these stressors. The primary stressors include habitat loss and collection for the pet trade. We find that, although much of the red-crowned parrot's native forest habitat in Mexico was removed throughout the 20th century, logging has declined over the past three decades, and forest regeneration has occurred in some areas. In addition, red-crowned parrot populations have become established in ranchland habitats in Mexico and in urban habitats in Mexico and south Texas, where resources for nesting and foraging have allowed for stable or increasing population sizes. Collection for the pet trade led to decreased population sizes in Mexico throughout the early to mid-20th century. However, laws passed between 1982 and 2008 in Mexico banned the collection and export of parrots, and greatly reduced the numbers of red-crowned parrots captured for the pet trade.

        For these reasons, we find that these stressors do not, alone or in combination, rise to a level that causes this species to meet the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species. Therefore, we find that listing the red-crowned parrot as an endangered species or threatened species is not warranted. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in the red-crowned parrot 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 the Arkansas mudalia, ashy darter, Barrens darter, Chihuahua scurfpea, coldwater crayfish, Eleven Point River crayfish, Spring River crayfish, and red-crowned parrot 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

        Lists of the references cited in the petition findings are available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov in the dockets provided above in ADDRESSES and upon request from the appropriate person, as specified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
        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.).

          Dated: March 27, 2019.
          Margaret E. Everson,
          Principal Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Exercising the Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

      [FR Doc. 2019-06535 Filed 4-3-19; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4333-15-P