Je veux savoir à propos de…

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 150 / Monday, August 9, 2021 / Proposed Rules example, we may schedule a lowerpriority finding earlier if batching it with a higher-priority finding would generate efficiencies. We may also consider where there are any special circumstances whereby an action should be moved up or down in scheduling. Since before Congress first established the spending cap for the Listing Program in 1998, the Listing Program workload has required considerably more resources than the amount of funds Congress has allowed for the Listing Program. Therefore, it is important that we be as efficient as possible in our listing process.
Consistent with our methodology, within the five priority bins we determine the relative timing of foreign species actions using sub-ranking considerations, i.e., as tie-breakers for determining relative timing within each of the five bins. We consider the extent to which the protections of the Act would be able to improve conditions for that species and its habitat relative to the other species within the same bin, and in doing so, we give weight to the following considerations, in order from greater weight to lesser weight.
1. FWS Office of Law Enforcement OLE enforcement capacityWe prioritize species actions where OLE
currently has the expertise and workforce capacity to identify taxa e.g., some invertebrates require timeintensive inspection and expertise to differentiate listed from non-listed species. The capacity to identify taxa to effectively enforce a listing greatly increases the impact of the listing.
2. Species in trade to and/or from the United StatesWe prioritize actions for these species over those that are neither imported to nor exported from the United States because we can regulate import, export, and other activities with these species through permitting and incentivizing activitiesincluding requirement of an enhancement finding or for scientific purposesthat benefit the conservation of the species, and by deterring and prohibiting activities that do not. In addition, the Lacey Act, in part, makes it illegal to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase species taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any U.S. law, treaty, or regulation. Thus, violations of the Act and its implementing regulations can be one component of a Lacey Act violation, further adding to the impact of the Acts listing.
3. Species in trade through U.S. ports i.e., in-transit or transshipmentWe prioritize timing of actions for these species over those in trade outside of the United States because the capacity
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:39 Aug 06, 2021

Jkt 253001

to track, regulate, and enforce this activity is greater than for species in trade outside the United States.
4. Within the United States, interstate tradeWe prioritize timing of actions for species traded between States within the United States interstate activity over those not traded between States within the United States intrastate activity. The Act prohibits certain activities with listed species in interstate commerce. FWS regulation of this interstate activity can result in incentivizing and permitting activities including requirement of an enhancement finding or for scientific purposesthat benefit the conservation of the species, and deterring and prohibiting activities that do not. As noted above, such violations of the Act can also be one component of a Lacey Act violation.
5. CITES statusWe use Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora CITES status to prioritize timing of listing actions under the Act for species as follows: Appendix II highest priority for listing actions under the Act relative to other CITES-listed species > Appendix III > Appendix I lowest priority for listing actions under the Act relative to other CITES-listed species.
Appendix I species: Appendix I
includes species threatened with extinction that are or may be affected by trade, and trade in Appendix-I
specimens may take place only in exceptional circumstances. With narrow exceptions, CITES does not allow primarily commercial international trade in Appendix-I species, and commercial use of Appendix-I
specimens is also prohibited after import. Allowed international trade in these species is subject to a dual permitting process that requires both importing and exporting countries to find that the trade will not be detrimental to the species survival.
Thus, a listing under the Act would generally provide comparatively less additional conservation of these species than for CITES species that are not subject to this level of regulation.
Appendix II species: Appendix II
includes species that may become threatened with extinction if their trade is not regulated or because they need to be regulated so that trade in certain other Appendix-I or -II species may be effectively controlled. CITES allows international trade in Appendix-II
species for primarily commercial purposes, and does not require the dualpermitting process established for Appendix-I species. Listing under the Act is more likely to improve conservation capacity for Appendix-II

PO 00000

Frm 00047

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

43475

species than for the Appendix-I species that are comparatively more tightly controlled under CITES.
Appendix III species: Appendix III
includes species listed unilaterally by a range country to obtain international cooperation in controlling trade.
International trade in Appendix-III
species exported from a country that has included the species in Appendix III
requires an export permit, while other exports and re-exports require documentation. Appendix-III species have fewer substantive conservation controls for trade than for Appendix-I or -II species. However, we generally prioritize the timing for Appendix-II
species over Appendix-III species because the CITES Parties having collectively identified Appendix-II
species as requiring trade regulation to avoid threatening their survival.
6. IUCN Red List statusWe prioritize timing of actions for species considered at greater risk by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources IUCN
over those that are considered at lesser risk. Per IUCN categories, Critically endangered highest priority > Endangered > Vulnerable > Nearthreatened > Least concern > Data deficient > Not assessed > Extinct lowest priority. We use this criterion to identify species for which listing would likely have greater positive impacts on their conservation because they are more likely in greater need of conservation. Although IUCNs rating system is not directly comparable to the definitions for an endangered species and threatened species under the Act which is why this is considered low in our prioritization scheme, and does not establish any legal status, IUCNs Red List provides a readily-accessible, expert-validated assessment of conservation threat.
We applied the methodology and tiebreakers described above to develop a multi-year Foreign Species Workplan Workplan for completing the outstanding status assessments and accompanying 12-month findings. The purpose of the Workplan is to provide transparency and predictability to the public about when the Service anticipates completing specific 12month findings while allowing for flexibility to update the Workplan when new information changes the priorities.
In June 2020, the Service released its Foreign Species Workplan for addressing the Acts foreign listing decisions over the subsequent 5 years.
The Workplan identified the Services schedule for addressing all foreign species on the candidate list and 45
status reviews and accompanying 12-

E:FRFM09AUP1.SGM

09AUP1