Je veux savoir à propos de…

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules with the courts holding in Desert Survivors v. Department of the Interior, No. 16cv01165JCS, 2018 WL
4053447 N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2018; and Center for Biological Diversity v. Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 3d, 946, 959 D. Ariz.
2017.
Determination of Status Our review of the best scientific and commercial data available indicates that the snail darter does not meet the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species in accordance with sections 36 and 320 of the Act.
Therefore, we propose to remove the snail darter from the List.

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

Effects of This Rule This proposal, if made final, would revise 50 CFR 17.11h by removing the snail darter from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.
The prohibitions and conservation measures provided by the Act, particularly through sections 7 and 9, would no longer apply to the snail darter. Federal agencies would no longer be required to consult with us under section 7 of the Act in the event that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out may affect the snail darter.
There is no critical habitat designated for this species, so there would be no effect to 50 CFR 17.95.
This rule would not affect the snail darters status as an endangered or threatened species under State laws or suspend any other legal protections provided by those laws. States may have more restrictive laws protecting wildlife, and these would not be affected by this Federal action.
However, this proposed rule may prompt Tennessee or Georgia to remove protection for the snail darter under their endangered species laws, although we are not aware of any such intention at this time.
Post-Delisting Monitoring Section 4g1 of the Act requires us, in cooperation with the States, to implement a monitoring program for not less than 5 years for all species that have been delisted due to recovery. Postdelisting monitoring PDM refers to activities undertaken to verify that a species delisted due to recovery remains secure from the risk of extinction after the protections of the Act no longer apply. The primary goal of PDM is to monitor the species to ensure that its status does not deteriorate, and if a decline is detected, to take measures to halt the decline so that proposing it as endangered or threatened is not again needed. If at any time during the monitoring period data indicate that
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:23 Aug 31, 2021

Jkt 253001

protective status under the Act should be reinstated, we can initiate listing procedures, including, if appropriate, emergency listing.
Section 4g of the Act explicitly requires that we cooperate with the States in development and implementation of PDM programs.
However, we remain ultimately responsible for compliance with section 4g and, therefore, must remain actively engaged in all phases of PDM. We also seek active participation of other entities that are expected to assume responsibilities for the species conservation after delisting.
We will coordinate with other Federal agencies, State resource agencies, interested scientific organizations, and others as appropriate to develop and implement an effective PDM plan for the snail darter. The PDM plan will build upon current research and effective management practices that have improved the status of the species since listing. Ensuring continued implementation of proven management strategies that have been developed to sustain the species will be a fundamental goal for the PDM plan. The PDM plan will identify measurable management thresholds and responses for detecting and reacting to significant changes in snail darter numbers, distribution, and persistence. If declines are detected equaling or exceeding these thresholds, the Service, in combination with other PDM participants, will investigate causes of these declines. The investigation will be to determine if the snail darter warrants expanded monitoring, additional research, additional habitat protection, or resumption of Federal protection under the Act. We will draft the PDM plan and will notify the public on our website, https www.fws.gov/cookeville, when it is available. Copies will also be available from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Tennessee Ecological Services Field Office see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT. We anticipate finalizing a PDM plan at the time of making a final determination on the proposed delisting rule.
Required Determinations Clarity of the Rule We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule we publish must:
1 Be logically organized;
2 Use the active voice to address readers directly;

PO 00000

Frm 00050

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

48967

3 Use clear language rather than jargon;
4 Be divided into short sections and sentences; and 5 Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.
National Environmental Policy Act 42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.
It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare environmental analyses pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 NEPA; 42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq. in connection with regulations adopted pursuant to section 4a of the Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 48 FR 49244.
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes In accordance with the Presidents memorandum of April 29, 1994
Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments; 59 FR 22951, Executive Order 13175 Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, and the Department of the Interiors manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with Secretarial Order 3206
of June 5, 1997 American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act, we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with Tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that Tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make information available to Tribes.
As we move forward with this rulemaking process, we will continue to consult with Tribes on a government-togovernment basis as necessary.
References Cited A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available on the internet at http www.regulations.gov
E:FRFM01SEP1.SGM

01SEP1